Strange Jay snow stats....

[gores95]

I know about the whole Jay Cloud thing and I agree they get by far the most snow in the Eastern US but they show 264" YTD on only a 24-48" base???? I would have thought the base would be MUCH higher than that. I know they get lots of wind but does this make sense?

Believe me no comparison between the two but Mountain Creek, NJ is showing a 24-36" base (probably ice) and we've had about 15" of snow YTD. Their snowmaking efforts far exceed Jay but still surprised the base depths are close.

What gives?

 

[thetrailboss]

I spoke with a local meteorologist who told me that the President of Jay explained how they measure the snow:

They take the amount they get at the base and multiply it by two. They say because the summit gets more.

I put that out there. Judge it for yourself.

 

[gores95]

I spoke with a local meteorologist who told me that the President of Jay explained how they measure the snow:

They take the amount they get at the base and multiply it by two. They say because the summit gets more.

I put that out there. Judge it for yourself.

Not disputing the YTD totals but just surprised the base totals aren't higher. I thought we had dense snow in the NE (good base building).

For kicks check out Kirkwood, CA totals:

Season Ttl: 233-305"
Base: 131-172"

Actually have about the same season total as Jay but the "Sierra Cement" builds a much bigger base.

Does anyone remember bases in the NE north of 100"? Does this EVER happen in epic winters???

 

[Goblin84]

100? ha, i cant even count that high

 

[kbroderick]

Two of the main reasons that you'll see differences like that:

a) thaws--remember that 1.5' in October? Or how about the New Year's powder storm? Now think about what happened, weather-wise, following those events.
b) snow settles over time and gets more compacted

With that said, I know that the base in the woods here is more than enough for everything to be skiable, so I'd expect it to be pretty nice there, as well. The difference between a 48" base and a 60" base is generally academic from a skiing conditions standpoint, unless you're waiting for an uber-gnarly line to fill in.

The Mountain Creek comparison really isn't fair, as I'd assume that most of the base snow at Mountain Creek is of the manufactured variety, while Jay's base probably includes quite a bit of natural snow.

 

[from_the_NEK]

I believe during the 2000-2001 winter Jay's base depths were in the 100" range (500+ inches of snow that year).
http://www.jaypeakresort.com/en/jay_peak/918/
The trail signs were buried and it was actually difficult to ski in the glades because your head was in the branches. Areas under the Jet Triple Chair were also roped off since the snow was so deep. Crazy year
I'm not sure how they measure the base depths at Jay but the VAST majority it natural snow. The lower end is probably on open trails that are regularly scoured by the wind. There are VERY likely places on the mtn with base depths far above the 48" that they are reporting.

 

[kcyanks1]

Some more info for comparison: Mansfield stake is at 89". http://www.uvm.edu/skivt-l/?Page=depths.php. Stowe has reported 244" of snow this year. Stowe's reported natural snow base is 50-64". I figure the lower elevation and the skier traffic as compared to the stake accounts for most of the difference.

The 89" is great and above average, but look at 1995-96 and 2000-01: http://tinyurl.com/29gbb7. If we want to be optimistic, in 1995-96 it was in the upper 80s in early March, and then it reached the mid-130s in mid-April!!!

 

[riverc0il]

i don't pay much (any, actually) attention to "base depth" stats. every resort does it differently and it is not generally reliable. there are essentially three base depth stats, imo: thin cover, well covered, and everything is open. regarding jay's base, this past sunday i was able to plunge my skiing pole down to the handle in the steeper trees and that doesn't even count the hardened base. i would consider 24-48 to be an accurate measurement for groomed and exposed slopes.

 

[kcyanks1]

i don't pay much (any, actually) attention to "base depth" stats. every resort does it differently and it is not generally reliable. there are essentially three base depth stats, imo: thin cover, well covered, and everything is open. regarding jay's base, this past sunday i was able to plunge my skiing pole down to the handle in the steeper trees and that doesn't even count the hardened base. i would consider 24-48 to be an accurate measurement for groomed and exposed slopes.

I would figure there is probably a lot of guessing going on, unless there is a stake somewhere measuring it, and then that would only measure some . I don't know how else they would do it without some inaccuracy. I doubt they are shoving rulers into the snow, and even if they are, hardened base could pose a problem. I would have to think, though, that the Mansfield stake gives an accurate and useful measurement. It isn't on a trail, but it could serve as a within-season and season-to-season comparison of snow depths.

Based on the stake being at 89", I'd think Stowe's 50-64" base might be more realistic than 24-48", at least for ungroomed, natural snow trails. Groomed natural snow trails could be lower, trails with manmade snow could be higher or the same when you have the grooming counteract the snowmaking. This is speculation of course. But when I was at Stowe a week and a half ago in the woods after coming off the Chin, I stuck my pole in all the way and my arm most of the way up to my elbow, and I don't think I was at the bottom.

