Day ticket rates vs Pass Prices

[mister moose]

What I was saying is all mechanical machinery has a finite usable life. Many have thought a decade ago we would have seen resorts replacing lifts just due to age, not necessarily to fancy new detach/heated/bubbles. That didn't happen but many fixed grips are coming up on 40 years old or more. Metal fatigues and at some point your quaint old lifts need to be either replaced or completely remanufactured (a la MRG's Single Chair).

What was the average life of a car engine in 1970?
What was the average life of a car engine in 2000?

 

[bdfreetuna]

What was the average life of a car engine in 1970?
What was the average life of a car engine in 2000?

Not a straightforward answer at all.

The peak of reliability for gasoline auto engines was with fuel injected low output engines produced in the 90s and 2000s.

Carbureated engines could be reliable as well with extra maintenance, and generally cast iron is a sturdier block than aluminum.

Direct Injection engines from the mid 2010s will probably have trouble achieving the same longevity, and added tech like variable compression introduces new possible mechanisms of failure. For example I have a Toyota 2nd vehicle with 2GR-FE 3.5L V6. The engine will run 300,000 miles with little problems, however I replaced the Variable Valve Timing oil pressure hose early on because it was a known failure point.

I don't know if you were trying to lead an answer one way or the other

But the answer is the one you maintain the best that isn't built like crap in the first place.

 

[mister moose]

I don't know if you were trying to lead an answer one way or the other

But the answer is the one you maintain the best that isn't built like crap in the first place.

Probably, but the quality you start with is a factor.

My point was that machined tolerances have vastly improved, along with metallurgy and design. Wear is reduced. Vibration is reduced. Car engines routinely last far longer now than in the 60s and 70s. Can you imagine running 0-20W oil in a 1965 V8?

My 2002 German built Ford V6 went 190,000 miles and ran perfectly before I sold it. My Dad's 1979 Ford V8 went about 70,000 miles before it had a catastrophic oil pressure failure. In 1948, the year Mad River Glen opened, I bet the average car engine went less than 50,000 miles before a major repair was needed.

 

[bdfreetuna]

Probably, but the quality you start with is a factor.

My point was that machined tolerances have vastly improved, along with metallurgy and design. Wear is reduced. Vibration is reduced. Car engines routinely last far longer now than in the 60s and 70s. Can you imagine running 0-20W oil in a 1965 V8?

My 2002 German built Ford V6 went 190,000 miles and ran perfectly before I sold it. My Dad's 1979 Ford V8 went about 70,000 miles before it had a catastrophic oil pressure failure. In 1948, the year Mad River Glen opened, I bet the average car engine went less than 50,000 miles before a major repair was needed.

0-20w oil is what the Euros like to use because you get 1 mile per gallon more and their requirements over there are strict. I would never abuse an engine with less than 5w-30, at least until we have the new oil specs coming out soon which *might* make a difference, but probably not enough since we're talking about oil shearing. Your 5w-20 is more like 8w-10 by the time you change your oil. I change my Motul (best oil) 5w-30 every 3000 miles because I don't even want it getting down to 20. 155k miles on a Subaru block with arguably too high tolerances and tuned/modded to 349whp (from stock ~235), you realize oil and proper tune/engine management are the key factors in the life of the engine. Also stuff like changing your PCV once in a while.

Advancements in reliability were: Electronic fuel injection and computer engine management.
Cost saving reductions that worsened it: Tighter tolerances, higher compression, VVT/VTEK type mechanisms, switching to aluminum which can crack more easily

DOHC or even SOCH has higher performance at high RPM than push rod but it's more complicated and more things to eventually limit lifespan.

I enjoyed this opportunity to derail the thread though, since everyone is bitching about that lately whilst doing it themselves as well

 

[mister moose]

0-20w oil is what the Euros like to use because you get 1 mile per gallon more and their requirements over there are strict. I would never abuse an engine with less than 5w-30, at least until we have the new oil specs coming out soon which *might* make a difference, but probably not enough since we're talking about oil shearing.

I was thinking the ability to run thinner oil also required closer clearances, otherwise the oil pressure would never come up to spec and possibly oil starve the last item on the pressure food chain. (The 0-20W we drive is a flat opposed Subaru)

One area I do have significant experience is high use per day vs occasional use. The difference in longevity was at least 50% higher, maybe more. On newer vs older engines, my gut still tells me finer tolerances means less wear, which lasts longer. Sure, casting issues, heat management, and compression ratios are a factor, but NA V6 fuel injected iron block keeping apples to apples except year built, you still think the reliability hasn't dramatically increased?

