Attitash snowmaking - October 6th!

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

During a few inversions during a warm spell last season..Blue mountain was only able to blow snow for a few hours on the lower mountain each night. The upper mountain was losing snow fast so they trucked snow up a bare ski trail from the bottom of the mountain to the top in a dump truck..as simple as it was, I found it very progressive..


BushMogulMaster, what's the male/female ratio of your college? I almost went to Babson in Massachusettes but the 80/20 ratio scared me off,,,

 

[snowman]

Definitely makes sense, and seems to be a viable option, given alternative energy to run snowcats + gravity working on our side. I like it. You go ahead and pioneer this, come up with a plan, and by the time it's ready for implementation, I'll be ready to come help out!

As far as current snowcat use in snowmaking, yeah... they're pushing whales. It just depends on the snowmaking distribution. As I'm sure you well know, today's snowmaking technology is perfectly capable of producing a wide distribution (given the right temps) via oscillating guns (or tons of snowmakers constantly turning guns) that requires zero dozing. I've seen it done many times. It's not a good option early season, because you need the insulating effect of big whales. But it can be quite useful when temps are low and you want to get as much terrain as possible open with as little effort as possible.

However, like I said... if alternative fuel options (like the ones you listed) become mainstream in the ski industry, then I'm all for more snowcat use in snowmaking, given a scenario like you suggest. I'm a big snowcat fan. I've got two PistenBully hats, 2 mugs, a window sticker, work gloves, etc. Which is kind of funny, since I pretty much only ski bumps. But this would provide an additional use for snowcats that doesn't involve flattening my moguls!

Another idea might be to mount the temperature independent snow plant on 1 cat (probably much larger than a normal cat...will probably look like something meant for military use) and a genset to run it on another cat beside it. It would feed a couple regular cats that push the snow created out. Where you already have snowmaking pipe all over your mountain you could hook and unhook from your water supply every couple hours and move down to the next hydrant. You'ld have to convert hydrants to 8 or 10 inch lines to get enough water to feed whatever this thing is going to be, but that's no big deal. This way your "crew" could be reduced to maybe 5 guys from the 25 you would need in a shuttle operation. All we need now is a way to flash freeze water into some sort of granular snow substance on a massive scale. That honestly shouldn't be that hard to do. THAT is where snowmaking has to go for the future, there is no other way. Making it with indeference to the ambient air temperature and employing methods to preserve it once it's made.

 

[threecy]

I suggest you look into Snow Magic...similar technique (unsuccessfully) used at Tenney.

Short term solution: make snowmaking as efficient as possible.

Long term solution: either a) see above or b) innovate if there are still skiers. If global warming were to occur, it would have bigger ramifications than just making and retaining snow - it would harm customer demand. Ski areas can do all of the marketing and snowmaking they want - the big bucks don't come until there's a big snowstorm in the backyard of their target market.

 

[snowman]

I suggest you look into Snow Magic...similar technique (unsuccessfully) used at Tenney.

Short term solution: make snowmaking as efficient as possible.

Long term solution: either a) see above or b) innovate if there are still skiers. If global warming were to occur, it would have bigger ramifications than just making and retaining snow - it would harm customer demand. Ski areas can do all of the marketing and snowmaking they want - the big bucks don't come until there's a big snowstorm in the backyard of their target market.

Well exactly, Snowmaking is going to be made as efficient as possible in it's current form for the next 15-30 years and then it will be time for something new. Check this out > http://snowkey.en.alibaba.com/product/50086876/50400342/Flake_Ice_Machines/Flake_Ice_Machine_15_000kg_60_000kg_day_.html They already have machines capable of making 200,000 lbs of snowflakes a day.

Take that, make it larger, maximize it's efficiency and you've got something that will make 50-100 times as much and you're in business with my idea. At that rate you'll be making snow at the same rate as if you had 50-100 snowguns running on a trail at 20F and 400 psi of water pressure.

 

[snowman]

Just checked out snow magic. They are essentially using the same equipment I bet. That equipment needs to be taken to the next level though and mobilized. Someone will do it in the next 20 years. Making 200,000 lbs of snow a day gets you no where unless you're just trying to cover a bunny hill. If you can make 100 times that though....then you're talkin. You could burry a mile long trail with more than a foot of durable snow in 24 hours.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

BushMogulMaster, what's the male/female ratio of your college? I almost went to Babson in Massachusettes but the 80/20 ratio scared me off,,,

Very similar to Babson. If it weren't for the local resort towns, I'm not sure I could stay here :wink: But those resorts seem to have plenty of ladies around!

