AlpineZone Challenge 2012 Results - Steve Wright of Jay Peak

The use of dynamite on ski trails is very sad. There are so few on map trails with natural, little rock ledges to hop over not because they were never there, but because the resort destroyed them. The trail with the most I can think of is Lift Line at Smuggs. I understand the obvious reason why they remove them from beginner or intermediate trails, but not on diamonds and double-diamonds.

BigJay said:

Also, it brings me to the subject of trail design. I like the rendering of google earth and all those fancy drawings... but i believe each of these points on the map should be surveyed in order to catch the particular features on the natural landscape. When we plan for bike trails, we use all the same fancy map to show the general proposal for trail corridor. We never know what the final product will look like until we start laying some flagging tape around... and then pin flat an actual trail alignment. I hope that ski trails, especially when it involves natural ski trails and glades, are planned that way as well. A rock face, a roller or cliff line doesn't show on a map and we need to be able to take advantage of that. They're call positive and negative control points.

When it comes to ski boulevards and highways, the excavator can carve anything... especially with a bit of dynamite... and that's a bit sad to see when you think of how pristine the land use to be and that careful trails planning would have probably saved a bunch of these natural features.

Click to expand...

This is the way trails used to be built before the demand for the wide open intermediate cruiser became "important". What is the minimum recommended width of a "good" intermediate cruiser? 75-100 feet wide or roughly enough for two skiers to make wide turns and not clog up the entire trail? 100 feet of width would make adjusting the trails course to natural features nearly impossible.
Looks like the West Bowl plan keeps the trails 75 feet wide or less (in comparison, Okemo's fairly new Jackson Gore area looks to be closer to the 100' wide range). The narrower 75' width is more adaptable but dynamite would probably still be used.
For the West Bowl. If the plan is changed to a sigle lift up to Doll Peak. The cut trail layout could/would change quite a bit. But you have to actually walk around out there to see what features you have to work with before breaking out the feller bunchers.

from_the_NEK said:

This is the way trails used to be built before the demand for the wide open intermediate cruiser became "important". What is the minimum recommended width of a "good" intermediate cruiser? 75-100 feet wide or roughly enough for two skiers to make wide turns and not clog up the entire trail? 100 feet of width would make adjusting the trails course to natural features nearly impossible.
Looks like the West Bowl plan keeps the trails 75 feet wide or less (in comparison, Okemo's fairly new Jackson Gore area looks to be closer to the 100' wide range). The narrower 75' width is more adaptable but dynamite would probably still be used.
For the West Bowl. If the plan is changed to a sigle lift up to Doll Peak. The cut trail layout could/would change quite a bit. But you have to actually walk around out there to see what features you have to work with before breaking out the feller bunchers.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a direct line of skier injury/death that can be drawn to show the corelation with wide 80-90s high speed cruisers. Can you kill yourself by pointing it down on Haynes in 2012? Can you kill yourself the same way in 85 when the trail was a narrow winding path? Think how many people die with a helmet on these days. We use to ski slowly with leather boots on twisty trails.

If Jay is serious about genuine ski experience, they should focus on what made New England Skiing appealing in the first place: narrow winding trails down "worth-the-drive-and-big-enough" mountains. We don't have the big bowls and the magic snow of out west... but we have beautiful landscape you can enjoy while cruising down a twisty path down a hill...

Ski trails weren't first built for convenience of grooming and snowmaking. Now, we think of drainage, running water/air lines and how many runs the groomer needs to take each day. We forget about the experience we give to skiers.

Again, that run that will ruin Timbuktu and the orchard will probably be based on these same criterias: 4 groomers wide = 2 in/out runs with the snow machine. It allows to bring snowmaking in to "enhance" the intermediate ski experience. The extra width will appeal to experts who will also BOMB down this trail in the afternoon after the snow is gone from Haynes and Jet.

Not to mention the great amount of skiers coming off Timbuktu onto the new trail that will cross straight across to go ride what's left of the Orchard.

We're probably not thinking of that...

BigJay said:

If Jay is serious about genuine ski experience, they should focus on what made New England Skiing appealing in the first place: narrow winding trails down "worth-the-drive-and-big-enough" mountains. We don't have the big bowls and the magic snow of out west... but we have beautiful landscape you can enjoy while cruising down a twisty path down a hill...

Ski trails weren't first built for convenience of grooming and snowmaking. Now, we think of drainage, running water/air lines and how many runs the groomer needs to take each day. We forget about the experience we give to skiers.

...

Click to expand...

Why do you hate progress Big Jay?

Having classic ski trail design won't be sustainable with the amount of traffic they will need to sustain the development.

Suggesting a design that caters to the feel of the land with narrow, skier groomed terrain, that is easily made intermediate by pitch(wildcat valley trail, etc) is not going to pay for progress

I think they are entirely thinking about the experience for the clientel that will come to play and pay, mostly pay. because lets face it, those long winding narrow trails take a bit of time to negotiate and that really screws with my data on my strava and the competition that is recreation.

kingdom-tele said:

...because lets face it, those long winding narrow trails take a bit of time to negotiate and that really screws with my data on my strava and the competition that is recreation.

Click to expand...

You're right. Forgot about Strava.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

The representative from Jay Peak is not to very happy with all these comments.

He's not?

Scotty said:

The representative from Jay Peak is not to very happy with all these comments.

Click to expand...

Did happy hour start early today, Scotty?

Sick Bird Rider said:

Did happy hour start early today, Scotty?

Click to expand...

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
Not yet getting on the bus in few minutes so drinking sooner.

kingdom-tele said:

Big Jay, natural features and "intermediate" skiing don't mix.

Carve it up. Get as much sun and wind exposure you can. The more dynamite the better.

People hike for skiing? What a waste of time, how many runs can you get in a day? Won't the hiking make you to tired to ski. For me its a complete waste of time unless I can get 15 -20 quality cruising runs.

Maybe a rope tow or some kind of people mover can be installed along the long trail. The magic carpet has a cover that works well, maybe they could enclose it.

Click to expand...

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...g-Skiing-Terms&p=735373&viewfull=1#post735373

:lol:

Scotty said:

Not yet getting on the bus in few minutes so drinking sooner.

Click to expand...

You should drink on the bus = even sooner!

BenedictGomez said:

You should drink on the bus = even sooner!

Click to expand...

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
If I didn't have to drive from the bus 20 miles or so to local bar and home then I would drink on the bus, that is another great thing about taking a bus to ski hills, is that you can drink and have time to sober up, even better when I lives in the city because I just take subway train home so didn't need to sober up.

Tramside Six

BigJay said:

Like the location of the Ullr's Bowl new lift... but you can't go that low. There is tons of water below the Ullrs and multiple streams that don't show much on line. Plus, it's flat. You're venturing somewhere flatter then Kokomo and Ullr's!

And like you, i would put in only one lift and not two on the WB... Having two lifts is like running a lift on the Derreck. Oh shit, now they'll look into it!

Click to expand...

Ya, why not replace the Metro AND the Flyer with a high-speed six? What trail should it follow though?