 

[millerm277]

Does anyone remember bases in the NE north of 100"? Does this EVER happen in epic winters???

Hunter is currently reporting a base of up to 80 inches......

 

[kcyanks1]

Hunter is currently reporting a base of up to 80 inches......

Hunter makes a ton of snow. I suspect that base, if accurate, is due to manmade snow. But the Mansfield stake stats show that at least at the stake, there was a well over 100" depth in both 1996 and 2001. I only checked those years because we all know they were great snow years.

 

[snoseek]

Jay get's a ton of snow, but i think they overhype storm totals a lot. not nearly as bad as killington and some other resorts though.

 

[millerm277]

Jay get's a ton of snow, but i think they overhype storm totals a lot. not nearly as bad as killington and some other resorts though.

Killington has actually been pretty honest with their snow totals this year, their totals from the Valentine's Day storm were at least 6 inches too low.

 

[powderfreak]

The problem is basically from determining what type of snow the base number is from (natural or man-made). They are generally not very reliable but are also a staple of the ski report so you can't just get rid of it. Places should mark what the snow depth on man-made snow trails and snowmaking trails is except maybe in the more southern resorts where its easy to tell if its natural or man-made they are talking about.

Generally, I've found that 300" of snowfall with with few thaws, can produce a snowpack of 100". The Mansfield stake and Stowe snowfall seems in line because if you look at a lot of western resorts, those with near 100" of base are often in the 300" range. Factor in compaction and lower elevation, natural snow depths across northern Vermont are likely in the 4 to 5 foot range with some spots up to 7-8 feet with drifting. You know there are some natural snow spots that have less than a foot where winds hit it, and much much more where the winds leave that.

 

[kingdom-tele]

they have roped off sections under the jet now

still can't figure out why people get so worked up about snow reports, go ski, look for yourself

NEK - i remember that big snow year a buddy got hung up on the border rope in BP, it was a foot UNDER the snow

like all northern VT mtns, if you watch the transformation from october to march you realize how much snow there really is,
100-500, who cares

 

[JD]

How much snow is there. Almost enough.

 

[Birdman829]

Sugarbush reports 185" YTD and a 34-60" base. I do think that Jay truly does get more snow than everyone else but 80" more than the Bush? I doubt it. Jay claimed 60" on the Valentines storm when everyone else was saying 30-40". Puhlease.

 

[riverc0il]

Sugarbush reports 185" YTD and a 34-60" base. I do think that Jay truly does get more snow than everyone else but 80" more than the Bush? I doubt it. Jay claimed 60" on the Valentines storm when everyone else was saying 30-40". Puhlease.

I was at MRG recently and there is a HUGE difference between MRG and Jay. 80" more than the Bush? Without a doubt in my mind based on what I saw at MRG on 02/25/07. Jay really got that much and I am the first person to call BS. You don't believe it you should ski Jay right now, unreal base depth up there, everything is wide open.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Every measurement that has any connection or possible use for/by a resort's marketing/PR department is going to be all over the map and have no logical base.

It's just like statistics in general, they can be used to present whatever picture the company is interested to put out there. Part of the problem is with the unknowing skiing/riding public. Some do base their decisions on where to go based on these nebulous stats.

Whether it's a resort's vert, skiable acres, number of trails, total snowfall and base depth. How these numbers are presented is up to the resort. Years ago these obvious gaps in perceived truth really bugged me but now with the internet those resorts who continue to stretch the truth are going to end up getting bit in the butt. At least Ihope so.

Just the other day I heard Okemo continue to advertise on the radio "the first resort to open in the east". I think we all know this claim taken literally is not true. Woodbury was the first.

I would love to see a national standard as how stats are derived for base depth as to how resorts report these stat. They did it, after all, with the trail ratings. Until then most of the market can be swayed by the misuse of these stats. I don't let it bug me anymore but it clearly shows the foundational philosophy regarding how each resort reports their stats.

To try to be fair one must consider the fact that for the past 15 years the total number of skiers/riders have remained the same. About 13m. This has resulted in a sometimes intense battle between resorts for a slice of the market. When it comes to financial survival, truth in advertising, is sometimes one of the first things to fall by the wayside. Forums like snowjournal.com is one small way to keep things real.
For us the honest resorts truly stand out and maybe down the road this will make a diference. :smile:

 

[awf170]

I was at MRG recently and there is a HUGE difference between MRG and Jay. 80" more than the Bush? Without a doubt in my mind based on what I saw at MRG on 02/25/07. Jay really got that much and I am the first person to call BS. You don't believe it you should ski Jay right now, unreal base depth up there, everything is wide open.

Are you trying to tell me that Sugarbush is not the best mountain in the whole world? I don't believe it.