200+ guns running @stratton, does anyone in New England run more?

[AdironRider]

I think at Killington it actually is the trade being made. The homers are all bitching about early season rollout, but the World Cup most certainly provides a better financial return than 1 route down from the summit early season. You see that with their recent return to pushing their closing dates to almost June.

 

[doublediamond]

With respect to Killington the Calculus is doubly in favor of this “trade” and I’m surprised the homers cannot see it.

1) Killington has the single best setup in the East for efficient spring operations. They only need one lodge open. One lift. One trail. The trail is steep and faces due north meaning ideal snow retention. And they have the muscle on the trail to build a 30 foot deep glacier. That equals close to June skiing.

2) Killington has perhaps the single worst setup for early season top to bottom opening. As well as they have a pretty p!$$ poor setup for fast expansion. Face it: Traverse off the peak to North Ridge (Upper Great Northern). Traverse out of North Ridge to Snowdon (Middle Great Northern). And then to get TTB you have to make a minimum of Lower Bunny Buster or Lower Chute just to get T2B. However by the time they can get there there is sufficeint demand they must get Killiink and a second route off the Six Pack. And finally to expand to their third pod they must make Caper/Lower Great Northern which is insanely long and takes them way too long to get open. It always seems like a week straight of snowmaking just to get that loop so they can open a second lodge, ski school and lower intermediate terrain.

 

[jimmywilson69]

All 100% valid points. It still doesn't absolve the complaints. Its clear that investment in their snowmaking infrastructure is needed. As pointed out by @Newpylong several places have passed them in recent, modern snowmaking improvements. If they have unlimited water as they have stated, then they need to figure out how to better move around the water.

 

[BodeMiller1]

With respect to Killington the Calculus is doubly in favor of this “trade” and I’m surprised the homers cannot see it.

1) Killington has the single best setup in the East for efficient spring operations. They only need one lodge open. One lift. One trail. The trail is steep and faces due north meaning ideal snow retention. And they have the muscle on the trail to build a 30 foot deep glacier. That equals close to June skiing.

2) Killington has perhaps the single worst setup for early season top to bottom opening. As well as they have a pretty p!$$ poor setup for fast expansion. Face it: Traverse off the peak to North Ridge (Upper Great Northern). Traverse out of North Ridge to Snowdon (Middle Great Northern). And then to get TTB you have to make a minimum of Lower Bunny Buster or Lower Chute just to get T2B. However by the time they can get there there is sufficeint demand they must get Killiink and a second route off the Six Pack. And finally to expand to their third pod they must make Caper/Lower Great Northern which is insanely long and takes them way too long to get open. It always seems like a week straight of snowmaking just to get that loop so they can open a second lodge, ski school and lower intermediate terrain.

You could ski the top pod of CANNON all most year round. Less exposure to the south and you have a valley (looker's right of Vista Way, up from Red and Blue ball). It would be easy to do if you do not through the Whip o will and other thrush like birds into the mix.

With those kinds of things, The State calls it a day when you can mow your lawn by cow or push reel.

Some reason Winnipesaukee and little Squam where never linked. Only different.

Further in a good snow year Sugar Loaf (U.S.A) is the place...

 

[MadPadraic]

I don't really see Killington as having made this trade. They were the the first to open (ignoring Ski Ward), and will almost certainly be the last to close. They are providing both.

 

[WoodCore]

Yes, the upper limit is not static in real world practice. Weather, snowmaking location(s), available equipment, and staff all come into play. For example, if they aren't wanting to make snow in enough areas with adequate feed capacity, then they won't be running the system flat out. Also, early season you're on the "air" side of the curve where air is in demand more than water. As it gets colder this flips.

For a system that is capable of say moving 10,000 gallons per minute of water and has 40,000 CFM of air compression (industry standard is 4:1 air to water ratio in system design):

Rough example:

Wet bulb of 24 degrees in November they'll only be able to move 4,000 GPM of water but they'll be utilizing all 40,000 CFM of air.
Wet bub of 10 degrees in January and this will flip and they will be able to use all of their water and much less air.

