• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

The "Sugarbush Thread"

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,417
Points
113
Location
NJ
So Sugarbush's snowmaking has been a perennial issue for a long time now. Obviously now five years out from being a passholder there my POV is from the 30,000 foot level, but back in 2009 and 2010 or so we had the same conversations--why aren't they moving faster? Why aren't they blowing when others are? Why do they have so many issues? And yeah, sure a few new HKDs here and there are nice, but what happened to being bullish and opening ASAP? Granted weather is an issue, but they would always find a way.

A few new HKDs here and there? I wouldn't consider over 500 new guns a few here and there. They can now max out on water using a fraction of the air that they used to use and air is not a limiting factor anymore. They've also been replacing pipe every year to enable them to get more water to different parts of the mountain instead of being forced to only max water when they spread it around to different areas. For example the new 10" pipe they put in on Spring Fling a couple years ago let's them completely light that trail up with nearly max water going to it from what I've heard.

What more do you think they should be doing to expand their snowmaking infrastructure? If the pond can be dug deeper, then that absolutely should be done. But that doesn't help get more water up the mountain, it only helps them avoid running out of water if the flow in the Mad River is low. To get more water up the mountain means completely replacing the pipe from the pond to the mountain with a larger diameter one. How expensive would that be to dig up and replace over 3 miles of pipe? Are there environmental restrictions that prevent them from drawing more water in the first place or is the pipe the only limiting factor?

It's clear that since shifting back to Lincoln Peak that weather impacts them more because it is lower elevation. It's also clear that since 2008 or so the focus has shifted to the four-season resort and making the whole thing better instead of focusing on skiing so much. I also know for a fact that they don't have the same caliber of mountain ops that they used to in the past.

And let's be real here: their competition and "perceived competition" (Stowe) is now WAY ahead of them in terms of snowmaking. At one time they would compete with Killington on early and late season. Now they want to compete with Stowe in price and "quality", but you can't compare their limping snowmaking system with Stowe's and it pains me to say that because I love Sugarbush. It seems that they are content with relying on natural snow, not having the biggest snowmaking system in the east, and hoping that they nail Christmas, MLK, and President's Week instead of extending the season.
Sugarbush has been open into the beginning of May 5 of the past 6 years. Has Stowe ever been open that late? Competing with K for early or late season is simply not financially responsible. K's snowmaking infrastructure was extremely built out many many years ago. Sugarbush will never get to that point nor would I expect them to. K has the late season market cornered and even if SB stayed open into June along with them you simply wouldn't see the people at SB. You're competing for a very limited number of people at that point and the demand simply doesn't warrant much more supply.

I think that they just don't have the cash to replace their lifts and their snowmaking. They also are more risk averse when it comes to snowmaking--they don't want to lose the money when it all melts. That's fine and I think that a lot of passholders appreciate that steady hand at the wheel instead of the risk of bankruptcies and ownership turnovers. But when they want to talk about competing with Stowe and increasing their prices to more than everyone but Stowe it seems that the value is not wheat it used to be in terms of skiing.

They've done substantial lift work in the past few years. We have a new Valley House Quad. HG was pretty much completely rebuilt (from an electrical and mechanical perspective). NRX was completely overhauled. Numerous other lifts had significant amount of mechanical and electrical work done (well beyond normal maintenance). What lifts should they still be replacing? I think with all the recent work over the past few years most of them have quite a bit of life left and spending money to replace lifts for the sake of replacing lifts seems irresponsible.

As for snowmaking, I'll again ask exactly what you think they should do? Pretend they have unlimited money but don't pretend that we can ignore all the environmental or logistical restrictions. What would you envision happening in that scenario? Is there a location they could build a secondary pond closer to the mountain if they wanted to? Please don't take this challenge the wrong way. I'm legitimately interested in what you think can be done. I've seen very noticeable improvements the past few years. Some of those improvements are unfortunately being overshadowed by weather problems or unforeseen issues (such as whatever happened this past week that we are all still speculating about).

In terms of value I still think they offer a great deal. For season passes they are significantly cheaper than Stowe and early purchase pricing on passes was very comparable to K. For my particular age bracket they were actually well over 50% cheaper than K for a season pass (although that just started this year and I think you can thank Stowe for that one with the new pass they started).