 

[bdfreetuna]

I was thinking the ability to run thinner oil also required closer clearances, otherwise the oil pressure would never come up to spec and possibly oil starve the last item on the pressure food chain. (The 0-20W we drive is a flat opposed Subaru)

One area I do have significant experience is high use per day vs occasional use. The difference in longevity was at least 50% higher, maybe more. On newer vs older engines, my gut still tells me finer tolerances means less wear, which lasts longer. Sure, casting issues, heat management, and compression ratios are a factor, but NA V6 fuel injected iron block keeping apples to apples except year built, you still think the reliability hasn't dramatically increased?

I think reliability peaked in the 90s with Toyota & Honda engines in terms of "consumer gasoline vehicles". Honda learned a lesson with their 3.7L V6 put in Acuras (TL-SH AWD and MDX), it was a much higher output engine and wasn't redesigned properly to handle what turned into an excessive oil blow-by situation.

Anyway this is kind of a major side-track so pardon me for not responding to every point in order to see if we can wrap up the side-track... but if you're running a 2.5L Subaru EJ25 that's too thin. The turbo 255/257 can handle 5w-40 in the summer. 5w-30 Motul or Redline changed every 3k miles is what these engines need to go 200k+ ... The criticism with Subarus was that the tolerances in terms of compression, cylinder rings, and peripheral components dependent on quality oil were slightly under-spec'd. Although not in the old 2.2L SOHC which ran forever without oil changes, that engine wasn't intended to push any kind of power limits and it could handle knock/detonation all day long if you floored the pedal, it just wouldn't respond lol

If its a newer 2.4L or 2.0L direct injection my understanding is that it's a very similar design except with direct injection. So in that case you'll want to also get your valves walnut blasted every 50,000 miles if you want to avoid massive carbon buildup that will kill your engine early.

I've had 6 Subarus though, all different engines but similar in some ways. They ain't build like they used to be but if you change the oil religiously they last. On non-turbos you also want to replace headgaskets whenever is convenient from a maintenance perspective, save yourself some big trouble (been there done that).

Edit: on the high vs low use per day totally agree. If I'm doing short trips I try and use the Toyota. I try not and fire up the Subaru unless I know it's going to get fully warmed up and back. I don't mind taking it for long drives on the highway at all (actually it's a sweet ride for that and back roads).

 

[Orca]

Outside Magazine article published today:

The Battle Against Crowded Ski Hills
Who can we blame for all those lift lines and traffic jams?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Outside Magazine article published today:

It's refreshing to read an article which doesn't interview a bunch of EPIC & IKON resort CEOs, and thus correctly blames EPIC & IKON for much of the recent intense crowding.

Slight deduction for also blaming population growth, which, while true, didn't spontaneously happen in the last two years. Homo sapiens are not amoeba.

 

[abc]

Slight deduction for also blaming population growth, which, while true, didn't spontaneously happen in the last two years.

Won't you 'blame' Henry Ford for the traffic jam on our highways?

If he hadn't make cars affordable to the masses, we wouldn't have had so many of them on the road!

Yes, Epic/Ikon is "to blame" for the crowding. The demand had always been there. Pent up demands in a ballooning population. Epic/Ikon are the enablers.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Won't you 'blame' Henry Ford for the traffic jam on our highways?

If he hadn't make cars affordable to the masses, we wouldn't have had so many of them on the road!

Yes, Epic/Ikon is "to blame" for the crowding. The demand had always been there. Pent up demands in a ballooning population. Epic/Ikon are the enablers.

You have this entirely wrong.

There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.

We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years. So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.

 

[mister moose]

There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.

We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years. So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.

While I agree that EPIC & IKON do shift skiers to certain resorts, and do not create additional skiers, there should be a slight increase in skier visits. The EPIC & IKON passholders that wouldn't have previously bought a season pass, but do so for the trip out west gain the access to eastern resorts now. That skier views a few more days near home as "free" and will ski an extra few days off that pass that he otherwise wouldn't have.

In otherwords, the number of skiers that are passholders is increasing. They then tack on a few extra days. Extremely few buy a pass and then ski fewer days than before.
​

​

 

[abc]

You have this entirely wrong.

There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.

We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years. So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.

Who's having it entirely wrong?

Nationwide is one thing. The region that have the worst crowding also happens to be the region with the most population growth.

Further more, with better forecast and information, skiers are staying home during bad snow days. So they're more concentrated during good snow days. Do you see traffic back up on Stowe access roads when the mountain was a skating ring?

Some "business expert" viewpoint!

 

[drjeff]

While I agree that EPIC & IKON do shift skiers to certain resorts, and do not create additional skiers, there should be a slight increase in skier visits. The EPIC & IKON passholders that wouldn't have previously bought a season pass, but do so for the trip out west gain the access to eastern resorts now. That skier views a few more days near home as "free" and will ski an extra few days off that pass that he otherwise wouldn't have.