Hope this helps

I agree, but feel the game is changing slightly. Air flow (CFM) is no longer the driving capacity issue. With the advent of advanced external nucleating technology (HKD, etc.) that use a very reduced amount of compressed air and can be water regulated based on wet bulb, H2O becomes the valued commodity. Air is expensive to generate but is an unlimited resource and much cheaper to move to its final destination. Water is not unlimited and requires a far superior conveyance system to deliver at the needed pressure and volume.

 

[joshua segal]

IMO, number of guns running simultaneously is not a very good measure of the size of a snowmaking system. Gallons per minute pumping capacity is a better measure. In terms of available skiing terrain, perhaps the best is: gallons per minute per acre of trails covered by snowmaking.

Anyone aware of a table somewhere that lists these kinds of stats?

 

[Newpylong]

No one has a chart like that. GPM/Acre is definitely the holy grail.

You've have to get system capacity then find all the ski area's on trail acreage. Many list acreage including glades terrain which I feel shouldn't be considered in the calculation.

 

[ColdRain&Snow]

I like the discussion of a groundbreaking method of evaluating/ranking snowmaking capability in this thread.

 

[BodeMiller1]

MS Word

replace Some with Same.

I agree, but feel the game is changing slightly. Air flow (CFM) is no longer the driving capacity issue. With the advent of advanced external nucleating technology (HKD, etc.) that use a very reduced amount of compressed air and can be water regulated based on wet bulb, H2O becomes the valued commodity. Air is expensive to generate but is an unlimited resource and much cheaper to move to its final destination. Water is not unlimited and requires a far superior conveyance system to deliver at the needed pressure and volume.

Higher fixed towers, more hang time.

 

[IceEidolon]

Seven Springs can push upwards of 30,000gpm.

Seven Springs is also gravity fed and reportedly doesn't regularly push anywhere near their theoretical max. Blue is getting better with more low E and should see major gains in typical flow this year, but can only sustain 8k gpm in a marathon.

 

[WoodCore]

Seven Springs is also gravity fed and reportedly doesn't regularly push anywhere near their theoretical max. Blue is getting better with more low E and should see major gains in typical flow this year, but can only sustain 8k gpm in a marathon.

Mohawk in CT has a similar setup. Main pond and pumps at the top w/ additional water storage and pump at the bottom that can either feed the loop or re-fill the the top pond. Theoretically, they could run a good sized number of their SMI polecats in the base area with gravity alone.

 

[joshua segal]

Mohawk in CT has a similar setup. Main pond and pumps at the top w/ additional water storage and pump at the bottom that can either feed the loop or re-fill the the top pond. Theoretically, they could run a good sized number of their SMI polecats in the base area with gravity alone.

Don't they still have to pump the water up hill to the summit pond? Do you have a sense how much electricity is saved by this system? I suspect that they might save on shut down where they can pretty much drain the water from the line by pure gravity.

Mount Snow, too, has a large reservoir a few hundred feet uphill on Carinthia. That reservoir may well collect a reasonable amount of runoff.

 

[Newpylong]

Yes but the difference is areas with summit ponds can fill them using transfer pumps instead of their high pressure pumps which are considerable less horsepower. However they then still need to increase the pressure leaving the summit ponds as gravity alone is not sufficient to attain operating pressures in most scenarios though the gravity helps to get there.

Draining the system is performed by gravity regardless of pond location, so no savings there.

 

[doublediamond]

Also if making snow down low you don’t have to pump to as high pressure and maybe even gravity provides sufficient pressure for fans or low E equipment

 

[IceEidolon]

Jiminy Peak is also part of the gravity feed club. Blue Mtn PA has a (nearly) summit pond but cannot gravity feed from it.

 

[doublediamond]

Plattekill too if the ever finished their summit reservoir.

 

[thebigo]

Sunday river is reporting 108 acres open.
Sugarloaf reporting 87 acres open.
Loon reporting 63 acres open.

The vail resorts do not always report acreage but unless I am mistaken, top three in the east are the three boyne properties.

 

[jimmywilson69]

Okemo reporting 79 acres

 

[thebigo]

Okemo reporting 79 acres

Did not see it when I looked.