And I love Sugarbush a lot. Look who started this thread. It was my home for many years. But I will confess that had we stayed in Vermont we might have considered other options because it just had changed.

I sometimes wonder if you hear more about SB's problems just because more people post about them here. I know there have been times Stowe has had lifts down based on what I saw on their snow report yet nothing was ever said about it here. For SB if a lift is down 5 minutes it seems that everyone here knows about (obviously a slight exaggeration...).
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
I'm a Stowe homer, but that's mainly for nostalgic reasons. It was home from 95-2001 and then again in 04-05. I still think they have the best combination of terrain and natural snowfall in the east, but all the improvements don't really favor what I'm looking for in a ski experience. I still go every other year or so and all the shiny new stuff is very well done and a treat to experience. However, had they kept things the way they were when it was basically just a ski area with a limited amount of lodging down at Toll House and just average snowmaking, I think I'd prefer it over how exclusive the mountain (and town) have become. Stowe (the ski area) was still quite raw in the late 90s.

In my view, Sugarbush does a fine job. I think both the mountain and the valley have balanced growth well while still keeping things pretty low key. They're right there with Jay for having the second longest season in the state. Mid-winter snowmaking in Northern VT really isn't as important as Southern VT or the rest of New England. Smuggs gets by with limited snowmaking. Jay does too. Whatever the issue is causing a slow start, it likely won't matter in a few weeks.

If VT were to become my primary ski destination again and I was looking for a home mountain, Sugarbush would probably be it. I vastly prefer the terrain and vibe over Killington. I prefer the value and longer season over Stowe. I love the expert terrain at Smuggs (maybe the best on map in the east), but when that terrain isn't skiing well the experience is kind of ho hum on very slow lifts. Same could be said for Jay, but better lifts. So, yeah, overall I'd say Sugarbush would be it. Probably the second best overall ski experience in the state (or east for that matter) next to Stowe. You have to pay big for the Stowe experience though and deal with many more crowds.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,340
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
A few new HKDs here and there? I wouldn't consider over 500 new guns a few here and there. They can now max out on water using a fraction of the air that they used to use and air is not a limiting factor anymore. They've also been replacing pipe every year to enable them to get more water to different parts of the mountain instead of being forced to only max water when they spread it around to different areas. For example the new 10" pipe they put in on Spring Fling a couple years ago let's them completely light that trail up with nearly max water going to it from what I've heard.

What more do you think they should be doing to expand their snowmaking infrastructure? If the pond can be dug deeper, then that absolutely should be done. But that doesn't help get more water up the mountain, it only helps them avoid running out of water if the flow in the Mad River is low. To get more water up the mountain means completely replacing the pipe from the pond to the mountain with a larger diameter one. How expensive would that be to dig up and replace over 3 miles of pipe? Are there environmental restrictions that prevent them from drawing more water in the first place or is the pipe the only limiting factor?


Sugarbush has been open into the beginning of May 5 of the past 6 years. Has Stowe ever been open that late? Competing with K for early or late season is simply not financially responsible. K's snowmaking infrastructure was extremely built out many many years ago. Sugarbush will never get to that point nor would I expect them to. K has the late season market cornered and even if SB stayed open into June along with them you simply wouldn't see the people at SB. You're competing for a very limited number of people at that point and the demand simply doesn't warrant much more supply.



They've done substantial lift work in the past few years. We have a new Valley House Quad. HG was pretty much completely rebuilt (from an electrical and mechanical perspective). NRX was completely overhauled. Numerous other lifts had significant amount of mechanical and electrical work done (well beyond normal maintenance). What lifts should they still be replacing? I think with all the recent work over the past few years most of them have quite a bit of life left and spending money to replace lifts for the sake of replacing lifts seems irresponsible.

As for snowmaking, I'll again ask exactly what you think they should do? Pretend they have unlimited money but don't pretend that we can ignore all the environmental or logistical restrictions. What would you envision happening in that scenario? Is there a location they could build a secondary pond closer to the mountain if they wanted to? Please don't take this challenge the wrong way. I'm legitimately interested in what you think can be done. I've seen very noticeable improvements the past few years. Some of those improvements are unfortunately being overshadowed by weather problems or unforeseen issues (such as whatever happened this past week that we are all still speculating about).