 

[threecy]

Someone will do it in the next 20 years.

We'll see...innovation tends to follow monetary opportunities. The ski industry has been stagnant for years - relatively flat ski numbers, relatively flat budgets, relatively flat equipment innovation. Think about it - what have we seen since the 6 pack for lifts? Nothing nearly as drastic as triple chairs or detaches hitting the scene.

A lot of VC went into the ski industry a long time ago and didn't make a good return. As a result, lots of ski areas are being pinched in terms of investment. This is why SnowMagic has not caught on - does it work? Sure. Will many spend the money to put it on their mountain? No. Too expensive to install and not enough return.

 

[wa-loaf]

I gotta say this has been a very informational thread. Some of the snowmaking stuff was a bit over my head, but I've really enjoyed this one. Thanks. :-D

 

[snowman]

We'll see...innovation tends to follow monetary opportunities. The ski industry has been stagnant for years - relatively flat ski numbers, relatively flat budgets, relatively flat equipment innovation. Think about it - what have we seen since the 6 pack for lifts? Nothing nearly as drastic as triple chairs or detaches hitting the scene.

A lot of VC went into the ski industry a long time ago and didn't make a good return. As a result, lots of ski areas are being pinched in terms of investment. This is why SnowMagic has not caught on - does it work? Sure. Will many spend the money to put it on their mountain? No. Too expensive to install and not enough return.

The innovations which are going to save the ski industry are being created for other wealthier industries and will only need to be adapted for the ski industry. There are a few factors that will ensure they are brought about. As temps, energy and insurance costs go up, the less profitable ski resorts will close. With less competition, the remaining ski areas will be able to charge more. Population is also increasing at the same time and us fanatics will have kids who also want to ski. Less hills, more people wanting to ski = Korea like slope crowding and the ability to charge a lot more. The remaining hills will then have the money to pay for technology that can make snow at any temperature and will be making snow at any temperature. We might even get a LONGER ski season out of it, but the overcrowding on the slopes is going to make things a lot less enjoyable. All the same, ask yourself, if there were only 3 or 4 resorts left in the east and season passes were $5000 in today dollars and lift tickets were $250, would you quit skiing?? The answer for me is no, and that is why there will ALWAYS be skiing.

 

[threecy]

The innovations which are going to save the ski industry are being created for other wealthier industries and will only need to be adapted for the ski industry.

We'll see...there's agruculture, waste disposal, and Hollywood as the main industries that use snowmaking at the moment. Not so sure they need much in way of snowmaking innovation, other than many better energy efficiency.

As temps, energy and insurance costs go up, the less profitable ski resorts will close. With less competition, the remaining ski areas will be able to charge more. Population is also increasing at the same time and us fanatics will have kids who also want to ski.

Firstly, I don't think temperatures are necessarily going to rise. Without getting into a political debate, IF global warming were to occur (remember, 30 years ago there was panic about global COOLING), we'd likely see colder weather in New England.

The US population is not really increasing that much - hence our upcoming problems with social security. Nationwide skier visits are relatively flat over the past few decades. Will/do ski areas close? Certainly. But nowhere near the rate of closure in the 70s/80s/90s in New England.

Less hills, more people wanting to ski = Korea like slope crowding and the ability to charge a lot more. The remaining hills will then have the money to pay for technology that can make snow at any temperature and will be making snow at any temperature. We might even get a LONGER ski season out of it, but the overcrowding on the slopes is going to make things a lot less enjoyable. All the same, ask yourself, if there were only 3 or 4 resorts left in the east and season passes were $5000 in today dollars and lift tickets were $250, would you quit skiing?? The answer for me is no, and that is why there will ALWAYS be skiing.

If skiing goes that route, numbers will likely drop. If lift tickets were $250 in today's dollars for crowded artificial skiing, I'd ski once every few years at best.

 

[threecy]

I am already looking at the cost. I wanted my grandsons to take up the sport. Their parent can't afford it and they are not really interested in skiing. But looking at the pricing trend I think it would be better they never start now. Winter hiking, snowshoeing, maybe BC x-country skiiing are looking like the best options for winter activities.

The ski industry needs a massive overhaul. So far, no one is coming close to doing that.

 

[snowman]

We'll see...there's agruculture, waste disposal, and Hollywood as the main industries that use snowmaking at the moment. Not so sure they need much in way of snowmaking innovation, other than many better energy efficiency.

I'm was more refering to supercooling advances for industry. There are a lot of industries which require supercooling in thier processes and a lot which use ice as well.

Firstly, I don't think temperatures are necessarily going to rise. Without getting into a political debate, IF global warming were to occur (remember, 30 years ago there was panic about global COOLING), we'd likely see colder weather in New England.

