Saddleback - WOW!

[bigbog]

At least their ideas on how to cut..up on the mountain seem to be well thought out..imho, given the number of skiers anticipated.

 

[deadheadskier]

Also I just checked out a better trail map of Saddleback on snocountry.com and they show a lot proposed new lifts and trails. Like 5 more lifts to random places giving it a hell of a lot more terrain.

I used to be very much in favor of all the massive terrain expansion that SB has planned. The more I think about it, I'm not so sure it's such a great idea. Sugarloaf offers massive terrain with a small, but adequate base village as well as slope side lodging. They've been stuck on 300-350K skier visits for a long time.

If SB were to expand to offer similar features, I don't think you'd see 350K skier visits there AND 350K at Sugarloaf. Probably more like 250K at both places. With that much lift infrastructure, 250K skier visits won't sustain either mountain economically.

Throw in a HSQ where the Rangely Double is and another lift with decent intermediate terrain where the proposed Magoloway lift would be and call it good. At that point, you've got a nice medium/large mountain that could probably attract 200K visits or so and keep with the spirit of the place as being a hidden gem. That and the lake would be enough to attract people to the area to purchase real estate...where the real money is in the business.

 

[speden]

The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:

http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006

The proposed lifts don't seem to originate from one base area, but instead look spread out all over the place. And some of them seem to be adding "more of the same" kind of terrain as if to handle more skiers at once, rather than to add unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers. Given the long drive to get there, it seems like they'd be better off going for quality over quantity.

I'm not sure what to think about the future of Saddleback. People seem to like the vibe there and yet there was that stark post from Steve Kircher (http://forums.alpinezone.com/61315-boyne-usa-az-challenge-2009-response-feedback-thread-4.html#post459276), which makes it sound like their business plan isn't going to make it in the long run.

 

[speden]

Here is the route I take....

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

That link is just showing the whole U.S. when I click on it, so I couldn't see the short cuts.

Google seems to suggests taking 95 north, and then route 4 (which seems to meander like a drunken sailor), but I don't see any obvious short cuts. What roads do you take?

 

[Masskier]

I used to be very much in favor of all the massive terrain expansion that SB has planned. The more I think about it, I'm not so sure it's such a great idea. Sugarloaf offers massive terrain with a small, but adequate base village as well as slope side lodging. They've been stuck on 300-350K skier visits for a long time.

If SB were to expand to offer similar features, I don't think you'd see 350K skier visits there AND 350K at Sugarloaf. Probably more like 250K at both places. With that much lift infrastructure, 250K skier visits won't sustain either mountain economically.

Throw in a HSQ where the Rangely Double is and another lift with decent intermediate terrain where the proposed Magoloway lift would be and call it good. At that point, you've got a nice medium/large mountain that could probably attract 200K visits or so and keep with the spirit of the place as being a hidden gem. That and the lake would be enough to attract people to the area to purchase real estate...where the real money is in the business.

Does anyone know how many skier visits Saddleback does now?

 

[tipsdown]

The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:

http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006

The proposed lifts don't seem to originate from one base area, but instead look spread out all over the place. And some of them seem to be adding "more of the same" kind of terrain as if to handle more skiers at once, rather than to add unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers. Given the long drive to get there, it seems like they'd be better off going for quality over quantity.

I'm not sure what to think about the future of Saddleback. People seem to like the vibe there and yet there was that stark post from Steve Kircher (http://forums.alpinezone.com/61315-boyne-usa-az-challenge-2009-response-feedback-thread-4.html#post459276), which makes it sound like their business plan isn't going to make it in the long run.

I know a couple of those lifts will serve to open new terrain but it will also serve to provide ski-in ski-out access. Developing further down the mountain will allow that while also increasing vertical. Plus, all those lifts will service green, blue and black terrain so I'm not sure what you mean.

I'll respectfully disagree with "adding unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers." No one has that down better than Saddleback. They've added some of the best terrain in the East over the last 5 years, and Casablanca itself should be worth the trip. If you're concerned with that, make the trip….

