Sugarloaf Announces Terrain Expansion to Burnt Mountain and 10-year Development Plan

[thetrailboss]

Very bizarre. What does Slidebrook have to do with anything and why does anyone "have to look at it?"

The Bush is great, but I don't see the relevance.

The relevance is that Sugarloaf is advertising that this will make them the largest ski area on the east coast. Killington disagrees because they only count their trails and glades. If you were to calculate their acreage based on the boundary of Pico to the Boundary of Bear Mountain, that is a huge area. Sugarbush's beef is that they count Slidebrook as terrain in their calculations and they had a large amount of acreage.

Now back to the 'loaf: I saw the pics on the blog. I assume that they are going to cut the downed wood rather than just leave it to snag skiers and riders?

 

[jerryg]

The relevance is that Sugarloaf is advertising that this will make them the largest ski area on the east coast. Killington disagrees because they only count their trails and glades. If you were to calculate their acreage based on the boundary of Pico to the Boundary of Bear Mountain, that is a huge area. Sugarbush's beef is that they count Slidebrook as terrain in their calculations and they had a large amount of acreage.

Now back to the 'loaf: I saw the pics on the blog. I assume that they are going to cut the downed wood rather than just leave it to snag skiers and riders?

I didn't realize SB counted Slidebrook as inbounds, but if they do, I see the point.

 

[Newpylong]

I forgot where I read it, maybe K2travs forum. Someone mentioned that the plan was for them to have a Patrol shack over on Burnt. It's a massive area. For the Mountain's own liability protection, I would think regularly sweeping the terrain throughout the day would be a smart move.

I just wonder if its feasible given the size and the number of lines I am sure they will have, it def would be a good thing...

 

[Newpylong]

It is indeed going to be patrolled. They are cutting a cat track to get snow mobiles in and out, if need be.

Nice.

 

[Newpylong]

Try reading the press release first.

Try not being a douche. I did read it, obviously missed it...

 

[thetrailboss]

I didn't realize SB counted Slidebrook as inbounds, but if they do, I see the point.

Actually Sugarloaf a few years back decided to be "like the western resorts" and calculate their "acreage" by including all terrain...boundary to boundary while every other eastern area calcuates their glades and trails as their total acreage. Sugarbush does the latter for the most part but also mentions that they have "4,000 acres of land" because of the Slide Brook Area. So SB is trying to get the best of both worlds.

Gimmicks aside, both are very good resorts for very different reasons. I don't see Sugarloaf taking too much of Sugarbush's market. Sugarbush is just more accessible and caters to a different crowd while Sugarloaf is pretty much a place where their clientele is self-selecting and go there to get away from the crowds.

Killington does not count their terrain boundary to boundary because they don't have the interconnect open.

 

[deadheadskier]

The relevance is that Sugarloaf is advertising that this will make them the largest ski area on the east coast. Killington disagrees because they only count their trails and glades. If you were to calculate their acreage based on the boundary of Pico to the Boundary of Bear Mountain, that is a huge area. Sugarbush's beef is that they count Slidebrook as terrain in their calculations and they had a large amount of acreage.

Now back to the 'loaf: I saw the pics on the blog. I assume that they are going to cut the downed wood rather than just leave it to snag skiers and riders?

Do you think Sugarbush should count Slidebrook in their terrain acreage?

I completely understand why resorts 'beef up' their totals. They do it not for diehard internet forum posters. They do it for destination travelers. A perfect example of this is Stowe. It was only 3-4 years ago that they upped their trail count from 48 to 116 :blink:. I always respected the great 48 concept and Stowe keeping it real. A conversation with their marketing department confirmed that they were losing skiers from the Brittish market who were going elsewhere to mountains that advertised larger terrain holdings even if that wasn't the case. Bretton Woods is 'bigger' than Stowe on paper.

The way I see Slidebrook is this.......Gate accessed Out of Bounds terrain that is available at your own risk or via guide. Given the scope of the area it's pretty awesome. I don't however feel that that terrain should be included in the resort's total acreage. Why? Because they don't have the ability to cut trails/glades how they choose. They can't put in lifts if they want to.

That's the difference with Sugarlaof and Burnt. My understanding is that Sugarloaf owns Burnt. If they wanted to, they could throw a couple HSQ chairlifts in there, dozens of cut trails etc. They're going a different route with just opening that area up as a giant glade peak.

Maybe how a resort 'size' should be quantified is how many acres they own that they can develop how thay choose.

 

[thetrailboss]

Do you think Sugarbush should count Slidebrook in their terrain acreage?

I don't because I agree with you that it is not really completely lift served nor is it patrolled like other areas.

I A perfect example of this is Stowe. It was only 3-4 years ago that they upped their trail count from 48 to 116 :blink:. I always respected the great 48 concept and Stowe keeping it real.

I agree with you that this was the lamest thing I saw. Anyone who thinks that BW is bigger or better than Stowe needs to get their head checked

 

[wa-loaf]

Try not being a douche. I did read it, obviously missed it...

eh, I was feeling cranky. :beer:

 

[jerryg]

I know what SL did with boundary to boundary and I know it's common practice out west, but I just don't the the SB argument or why they could light the candle at both ends when they have defined boundaries on their trail pay and those boundaries specifically note that Slidebrook is NOT in bounds.