I'm not completely sold on it either. I think it might be cyclical. HOWEVER, like I said, we've seen our snowmaking temps go from 4 months to 2 for the past 3 years. Last year the hill didn't get open until JAN 15!!!! There are also some resorts closing in France because it just plain doesn't snow at them anymore. That's hard to deny!

The US population is not really increasing that much - hence our upcoming problems with social security. Nationwide skier visits are relatively flat over the past few decades. Will/do ski areas close? Certainly. But nowhere near the rate of closure in the 70s/80s/90s in New England.

Energy costs are going to be the driver for the next round of closures. The original round was due to insurance costs and hills that couldn't afford snowmaking.

If skiing goes that route, numbers will likely drop. If lift tickets were $250 in today's dollars for crowded artificial skiing, I'd ski once every few years at best.

I would. It all depends upon your income, and the ski industry has a very large percentage of people who participate in it with 100K plus incomes. If you make over 100K and your only real hobby costs 5K, you're not going to even ponder quiting. The people I'm talking about pay 25K a year just in property taxes. You don't notice them so much now because there are...hmmm...200 skiing facilities on the east coast? Drop that number down to 3 or 4 and jack the price and you WILL see them all. I live in a POOR province. However, there are probably 50 golf courses. One of them happens to charge $5000 a year for membership, $250 a round, and there's a waiting list to get in. That's in a POOR province of 1 million people, most of whom are a 3 hour drive from this golf course. If there ever was a comparison??!? And that is with 50 INEXPENSIVE golf courses still available in their back yards!

 

[threecy]

I'm not completely sold on it either. I think it might be cyclical. HOWEVER, like I said, we've seen our snowmaking temps go from 4 months to 2 for the past 3 years. Last year the hill didn't get open until JAN 15!!!! There are also some resorts closing in France because it just plain doesn't snow at them anymore. That's hard to deny!

I'm only talking about New England...yes, last year wasn't great for snowmaking...but snowmaking seasons have condensed in the past few seasos due to cost cutting and efficiency, not because of a macro temperature window.

Energy costs are going to be the driver for the next round of closures. The original round was due to insurance costs and hills that couldn't afford snowmaking.

Actually, the energy crisis was the original round of closures. Insurance and lack of snow followed as a main driver a few seasons later.

I would. It all depends upon your income, and the ski industry has a very large percentage of people who participate in it with 100K plus incomes. If you make over 100K and your only real hobby costs 5K, you're not going to even ponder quiting. The people I'm talking about pay 25K a year just in property taxes. You don't notice them so much now because there are...hmmm...200 skiing facilities on the east coast? Drop that number down to 3 or 4 and jack the price and you WILL see them all. I live in a POOR province. However, there are probably 50 golf courses. One of them happens to charge $5000 a year for membership, $250 a round, and there's a waiting list to get in. That's in a POOR province of 1 million people, most of whom are a 3 hour drive from this golf course. If there ever was a comparison??!? And that is with 50 INEXPENSIVE golf courses still available in their back yards!

If you make 100k and your hobby jumps from 1k to 5k, you may consider cutting back bigtime or quitting. 5k seems like a drop in the bucket, but when the gov takes 30k+ of your income in taxes, and your car payments and mortgages take a bunch more, that 4k jump is significant. There are plenty of other forms or recreation out there - skiers are a VERY small portion of the population, not just because of the cost.

 

[snowman]

I'm only talking about New England...yes, last year wasn't great for snowmaking...but snowmaking seasons have condensed in the past few seasos due to cost cutting and efficiency, not because of a macro temperature window.

We're in the same environment as New England (albeit stuck out in the ocean a little more) and our snowmaking season has gone from 4 to 2 months, not due to econmics, but the inability to make snow at all due to temperatures being above freezing. We were still blowing snow here March 15th in an attempt to lengthen the season to make up for it starting so late! Now, due to the fact we're stuck out in the ocean a bit, our temperatures have always been a bit higher than those in the mountains of Maine and New Hampshire, however, we're still in the same weather pattern. Snowmaking temps in Maine and NH have probably gone from 6 months to 4 in the same time frame, but it hasn't been noticed as much because you weren't trying to make snow in the 2 months you lost anyway. Now when the warming trend starts eating into those remaining 4 months, you'll start having an understanding of the fact SOMETHING is going on like I do.

Actually, the energy crisis was the original round of closures. Insurance and lack of snow followed as a main driver a few seasons later.