In otherwords, the number of skiers that are passholders is increasing. They then tack on a few extra days. Extremely few buy a pass and then ski fewer days than before.
​

​

Pure anecdotal observation here from my heavily skewed, mainly weekends, Mount Snow perspective....

To my eyes at least, it appears that my home hill has had an increase in the number of folks with passes, and no fall off in people with with lift tickets on their ski wear.

I realize this may not be the same across the rest of the region....

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

While I agree that EPIC & IKON do shift skiers to certain resorts, and do not create additional skiers, there should be a slight increase in skier visits.

Yes, but we agree there is not a material increase in either new skier demand or the masses now skiing as ABC stated. There may be a slight (and I do mean slight) increase in volume as we both noted, but that's about it.

Who's having it entirely wrong?

You. As the NSAA data clearly shows.

 

[bdfreetuna]

Pure anecdotal observation here from my heavily skewed, mainly weekends, Mount Snow perspective....

To my eyes at least, it appears that my home hill has had an increase in the number of folks with passes, and no fall off in people with with lift tickets on their ski wear.

Mount Snow got 3 visits from my cheap ass early season because they were doing tickets 1 or 2 days in advance for like $40-$45. It was a great way to start the season and they've outcompeted Killington on both snowmaking, top-to-bottom runs, and price for a few years in a row.

Even now (too lazy to open a new tab) I'm pretty sure their online sliding scale prices are within "acceptable" price range for someone who has no other option but do that. Personally if I end up going to Mount Snow again (unlikely but never know) it would be $69 which is the flat rate offered with Ride and Ski Card. A little rich for my blood (last year was $54, which was sweet), but again it's doable for a last minute decision.

And BTW if you buy advance ticket with a discount, you're still wearing a lift ticket on the hill.

 

[Scruffy]

You have this entirely wrong.

There is not increased "demand", there is a shifting of bodies to EPIC/IKON resorts.

We know this from looking at NSAA data over the last X many years, which shows skier visits are not appreciably higher. There was a slight spike in skiers last year, but that's 1 year, and frankly it wasn't that impressive when compared with other great snow years. So whatever "demand" is escalating from EPIC & IKON, it is quite trivial.

Correct, but at least since 1979, we can say the demand is been fairy consistent, not the doom and gloom "skiing is a dying sport. Last year was 4th highest in USA history-since 1979 anyway. Where ever I'm skiing I'm seeing plenty on young people, even midweek non holiday, so it's not all Baby Boomers.

China is going big into skiing so worldwide is another matter going forward.

http://www.nsaa.org/media/303945/visits.pdf

http://www.nsaa.org/media/367755/ski_areas_per_season_1819.pdf

Your best bet if you're against the mega passes is to frequent the indies. Keep them alive.
https://www.skimag.com/news/ski-independent-monarch-mountain
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/Focus-on-Ski-Mountain-Travel-Indy-slopes

Meanwhile, I'm off to use my IKON in WY.

 

[abc]

You. As the NSAA data clearly shows.

Clearly? About as clear as mud!

There's no day-to-day data. So you can't tell the effect except people are concentrating their visit on the good condition days, or mountains with better snow making due to climate change.

But if you want to believe it, be my guest. You're about as blind as the Vail/IKON CEO you rail against.

 

[bdfreetuna]

There's no day-to-day data. So you can't tell the effect except people are concentrating their visit on the good condition days, or mountains with better snow making due to climate change.

Just a couple easy going quesitons...

1) didn't we always do that?
2) if not (or if so), when do you think climate change really kicked in? late 90's, 2000's?
3) if you're concerned about CO2 and believe it's related to temps, do you support the plan to plant "one trillion trees" as a (I would say) common-sense and widely agreeable way to "sequester carbon" and generally improve the ecosystem?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/trump-pledges-to-help-plant-1-trillion-trees

 

[BenedictGomez]

So you can't tell the effect except people are concentrating their visit on the good condition days, or mountains with better snow making due to climate change.

Make up your mind.

Is it much larger increased skier demand from the "masses" now skiing (remember: Henry Ford & all that) from most glorious EPIC & IKON passes, or is it people only skiing when the conditions are great? Either way, both your arguments are flawed. The first is easily empirically proven wrong via NSAA data, and the second I think just silly. As if people didn't know what the weather was going to be like tomorrow in the ancient times of 2011.

And I'll charitably ignore the uber-silliness of blaming Global Warming. That's a doozy.

 

[Orca]

In otherwords, the number of skiers that are passholders is increasing. They then tack on a few extra days. Extremely few buy a pass and then ski fewer days than before.

All those pass holders are increasing revenue. But also increasing skier volume by skiing more days. The question becomes is the mountain capacity there? Indications are that some areas are showing stress: parking, long lift lines.