In terms of value I still think they offer a great deal. For season passes they are significantly cheaper than Stowe and early purchase pricing on passes was very comparable to K. For my particular age bracket they were actually well over 50% cheaper than K for a season pass (although that just started this year and I think you can thank Stowe for that one with the new pass they started).



I sometimes wonder if you hear more about SB's problems just because more people post about them here. I know there have been times Stowe has had lifts down based on what I saw on their snow report yet nothing was ever said about it here. For SB if a lift is down 5 minutes it seems that everyone here knows about (obviously a slight exaggeration...).

Those are some good points. I also wonder if things are going OK and we only hear the bad things.

500 HKD guns are impressive. I think a fair number of them were paid for by EfficiencyVermont. But they are not doing any good right now. Instead we are hearing about other snowmaking issues.

The pipe work, including the replacement of the feeder line from the Valley to LP is impressive, but unfortunately it is maintenance.

I'm pretty sure that the Pond was dredged to permitted depths in 2002 or so. That said, there was a drought and they are really limited as to what they can draw.

For me the ONE thing that would make a difference for early season would be to return to ME. No brainer in my mind for the skiing product. But the real estate is on the other side. For me that is the decision with which I most disagree but I get it. It also goes to my point about real estate and the four season resort aspect.

Other than ME, I have always been skeptical about air capacity since they built Clay Brook. I just always remember seeing lots of compressors on LP side as you rode up and they seemed to never have issues making snow when needed.

So what would I do? Move early season to Mount Ellen. That would cost little if anything.

As to lifts--VH is a big plus.
 

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
Sugarbush is the best mountain (terrain) that often sucks to go to. No comparison to Stowe. It's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of reality. You can go to Stowe and pay the high price and expect zero BS after that. Sugarbush you roll the dice.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,417
Points
113
Location
NJ
Those are some good points. I also wonder if things are going OK and we only hear the bad things.

500 HKD guns are impressive. I think a fair number of them were paid for by EfficiencyVermont. But they are not doing any good right now. Instead we are hearing about other snowmaking issues.

The pipe work, including the replacement of the feeder line from the Valley to LP is impressive, but unfortunately it is maintenance.
Some is maintenance, some I would say goes much further than that. If they replace a pipe with a bigger one that has more capacity, is that still considered maintenance? I would argue no, that's an upgrade. And that is exactly what they did on Spring Fling and several other trails.

I'm pretty sure that the Pond was dredged to permitted depths in 2002 or so. That said, there was a drought and they are really limited as to what they can draw.

For me the ONE thing that would make a difference for early season would be to return to ME. No brainer in my mind for the skiing product. But the real estate is on the other side. For me that is the decision with which I most disagree but I get it. It also goes to my point about real estate and the four season resort aspect.
Would a return to ME make that much difference early season? They wouldn't be T2B at ME right now either. The snowmaking capacity at ME is lower than LP. If ME was the early season option right now, you'd have Rim Rum->Elbow open (1 run). At LP they have Jester and Organgrinder, so 2 distinct upper mountain runs. ME would not have been able to open any earlier than LP did this year unless they were holding back on snowmaking but that doesn't appear to have been the case since ME started snowmaking the same time LP did.

I can see ME making more of a difference late season. With the Glen House and deck you have a great setup for late season. That said though, they've managed to keep LP open late season until May almost every year lately, so it is a bit hard to argue that they haven't been a late season player and that ME would have made a difference.

Other than ME, I have always been skeptical about air capacity since they built Clay Brook. I just always remember seeing lots of compressors on LP side as you rode up and they seemed to never have issues making snow when needed.

Air isn't an issue with the low e guns anymore though. They don't have extra compressors because they don't need them. They max out water and from what I heard aren't even running all the air compressors that they have, never-mind needing to rent any additional ones to keep up.

So what would I do? Move early season to Mount Ellen. That would cost little if anything.

As to lifts--VH is a big plus.