 

[riverc0il]

It is interesting to note that the Bush trail map says "guided tour access only" even though it seems to promote the area otherwise. There certainly is a big difference between "guided tour access only" versus putting a patrol shack at the top, cutting trees, and stating that the area is an in bounds glade (a la Loaf), not a guide service area. Really no comparison. Just like Big Jay is backcountry for Jay Peak.

Cannon using Mittersill last year as officially sanctioned sidecountry was interesting. But in Cannon's case, they "opened" Mittersill and "closed" it as conditions allowed and built a patrol cache at the top of Mount Jackson on the Taft. But Tuckerbrook is not counted in Cannon's acreage though it is similar to the Bush in going away from the established area and requires vehicle transportation to get back (like Big Jay). There is a difference in ownership... but just because a ski area owns certain acres does not make them skiable nor should non-skiable acres be included in acre numbers. Boundary to boundary numbers in the east are the biggest marketing crock of shit ever.

It is interesting to see this "my mountain is bigger than your mountain" marketing free for all start to play out differently. The 00s seemed to be the marketing decade of increased trail counts despite not many new trails. The 10s seem like they may be defined by glade expansion and marketing hype shifting to acres or terrain percent open instead of trail counts.

 

[deadheadskier]

It is interesting to see this "my mountain is bigger than your mountain" marketing free for all start to play out differently. The 00s seemed to be the marketing decade of increased trail counts despite not many new trails. The 10s seem like they may be defined by glade expansion and marketing hype shifting to acres or terrain percent open instead of trail counts.

I agree. East model is starting to copy the west

honestly, does a western skier even know how many 'trails' their mountain has or even care?

FWIW. All BS aside, if I had to rate on map size/terrain of eastern areas; this would be my list of 5

1. Killington
2. Sunday River
3. Sugarloaf
4. Sugarbush
5. Okemo

 

[Tin Woodsman]

While I don't have a problem with the Bush talking about their 4000 acres, it's pretty disingenuous for Win to come here and chime in about Sugarbush. Sure, SB owns or controls via lease form the USFS a total of 4000 acres, but the majority of that lies within Slide Brook or above Inverness. The only thing that should really be counted in those statistics, for all intents and purposes, is the acreage of the 3-4 sanctioned glades into Slidebrook from Lincoln Peak. That's the real equivalent to what Sugarloaf is doing with Burnt Mountain. Try going into Slidebrook from North and getting hurt, waiting to get rescued by a standard sweep from ski patrol - not likely. As for the acreage to the north of Exterminator woods and above Inverness - it's an OB slog under the best of conditions.

Sometimes saying nothing is the best strategy.

 

[snowmonster]

On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.

 

[jerryg]

On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.

If that was the case, the unfortunate aspect is that it came across as sour grapes as opposed to some message about future intentions.

 

[deadheadskier]

On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.

Sugarbush does indeed have fairly massive expansion plans of their own:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=61263&highlight=Sugarbush

Different than Burnt, but probably consisting of terrain offerings that a greater percentage of skiers would appreciate.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.

It will never be inbounds terrain. It is protected Black Bear habitat and SB has to move heaven and Earth just to be allowed to guide small groups into the 3-4 official thinned out runs. The long term plans call for adding more official runs into Slidebrook from the LP side, but there aren't any scenarios in which anything but a tiny fraction of that basin becomes officially skiable. As it is now, including that as part of SB's acreage is akin to K-Mart including the area between Rams Head and Pico (at least that has the prospect of one day being inbounds) or Stowe including the area out to Hellbrook, the Bruce Trail and environs, and the Taft off the backside and its general area. It's pretty much nonsense.

 

[snowmonster]

It will never be inbounds terrain.

Bummer. I usually ski by myself and the biggest drawback to jumping into unmarked/unscouted terrain is the fear of getting lost or worse. I'm also not yet in that tax bracket that would consider a guided tour.

 

[gmcunni]

I'm also not yet in that tax bracket that would consider a guided tour.

that'd make a cool AZ gathering though, don't you think???

 

[EPB]

FWIW. All BS aside, if I had to rate on map size/terrain of eastern areas; this would be my list of 5

1. Killington
2. Sunday River
3. Sugarloaf
4. Sugarbush
5. Okemo

I decided to check some posted acreage totals to find the 5 largest ski areas in the east. Here's what I found:

1) Killington 752
2) Sunday River 668
3) Tremblant 654
4) Sugarloaf 651
5) Okemo 632

*Smuggler's Notch reports 1000 acres, which includes boundary to boundary. Last time they disclosed their developed acreage, it was roughly 310.

More interestingly, when I was looking up acreage of VT ski areas in particular, I happened to find what appear to be recently bloated snowfall totals.
These I found to be particularly strange:
Smuggler's Notch: 347 up from roughly 280
Stowe: 333 up from roughly 260
Burke: 218 down from roughly 250
Bolton: 312 up from roughly 300
Jay: 366 roughly stagnant

NH and Maine areas like Bretton Woods, Cannon, Wildcat, Attitash, Sunday River and Sugarloaf have grown slightly (10 to 20 inches tops) in the past 5ish years.

... What's the deal with Smuggs and Stowe? It looks like they think they can just one up each other when reporting average annual snowfall with a ceiling at whatever Jay claims. Am I missing something, or is this its own marketing joke that nobody has been talking about?