Their plans are ambitious, no denying that. There are many that believe they can be profitable and there are some that think they won't. As Tin Woodsman pointed out, you can't ignore Saddleback's attractive fundamentals…There isn't a resort in the East I wouldn't put it up against. If you think they'll be profitable it's because you think said fundamentals will outweigh the less desirable location. If you don't think they'll be profitable, it's probably because you haven't been there, or you own property at Sugarloaf or Sunday River. I happen to think they will be profitable. It's fun to speculate but talk is cheap. Time will tell….

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Does anyone know how many skier visits Saddleback does now?

I think it's only about 50-75K.

 

[riverc0il]

I used to be very much in favor of all the massive terrain expansion that SB has planned. The more I think about it, I'm not so sure it's such a great idea.

I disagree. Saddleback is a great mountain but they could use a little more variety and terrain choices. The recent additions including new trails/glades have been great. But you can still cover the entire mountain in one day. One of the big differentiators between big resorts and ski areas is you can't cover all the terrain at a big resort in one day. That may cause some guests to look at Saddleback as smaller than its 2k vert suggests (bearing in mind that they have no top to bottom expert terrain but rather just one really big pod of expert terrain). I think a second pod of expert trails and a second pod of intermediate trails would launch Saddleback into direct competition with Sugarloaf and Sunday River and they wouldn't be ignored so much (i.e. most people think Sugarloaf is worth the drive but not Saddleback). Does that all need to happen for Saddleback to be a great mountain? Of course not, but it surely will help get more heads there that are currently looking at the trail map and saying "that's it for all that driving?". Such as the response post in this thread that kicked off the discussion in more detail than just the web site.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:

http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006

The proposed lifts don't seem to originate from one base area, but instead look spread out all over the place. And some of them seem to be adding "more of the same" kind of terrain as if to handle more skiers at once, rather than to add unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers. Given the long drive to get there, it seems like they'd be better off going for quality over quantity.

I'm not sure how you'd arrive at that conclusion from the map you linked to. There's one lift that's really redundant, and that's the Magalloway lift. Even that one will provide solid intermediate and advanced beginner cruising with ski in/ski-out access for future housing near the access road. The West Bowl lift would open hundreds of new acres on an entirely different face of the mountain. The False Peak lift would enable significant expansion of expert terrain on the east side of the exisitng basin within which all of Saddleback's current terrain sits. There would likely be multiple new trails in the area where Muleskinner is. Moreover, the map is deceiving b/c it's not tough from there to cut trails down into the steep, due North facing Horn Bowl even further East, which the Berry's also own. The unnamed lift lower and to the East of False Peak tops out on the top of a sub-peak of Saddleback, offering a nice mix of generally cruisy terrain. While the lift below it will be beginner/low intermediate stuff, also enabling ski in/ski out access to future housing developments. If those lifts ever come to fruition, which is by no means certain, they would stand to double or triple lift accessed terrain.

I'm not sure what to think about the future of Saddleback. People seem to like the vibe there and yet there was that stark post from Steve Kircher (http://forums.alpinezone.com/61315-boyne-usa-az-challenge-2009-response-feedback-thread-4.html#post459276), which makes it sound like their business plan isn't going to make it in the long run.

Unless you are buying into real estate on the hill, and even if you are, Saddleback's possible financial issues shouldn't worry you. With a new lodge, lots of brand-new housing, and two expensive new lifts already in place, Saddleback isn't going anywhere for a long time. If the Berry's sell, I can almost guarantee you that someone else will want to buy in - much the hard work has already been done.

 

[riverc0il]

The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:

http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006

The proposed lifts don't seem to originate from one base area, but instead look spread out all over the place. And some of them seem to be adding "more of the same" kind of terrain as if to handle more skiers at once, rather than to add unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers. Given the long drive to get there, it seems like they'd be better off going for quality over quantity.