Again, interesting idea, but I don't think ME offers as much of an advantage over LP as people think it does. Sure the base of the summit chair at ME is 500 feet higher than the base of the HG chair at LP, but at the same time the LP snowmaking system is more powerful (I want to say they have double the water capacity in terms of gallons per minute that they can move up the mountain at LP vs ME...but I can't recall the exact figures) and you get the potential for more diverse upper mountain runs at LP (and an extra 400 feet of vertical to ski when you're limited to the upper mountain).
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Sugarbush is the best mountain (terrain) that often sucks to go to. No comparison to Stowe. It's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of reality. You can go to Stowe and pay the high price and expect zero BS after that. Sugarbush you roll the dice.

If this is directed at me, my comparison was of 90s Stowe. It was quite raw then. Outside of the Forerunner and Gondola, all the lifts were very old and unreliable at times. Snowmaking was limited. Lodges modest.

Smuggs, Jay and to a lesser extent Killington all have lift issues from time to time. Wind holds, icing up of the lines, they all have it. Smuggs and Jay certainly have equal if not worst snowmaking issues to Bush. The mountains south of K I don't really consider part of the conversation. Totally different product and market.

Maybe the question is what do people want Sugarbush to become? Win (with the proper resources) could turn it into Stowe, but you'd have to pay for it. He could also aim to be like Killington as far as snowmaking commitment, but the mountain simply does not have the traffic/revenue to support that business model and likely never will.

To each their own, but I find much of the criticism of SB to be unfounded compared to all the competition except for Steaux.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,417
Points
113
Location
NJ
Maybe the question is what do people want Sugarbush to become? Win (with the proper resources) could turn it into Stowe, but you'd have to pay for it. He could also aim to be like Killington as far as snowmaking commitment, but the mountain simply does not have the traffic/revenue to support that business model and likely never will.

Right...I think Win and his team do a good job and have SB in just the right place. I would not want SB to turn into either Stowe or K. I like the more laid back vibe of SB and the MRV area in general just the way it is. The mountain itself is more crowded than in the past, so they must be doing something right.

Have they had their share of issues? Yes, but I think they've done an admirable job of addressing them. When we had all those lift issues several years ago, the following summer they did major overhauls of several of the lifts to address the issues. Then they did the VH lift replacement the following year. If they ignored these issues, then I'd be concerned.

The same thing goes for snowmaking. They keep making incremental improvements every year. If they did nothing, then I'd again be concerned. As for the latest issue with snowmaking, I'll reserve judgement until we find out exactly what happened.
 

sugarbushskier9

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
29
Points
0
If this is directed at me, my comparison was of 90s Stowe. It was quite raw then. Outside of the Forerunner and Gondola, all the lifts were very old and unreliable at times. Snowmaking was limited. Lodges modest.

Smuggs, Jay and to a lesser extent Killington all have lift issues from time to time. Wind holds, icing up of the lines, they all have it. Smuggs and Jay certainly have equal if not worst snowmaking issues to Bush. The mountains south of K I don't really consider part of the conversation. Totally different product and market.

Maybe the question is what do people want Sugarbush to become? Win (with the proper resources) could turn it into Stowe, but you'd have to pay for it. He could also aim to be like Killington as far as snowmaking commitment, but the mountain simply does not have the traffic/revenue to support that business model and likely never will.

To each their own, but I find much of the criticism of SB to be unfounded compared to all the competition except for Steaux.

I'm a bit of a homer for both mountains though never could afford Stowe till their young 30s pass this season. Growing up in Montpelier we went to Stowe sparingly but Sugarbush and MRG all the time.

A couple things people forget...Sugarbush and Stowe in a few products are closer in price than some think. Stowe now has the Lamoille/Washington/Orleans County pass and the young 30s pass and although day tickets are robbery, they ARE working the other direction to become slightly more affordable. I think they know skier visits in the state are flat and are just trying to take business from elsewhere. Spruce has been built up but Mansfield is the same base lodge and bar it was 60 years ago. The terrain is the same it always was with better and more reliable lifts and superior snowmaking. That's why I was stoked to be able to go to both Stowe and Bush this season. Best of both worlds.

