Vail 3-10-08

[mikesathome]

DAMN THIS PLACE IS BIG! You really could spend 5 or 7 full days skiing or riding here, I only spent 1.
9:15 am and a chilly start to the morning, took Riva Bahn Express lift to the northwoods express lift to access headwall ridge. Warmed up on all the groomed bowl runs like sleepytime, poppyfields, chopstix, silk road. Skiing was fast and by 10:30 the sun in and out enough to soften up the snow for some really good skiing.

Hung out on Orient express lift until about 1pm and the snow stared coming down pretty good. After a few snacks on the lift we headed over to game creek express and played in the trees off wildcard (soft snow), and the groom trails were skiing really good with the new snow, the woods, baccarat trails.

by 3pm we were ready for a beer at the red lion.


:lol: This guy drove away with the gas pump still connected to his SUV – LOL

Unknown skier, Vails bowls.

The snow was still soft in the trees off wildcard

Snowing good around 2pm, game Creek Express

Some of my GPS tracks at Vail

 

[EMSC]

DAMN THIS PLACE IS BIG!

Yep. Only Whistler/Blackomb is bigger (though alta/bird and big sky/moonlight might be getting close). Hope my info helped at least a bit. Tough to give a short answer to where/how to ski Vail.

Since you were so set on hitting the back bowls on a specific date, I was curious to see what you'd get. South facing can be/get rather variable depending on the day starting about the first of March.

Now that you've been, the short answer to where to ski is: Blue Sky usually has about the best snow on the hill (high altitude/north facing). Back bowls are great when soft (either spring or powder snow), and front side is best for storm days when you need the trees for orientation...

 

[Tony Crocker]

As at most areas there is more snow high up at Vail than around the bases. But it is also noticeable that snowfall/snowpoack increases as you move from west (Lionshead, original bowls) to east (Northwoods, China Bowl). Though I have not yet skied Blue Sky, its location farther east toward Vail Pass probably means it gets the most snow within Vail, maybe pushing 400 inches.

Compare this report to the next 2 days at Breck/Keystone. There has never been a question in my mind that Vail is usually well worth its price premium vs. Summit County for both terrain and snow conditions.

Only Whistler/Blackcomb is bigger (though alta/bird and big sky/moonlight might be getting close).

Patrick and I have occasionally kicked around the question of how to measure area size. Acreage is in general a decent measure, with its major flaw IMHO being that it measures horizontal variety while what matters to skiers is vertical variety. A mainstream ski area typically has horizontal to vertical relationship (as measured by lifts) of about 4 to 1, which is what most intermediate runs are like. At the Squaw/Jackson/Snowbird type areas the overall relationship is more like 3 to 1. So I would contend that the latter areas' acreage should be multiplied by 4/3 to compare true variety vs. an "average" area.

The other issue, which is unfortunately subjective, is that if the quoted acreage includes a lot of unskiable flats and cliffs, acreage overstates the variety of the ski area. The classic example of this problem are the 3 largest in the Sierra. Heavenly claims 4,800, Squaw 4,000 and Mammoth 3,500. My view is that the true ski variety of those 3 areas is probably in reverse order. I can see the argument either way on Mammoth vs. Squaw, but I think there is no argument that Heavenly skis much smaller than the other 2.

So for the big areas in this thread the claims are:
Vail 5,289
Whistler 5,100 + Blackcomb 3,100
Big Sky 3,600 + Moonlight 1,900
Alta 2,000 + Snowbird 2,700

I see Vail a lot like Mammoth. Average steepness is mainstream, but these areas flow seamlessly well from boundary to boundary with a minimum of wasted or unusable terrain.

W/B is on average steeper than Vail or Mammoth, but has a few more of those unusable spots. I think the acreage numbers are decent representations of ski variety for both Vail and W/B.

Big Sky/Moonlight is nearly as bad as Heavenly in acreage overstating variety IMHO. The lower 2/3 of terrain is much flatter than the 4 to 1 benchmark, and probably half of the hair raising upper mountain is unskiable cliffs. Big Sky/Moonlight combined is less than Squaw or Mammoth and not even close to Vail IMHO.

Alta/Snowbird are the other extreme. Even though they are steep, nearly all of that acreage is skiable. Using that 4/3 mutiplier you get 6,200+ acres, slightly higher than Vail.