I'm not sure what to think about the future of Saddleback. People seem to like the vibe there and yet there was that stark post from Steve Kircher (http://forums.alpinezone.com/61315-boyne-usa-az-challenge-2009-response-feedback-thread-4.html#post459276), which makes it sound like their business plan isn't going to make it in the long run.

Quality over quantity, eh? You must not be a Sunday River skier. :lol: I jest, I jest! Saddleback already has quality over quantity. They need quantity to be competitive, IMO, in their current marketplace. Also, I find it kind of hard to judge what type of terrain options those proposed lifts will make available based on the current trail map. Only two lifts are obvious know factors... one lift is positioned as a condo lift access so folks staying at the mountain need not slog over to the double chair (I think, as I look at it). And another trail goes up the Casablanca area and that is fairly obvious what it will access and give options to expansion of the steep expert terrain. The other trail pods, I can not judge looking at the map.

 

[speden]

I'm not sure how you'd arrive at that conclusion from the map you linked to. There's one lift that's really redundant, and that's the Magalloway lift. Even that one will provide solid intermediate and advanced beginner cruising with ski in/ski-out access for future housing near the access road. The West Bowl lift would open hundreds of new acres on an entirely different face of the mountain. The False Peak lift would enable significant expansion of expert terrain on the east side of the exisitng basin within which all of Saddleback's current terrain sits. There would likely be multiple new trails in the area where Muleskinner is. Moreover, the map is deceiving b/c it's not tough from there to cut trails down into the steep, due North facing Horn Bowl even further East, which the Berry's also own. The unnamed lift lower and to the East of False Peak tops out on the top of a sub-peak of Saddleback, offering a nice mix of generally cruisy terrain. While the lift below it will be beginner/low intermediate stuff, also enabling ski in/ski out access to future housing developments. If those lifts ever come to fruition, which is by no means certain, they would stand to double or triple lift accessed terrain.

That makes it a lot clearer. I've never skied there so am just trying to surmise what I can from looking at the trail map. I wasn't thinking in terms of the real estate angle, which probably is needed to make the whole thing work financially.

Does the mountain offer possibilities to create some really long black runs? I think there is enough sprawl available in New England, but not as much for continuous vertical. The more unique stuff they could offer, the more traffic they might pull from other resorts.

For example, could the America trail off the Kennebago quad feed into the proposed west bowl for some long trails? Or maybe something above Muleskinner to run out much further down the mountain where the new lifts would go?

 

[riverc0il]

For example, could the America trail off the Kennebago quad feed into the proposed west bowl for some long trails? Or maybe something above Muleskinner to run out much further down the mountain where the new lifts would go?

America is already a really flat trail, I don't think that would work. In terms of continuous vertical, the stuff off the summit is decent. It is not Saddleback's entire 2k+ vertical, but the mountain does not have the topography to allow for 2k of expert skiing. It is about as well laid out as can possibly be as it stands right now and expansion will only help.

Perhaps you should ski there this season if you have not been yet? A map can only tell you so much, especially not to scale Ski maps. Your eye will pick up a lot more once you get on the trails themselves.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

America is already a really flat trail, I don't think that would work. In terms of continuous vertical, the stuff off the summit is decent. It is not Saddleback's entire 2k+ vertical, but the mountain does not have the topography to allow for 2k of expert skiing. It is about as well laid out as can possibly be as it stands right now and expansion will only help.

Perhaps you should ski there this season if you have not been yet? A map can only tell you so much, especially not to scale Ski maps. Your eye will pick up a lot more once you get on the trails themselves.