Win wants it to become Stowe in a revenue sense and mountain ops sense...you don't think he wants the snowmaking, grooming and lift efficiency? Hes done a great job of building up the base area without getting too ritzy but Win is a Wall Street guy in the end...he's not looking to run Smuggs. He wants an upscale polished place/product that's also laid back which is a hard one to accomplish. Like if Smuggs and Stowe mated and you got the offspring lol.
 
Last edited:

sugarbushskier9

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
29
Points
0
Anyway on the plus side Sugarbush is listing 5 snowmaking trails in the last 24 hours so they are back at it.

7" in last 48 and 10" last 72 hours. All good news.
 

Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2016
Messages
2,430
Points
113
Location
Mad River Valley / MA
They are having a few small hiccups to start. There is in fact an issue with water due to the draught. The snow making pond can not fill when the water drops below a certain flow in the river. Several mountain folks that I know said they were very concerned about that but did not confirm they were out. Also there was talk from a good source that they had a pump issue and that Is why they did not continue snowmaking into this weekend. Of course the temps also went up but Wednesday and Thursday it was plenty cold and they did not blow snow. The 3" they got on Thursday night helped a lot. My opinion is that something stopped them so I would believe that the water issues are true. Either way the snow and coverage over the last 3 days has been fine. Good start to the season.
 

Plowboy

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
183
Points
16
Location
Behind plow
I'm pretty sure that the Pond was dredged to permitted depths in 2002 or so. That said, there was a drought and they are really limited as to what they can draw.
The pond was/has NOT dredged to permitted depth!!
1998 GMNF Findings states the pond was only dug to 40% of the primary pond volume(25MG)
https://books.google.com/books?id=M...=onepage&q=sugarbush snow making pond&f=false

Sugarbush article from 9/7/11 states "Now, the task will be to de-water the pond, and remove the accumulated material so that the pond can be refilled to pre-flood depth."
http://www.sugarbush.com/discover/press-releases/excellent-progress-made-in-repairing-sugarbush-snowmaking-pond/


Valley Reporter article from 9/29/11 states "Under normal conditions the pond holds 25 million gallons of water."

http://valleyreporter.com/stories/1...elds-45000-cubic-yards-of-topsoil-plus-gravel

I have been doing excavating work in the Valley since 1988, I would have known that there was a huge amount of dump truck traffic in the Valley and would have known were all the fill or gravel went. As I can tell you where the fill went on the original dig and the post Irene dig!!
 
Last edited:

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,340
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
The pond was/has NOT dredged to permitted depth!!
1998 GMNF Findings states the pond was only dug to 40% of the primary pond volume(25MG)
https://books.google.com/books?id=M...=onepage&q=sugarbush snow making pond&f=false

Sugarbush article from 9/7/11 states "Now, the task will be to de-water the pond, and remove the accumulated material so that the pond can be refilled to pre-flood depth."
http://www.sugarbush.com/discover/press-releases/excellent-progress-made-in-repairing-sugarbush-snowmaking-pond/


Valley Reporter article from 9/29/11 states "Under normal conditions the pond holds 25 million gallons of water."

http://valleyreporter.com/stories/1...elds-45000-cubic-yards-of-topsoil-plus-gravel

I have been doing excavating work in the Valley since 1988, I would have known that there was a huge amount of dump truck traffic in the Valley and would have known were all the fill or gravel went. As I can tell you where the fill went on the original dig and the post Irene dig!!

Yes, ASC did NOT dig it to permit depth. I was saying that Win did dig it deeper to what I thought was permit depth. Must be they dredged it but not to permitted depth.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
If this is directed at me, my comparison was of 90s Stowe.

Maybe the question is what do people want Sugarbush to become? Win (with the proper resources) could turn it into Stowe, but you'd have to pay for it. He could also aim to be like Killington as far as snowmaking commitment, but the mountain simply does not have the traffic/revenue to support that business model and likely never will.

To each their own, but I find much of the criticism of SB to be unfounded compared to all the competition except for Steaux.

Not directed at you, I think I was mostly agreeing with your prior statement.