A key to mathematical models is that they "pass the smell test." You can use complex methodology, but if the final result looks like crap (i.e. the annual SKI Magazine surveys) you need to find a new model.

I would be interested in the opinions of other FTO skiers who have skied these "big" areas about their comparative ski variety. Please set aside the "I like Squaw better than Vail because Vail doesn't have enough 40+ degree runs" sentiments and try to compare usable ski terrain.

 

[EMSC]

Though I have not yet skied Blue Sky, its location farther east

I've never looked on a map/google, but directionally speaking it feels more South toward Tennessee pass than it does East of the front side of Vail... (Note Mike's map is not 'centered' on N). That said, at Copper (top of the mtn areas) if you know what you are looking for, you can see the far eastern part of Outer Mongolia bowl of Vail quite well...

There has never been a question in my mind that Vail is usually well worth its price premium vs. Summit County

I don't think it is the $5-6 premium of Vail that most object to, it is the starting point - which is already at a rather high premium... $86 or whatever it is this year for a Keystone day ticket (walk up price). Now that's good marketing.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'm sure EMSC is right about the direction of Blue Sky. But I think the Gore Range (is that right, the mountains dividing Vail from Copper?) are running SW to NE, probably have the local snowfall max, and Blue Sky is the part of Vail closest to that divide. Copper is on the leeward side and its snowfall is 30% below Vail's at comparable elevations.

 

[rfarren]

I think there something to be said about quoted vertical drop as well as acreage. For example, Deer Valley says it has 3000' of vertical drop whereas Alta quotes a bit more than 2000'. Yet anyone who has skied at Deer Valley knows that because of its layout that Alta has more continuos vert.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Patrick wants to use vertical drop. But I think it's hopelessly flawed. Who wants to argue that Deer Valley (or Whiteface or Killington for that matter) have more ski variety than Alta? You also have to consider the tall but very narrow areas like Aspen Mt. too.

 

[EMSC]

Gore Range (is that right

Correct.

I would be interested in the opinions of other FTO skiers who have skied these "big" areas about their comparative ski variety.

That'll take some thought. I'll write more sometime later. But offhand, other key factors in my mind include lift layouts, amount of traversing & hiking required and snowfall (terrain isn't much good if, in the average season, it's only open once in a blue moon).

 

[Admin]

Only Whistler/Blackomb is bigger (though alta/bird and big sky/moonlight might be getting close)

It looks like today's my day to be contrarian. Lowly Powder Mountain claims 5,500 in-bounds acres, which is more than Vail - and pretty much every inch of it is skiable. Keep in mind, though that roughly 20% of that is served by a bus and another 20% by a $10 snowcat.

And Tony's acreage numbers for Alta and Snowbird are wrong, although he got their total right. Alta is 2200 and Snowbird is 2500.

Big Sky/Moonlight is 5500 acres, but like Alta/Snowbird is still two separate yet interconnected ski areas. Separate ownership, separate management - and thus in my mind unfair to compare to a single ski mountain like Vail or Pow Mow.

 

[rfarren]

Big Sky/Moonlight is 5500 acres, but like Alta/Snowbird is still two separate yet interconnected ski areas. Separate ownership, separate management - and thus in my mind unfair to compare to a single ski mountain like Vail or Pow Mow.

Since you can buy a lift ticket that works both at snowbird and alta, for less than vail, it could be considered as a mega-resort. That is, of course, you are a skier. Clearly their feel is very different and maybe that is why they should be considered as two separate, but equal resorts.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I'm in general agreement that Alta/Snowbird and Big Sky/Moonlight are separate. Also Whistler/Blackcomb for that matter.

But I'm still trying to get a relatively simple measure of what's meant by size. The ratio of 2500 to 2200 for Snowbird vs. Alta feels wrong. Snowbird was already bigger than Alta before Mineral Basin IMHO.

Powder Mt. has a lot of terrain much flatter than that 4 to 1 benchmark. I was wondering what the official percentages of the bus and snowcat terrain were. admin says 20% each, but another recent FTO poster thought 1/3 each.

Snowfall is a separate issue. As most of you know, I have lots of ways to measure snow reliability already. Notably the snow conditions charts from last summer Utah example here. An enhancement to that to reflect frequency of powder days (6 and/or 12 inches minimum) will not be that difficult IMHO.

 

[Admin]

My estimates of percentage of Pow Mow's bus and cat runs are just that...estimates. It's about what it feels like to me.