Just going off the topos, it doesn't look like you could get more than 1300-1400' of continuous vertical in West Bowl. The only chance for sustained vertical drops approaching 1800' or so w/o a terrible run-out would be off the back (E/SE) side of the mountain. I think they also own that but there may be restrictions on lift/trail development due to the easement with the AMC.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

I disagree. Saddleback is a great mountain but they could use a little more variety and terrain choices. The recent additions including new trails/glades have been great. But you can still cover the entire mountain in one day. One of the big differentiators between big resorts and ski areas is you can't cover all the terrain at a big resort in one day. That may cause some guests to look at Saddleback as smaller than its 2k vert suggests (bearing in mind that they have no top to bottom expert terrain but rather just one really big pod of expert terrain). I think a second pod of expert trails and a second pod of intermediate trails would launch Saddleback into direct competition with Sugarloaf and Sunday River and they wouldn't be ignored so much (i.e. most people think Sugarloaf is worth the drive but not Saddleback). Does that all need to happen for Saddleback to be a great mountain? Of course not, but it surely will help get more heads there that are currently looking at the trail map and saying "that's it for all that driving?". Such as the response post in this thread that kicked off the discussion in more detail than just the web site.

2K feet of expert vertical?..........why is this important? I can't think of any mountain with 2k continous vertical feet of expert terrain top to bottom........MRG maybe, Sugarloaf maybe................other than that I can't think of many that have that requirement.

 

[deadheadskier]

Outside of Whiteface, I don't think 2K of expert vertical exists in the east. Even 1500 vert is a lot for sustained pitch. Most all 2000 vert areas have some pretty serious run out. Wildcat, Stowe and Cannon would be exceptions. Even Sugarloaf has pretty serious run out despite offering 2800 vert.

 

[riverc0il]

2K feet of expert vertical?..........why is this important? I can't think of any mountain with 2k continous vertical feet of expert terrain top to bottom........MRG maybe, Sugarloaf maybe................other than that I can't think of many that have that requirement.

I agree completely, I was just trying to answer the concerns of the person I responded too. Continuous vertical is < good terrain pod. Always.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I agree completely, I was just trying to answer the concerns of the person I responded too. Continuous vertical is < good terrain pod. Always.

Truth.

 

[snoseek]

I agree completely, I was just trying to answer the concerns of the person I responded too. Continuous vertical is < good terrain pod. Always.

Agree. Some of the best terrain I know (pali face, supreme, honeycomb canyon ect) is no more than 1500 vert. Vertical is nice (lapping groomers) but just a statistic.

 

[AndyEich]

I love Saddleback, but some folks are getting a little carried away. It is a real mountain, but it's nowhere near Sugarloaf's size and it never will be. The 2000' advertised vertical is exaggerated by 100-200', and 1550' is the portion you'd actually bother skiing--the rest is a runout turned into a beginner trail to boost vertical, ala Sugarloaf. The expert pod is 960' vertical, and I can't see any taller areas of expert terrain available. Those stats are comparable to SR, which doesn't get much love around here for serious terrain and vertical.

Vertical aside, their trails have character and there is plenty of challenge available (increased by the natural conditions and frequent wind scouring of the trails near Tight Line). The lifts, snow making, and grooming aren't in the same league as SL, and certainly not SR. It would cost a fortune if they want to close that gap. What sets it apart from SL/SR is the lakes and being a snowmobiling mecca (plus they get a few points for the great base lodge).

I have to say I'm skeptical about the long term plan--my best guess would be that they just replace the Rangeley double, and I'll be really surprised if they build more than one of those expansion lifts. That kind of expansion has to be built on the back of real estate sales, and that seems like an uphill battle. They are not just competing with SR/SL, but once someone chooses Saddleback as their home area, they still have to convince them to buy slopeside rather than down by the lake.

I hope they do really well, but I think they'll do it by pitching a more authentic, 4-season Maine experience, and they don't need a lot of expansion to do that.
________
Roll a joint

 

[klrskiah]

2 new groomers this year (one a winchcat) will hopefully help in the grooming department. Andy has it right.. SB skis much MUCH smaller than sugarloaf despite 2k of vert, it also gets absolutely hammered by wind out of the NW making the top 200 feet or so of vert survival skiing most days.

my guess would be a HSQ to replace the rangeley double for next year, and maybe an expansion of the lodge then call it quits for awhile. They have already dumped an insane amount of money into the mountain especially considering its a family owned place.