I only skied at Stowe once or twice in the 90s and don't really remember it. But as of now they do a fantastic job of being a luxury ski experience that does not get in the way of skiing. Actually the reliability, speedy lifts, sparse lift lines, good parking situation and all enhance it. These are all areas where Sugarbush does not excel, and to the point where it can impede the skiing experience.

I was just checking walk up prices and surprised to see Sugarbush at $97 and Stowe at $124. A complete rip off either way. But at least at Stowe you can see how your money is being spent.
 

hovercraft

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
628
Points
63
Let's face the facts, SB wants to play in the big league but doesn't want to pay the admission. It's always something with them. People say Stowe is expensive, if you buy a day ticket on line they are the same price as the bush. On season pass costs you pay for what you get. Stowe gives you value, bush gives you a roll of the dice at best. No comparison.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,417
Points
113
Location
NJ
Let's face the facts, SB wants to play in the big league but doesn't want to pay the admission. It's always something with them. People say Stowe is expensive, if you buy a day ticket on line they are the same price as the bush. On season pass costs you pay for what you get. Stowe gives you value, bush gives you a roll of the dice at best. No comparison.

So you're comparing Stowe's online ticket price to SB's walk up rate? Why not compare apples to apples. SB offers discounts for buying tickets online as well. Stowe's Adult day ticket online prices are $92 (and they consider an adult anyone 13 and up for day ticket purposes). SB's Adult day ticket prices are $87 for weekend non-holiday, $89 for holiday, and as low as $61 for mid-week non-holiday. And SB considers only people 19 and up as Adults for day tickets.

I have nothing against Stowe, but to say they are the same price as SB and that they give you value is stretching it a lot.

I don't get the "roll of the dice" comments for SB either. I'm there pretty much every weekend other than holidays and rarely wait in lines and rarely experience lift issues. Do lift issues happen? Sure, but all the major issues from several years ago were addressed and things have been pretty smooth since then. I think the reports of lift issues are greatly overblown. What other items at SB contribute to it being a "roll of the dice at best"?
 

Jully

Active member
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
2,487
Points
38
Location
Boston, MA
I've always viewed what you get at SB as primarily their variety. Stowe, even Killington a big mountain/vert perspective doesn't compare imo (though I'm positive others will disagree). The place also leaves more of what I want left natural, natural. It has less snowmaking and older lifts, but its selling point against K and Stowe hasn't ever huge snowmaking or perfect lifts and base facilities. Its a wilder feel still within a resort context they charge a premium that, not facade / replacement of Stowe or K.
 

ss20

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,919
Points
113
Location
A minute from the Alta exit off the I-15!
I was wondering which mountain would absorb all of the Burke b!tching from last season :lol: :popcorn:

Lot's of complaints leads to lot's of unconfirmed information. No confirmed info from the mountain. AZ rumor mill is cranking back up again! :-?
 

hovercraft

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
628
Points
63
So you're comparing Stowe's online ticket price to SB's walk up rate? Why not compare apples to apples. SB offers discounts for buying tickets online as well. Stowe's Adult day ticket online prices are $92 (and they consider an adult anyone 13 and up for day ticket purposes). SB's Adult day ticket prices are $87 for weekend non-holiday, $89 for holiday, and as low as $61 for mid-week non-holiday. And SB considers only people 19 and up as Adults for day tickets.

I have nothing against Stowe, but to say they are the same price as SB and that they give you value is stretching it a lot.

I don't get the "roll of the dice" comments for SB either. I'm there pretty much every weekend other than holidays and rarely wait in lines and rarely experience lift issues. Do lift issues happen? Sure, but all the major issues from several years ago were addressed and things have been pretty smooth since then. I think the reports of lift issues are greatly overblown. What other items at SB contribute to it being a "roll of the dice at best"?

I was thinking that ticket prices within a few dollars were they same price. The roll of the dice comment is the weather. I know it effects every mountain but with Stowe you have the added benefit that even if the weather hasn't cooperated at least you have their snowmaking to count on. They aren't shy about using it either. For me the extra dollars you pay is having an insurance policy. I love the terrain at the bush it's the infrastructure in place that doesn't work for me. In my opinion you get more value at Stowe then you do @ the bush
 
Top