Correct, the original 1979 energy crisis did have a bad effect, however, a lot of the resoprts that vanished were gone because they couldn't afford snowmaking systems, never mind the money to pay for power to run them. I don't think any resort has ever closed because they couldn't afford to power a T bar.

If you make 100k and your hobby jumps from 1k to 5k, you may consider cutting back bigtime or quitting. 5k seems like a drop in the bucket, but when the gov takes 30k+ of your income in taxes, and your car payments and mortgages take a bunch more, that 4k jump is significant. There are plenty of other forms or recreation out there - skiers are a VERY small portion of the population, not just because of the cost.

Most people who make a lot of money pay about as much tax as someone working at Burger King.... and they do it LEGALLY. The have's are generally business owners (Doctors, Lawyers et al turn their professions into corporations for the most part as well). Business owners write off their vehicles and portions of their homes along with other tax shelters. If I had a normal job I would be paying about $40K in taxes. Because I'm a business owner, I get to keep most of my money moving in my corporations and utilize write offs. Add in maximum personal RRSP contribution deductions and I'm lucky if I pay 4K in taxes. Making 80K a year as a business owner is like making 20K a year as someone,s employee when it comes to the tax man, unless you're completely clueless. This is why the rich get richer!

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I'm only talking about New England...yes, last year wasn't great for snowmaking...but snowmaking seasons have condensed in the past few seasos due to cost cutting and efficiency, not because of a macro temperature window.


Actually, the energy crisis was the original round of closures. Insurance and lack of snow followed as a main driver a few seasons later.


If you make 100k and your hobby jumps from 1k to 5k, you may consider cutting back bigtime or quitting. 5k seems like a drop in the bucket, but when the gov takes 30k+ of your income in taxes, and your car payments and mortgages take a bunch more, that 4k jump is significant. There are plenty of other forms or recreation out there - skiers are a VERY small portion of the population, not just because of the cost.

I spend over 7k a year on skiing and make way less than 100gs..I can always cut back on eating out, going to bars, going to the movies, and summer travel....but I can never cut back on skiing. It's one of the only things that's priceless to me. The $250 figure is an egageration )sp?)....I don't see only 3-4 ski areas in the east. Alot of ski areas around here in PA are expanding..the population is growing alot..and there are alot more affluent people as well...thanks to snowboarding and park rats..the sport of skiing/riding is growing and skier visits are on the upswing...Maybe I'm optimistic but I don't see a doomsday with the $5k season passes and 250 dollar day tickets. Last season was rough early on in the east and I managed my most ski days ever at 119..that will be tough to beat but I'll try...3 million vert is my goal for 07-08 what what...

 

[threecy]

We're in the same environment as New England (albeit stuck out in the ocean a little more) and our snowmaking season has gone from 4 to 2 months, not due to econmics, but the inability to make snow at all due to temperatures being above freezing. We were still blowing snow here March 15th in an attempt to lengthen the season to make up for it starting so late! Now, due to the fact we're stuck out in the ocean a bit, our temperatures have always been a bit higher than those in the mountains of Maine and New Hampshire, however, we're still in the same weather pattern. Snowmaking temps in Maine and NH have probably gone from 6 months to 4 in the same time frame, but it hasn't been noticed as much because you weren't trying to make snow in the 2 months you lost anyway. Now when the warming trend starts eating into those remaining 4 months, you'll start having an understanding of the fact SOMETHING is going on like I do.

Where are you? There were still three months of snowmaking opps in MA (with a few warm weeks, but welcome to New England...we had 20+ days of rain in I think it was Jan. 2000, they all blur together), so CT?

Correct, the original 1979 energy crisis did have a bad effect, however, a lot of the resoprts that vanished were gone because they couldn't afford snowmaking systems, never mind the money to pay for power to run them. I don't think any resort has ever closed because they couldn't afford to power a T bar.

I was referring to the oil crisis of 1973-74, when the price of gas nearly doubled in a matter of months.

Most people who make a lot of money pay about as much tax as someone working at Burger King.... and they do it LEGALLY. The have's are generally business owners (Doctors, Lawyers et al turn their professions into corporations for the most part as well). Business owners write off their vehicles and portions of their homes along with other tax shelters. If I had a normal job I would be paying about $40K in taxes. Because I'm a business owner, I get to keep most of my money moving in my corporations and utilize write offs. Add in maximum personal RRSP contribution deductions and I'm lucky if I pay 4K in taxes. Making 80K a year as a business owner is like making 20K a year as someone,s employee when it comes to the tax man, unless you're completely clueless. This is why the rich get richer!

No, not quite, but that's not a debate for the AZ forums (we have a progressive income tax rate, and the upper class pays nearly all of the federal income taxes in the country).

 

[threecy]

I spend over 7k a year on skiing and make way less than 100gs..I can always cut back on eating out, going to bars, going to the movies, and summer travel....but I can never cut back on skiing. It's one of the only things that's priceless to me. The $250 figure is an egageration )sp?)....I don't see only 3-4 ski areas in the east. Alot of ski areas around here in PA are expanding..the population is growing alot..and there are alot more affluent people as well...thanks to snowboarding and park rats..the sport of skiing/riding is growing and skier visits are on the upswing...Maybe I'm optimistic but I don't see a doomsday with the $5k season passes and 250 dollar day tickets. Last season was rough early on in the east and I managed my most ski days ever at 119..that will be tough to beat but I'll try...3 million vert is my goal for 07-08 what what...

I think we were talking about a hypothetical significant increase...so if your 7k went to 35k without your income increasing, you'd most certainly have to cut back on skiing.

If you look at historical trends of number of skiers, they are relatively flat. The only main reason ski areas are seeing a growth in skier visits is through other ski areas closing (and through different ways of showing the stats, ie cheap season passes increasing passholder visits)

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Where are you?


No, not quite, but that's not a debate for the AZ forums (we have a progressive income tax rate, and the upper class pays nearly all of the federal income taxes in the country).

That's why I've always been for a flat tax..it just seems fair..on topic..even if the northeast winter is above normal temperature wise..there are tons of snowmaking oppertunities. Last season was so warm early on and Blue mountain only had to close for 5 days total and that's way down near 40 degrees latitude..closer to the equator than the North Pole. Alot of ski areas stop blowing snow in mid February due to budget reasons. Eastern ski areas that blow snow well into March deserve props..

 

[snowman]

Where are you? There were still three months of snowmaking opps in MA (with a few warm weeks, but welcome to New England...we had 20+ days of rain in I think it was Jan. 2000, they all blur together), so CT?

Nova Scotia, Canada. I believe I've already stated that somewhere here in this thread.

No, not quite, but that's not a debate for the AZ forums (we have a progressive income tax rate, and the upper class pays nearly all of the federal income taxes in the country).

We do too. Someone who's NET income is 20K is taxed at 25% (However the first 10K is tax free here in Canada....making that in essence 15%..not sure about the US) and someone who makes 80K is taxed at 48% (But still the first 10 K is free making that 42%). HOWEVER, you're totally not understanding what I was saying. People who make 80,90,100K and own businesses can expense away their vehicles (In my case about about $15,000 a year, and that's just to start), percentages of their home and on and on and on. Someone who makes 100K can end up claiming 20K in net income when all is said and done deduction wise and pay $3100 in income tax for the year. If your someone's employee, you get NO real deductions other than an RRSP deduction (18% of your income if you contribute...but most "employees" plan taxes so poorly they don't even take advantage of that) and charitable donations resulting in a person who makes barely more than I pay for my car in a year end up paying the same amount of tax as me. The set up is essentially the same in the US. You obviously don't get it because you've never studied taxes. There are a lot of smart people out there who are STUPID when it comes to tax time. They FEEL that just because they made money the should HAVE to pay a lot of money in taxes. That is NOT the case. Screw all the foolish late night get rich scams on TV, the quickest way to get rich is good tax planning.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Nova Scotia, Canada. I believe I've already stated that somewhere here in this thread.




We do too. Someone who's NET income is 20K is taxed at 25% (However the first 10K is tax free here in Canada....making that in essence 15%..not sure about the US) and someone who makes 80K is taxed at 48% (But still the first 10 K is free making that 42%). HOWEVER, you're totally not understanding what I was saying. People who make 80,90,100K and own businesses can expense away their vehicles (In my case about about $15,000 a year, and that's just to start), percentages of their home and on and on and on. Someone who makes 100K can end up claiming 20K in net income when all is said and done deduction wise and pay $3100 in income tax for the year. If your someone's employee, you get NO real deductions other than an RRSP deduction (18% of your income if you contribute...but most "employees" plan taxes so poorly they don't even take advantage of that) and charitable donations resulting in a person who makes barely more than I pay for my car in a year end up paying the same amount of tax as me. The set up is essentially the same in the US. You obviously don't get it because you've never studied taxes. There are a lot of smart people out there who are STUPID when it comes to tax time. They FEEL that just because they made money the should HAVE to pay a lot of money in taxes. That is NOT the case. Screw all the foolish late night get rich scams on TV, the quickest way to get rich is good tax planning.

Nice explanation but there's no need to be rude and condescending about it...:flame: