The 2006 AlpineZone Ski Area Challenge: SUGARBUSH Owner and Operator WIN SMITH!

[andyzee]

Sky521, you've been missing out on a really good mountain. Most definetly check it out when you get a chance.

Let's see...two "thanks"

1) Win, great responses. I'm a bit surprised my question made the cut...and I'm impressed you put such effort into your coverage of it.

2) Thanks AZ for listing my question.

Now it looks like I "have" to go to SB. *any excuse is good I guess*

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Win Smith's answers where great. He took the time to go into detail, right to the point and no BS. I'm very impressed.

What is Win short for anyways?

 

[noski]

He's not short at all. Fairly tall actually. (Winthrop)

 

[JimG.]

Win is about to become my favorite ski area exec. I've loved Sugarbush for years, but the vibe there the past few years has been outstanding. And the skiing is some of the best anywhere.

My buddy Alan was up there last weekend. He planned to ski K, but I told him SB would be a better choice. He stayed at K, but woke up on Saturday morning and took one look and decided to give my idea a chance. He wound up skiing at SB both Sat and Sun. Met Win and told me that he's just the greatest guy. Loved the mountain and the people. Told me if he had known, he would have driven the extra hour more frequently. He will be back next season.

The folks at SB know how to do it right. The industry needs more folks like them.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Fantastic, detailed, on-point responses from Win. And VERY interesting news that they still view the terrain pod above Inverness as a possibility.

And there's no doubt that Win is a cultured man - "Sleeping in the same bed dreaming different dreams" is an old Chinese proverb I believe.

 

[noski]

Fantastic, detailed, on-point responses from Win. And VERY interesting news that they still view the terrain pod above Inverness as a possibility.

And there's no doubt that Win is a cultured man - "Sleeping in the same bed dreaming different dreams" is an old Chinese proverb I believe.

Actually, that line made me think of a float Sugarbush and MRG did one year in the Warren Parade. A truck with a brass bed on the back of it had reps from both ski areas in their jammies and stocking caps in it. I think it was the first year we had the Ski The Valley ticket.... People got a kick out of it.

 

[kcyanks1]

Glad to see a commitment to preserve the natural terrain at the bush, and keep snowmaking where it is practical. I am also glad to hear that there is interest in the terrain above the Inverness and that that may someday be realized.

I was very glad to hear that as well. I think putting a little snow at the way bottom of Castlerock--that tiny last pitch of Liftline at the highest--and the trails to and from the lift would be good, and I'm glad Win seems receptive to that and that they almost did it this year. Then I'm even happier that they have no plans to add snowmaking to much of the expert terrain that currently lacks it.

I also like the fact that they seem to desire to open up more woods skiing going forward, with an eye toward developing in a way that keeps the woods good for the future.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I was very glad to hear that as well. I think putting a little snow at the way bottom of Castlerock--that tiny last pitch of Liftline at the highest--and the trails to and from the lift would be good, and I'm glad Win seems receptive to that and that they almost did it this year. Then I'm even happier that they have no plans to add snowmaking to much of the expert terrain that currently lacks it.

I also like the fact that they seem to desire to open up more woods skiing going forward, with an eye toward developing in a way that keeps the woods good for the future.

My read of Win's response on this was that they didn't really envision doing much on that lowest section of Liftline. Rather, they would extend the hoses to adequately cover the Casltrock Run-in and maybe the area directly around the base of the lift. It would take a ridiculous amount of manpower to snowfarm for that entire last section though.

My only disappointment was that my question on Allyn's Lodge didn't get included in the discussion. I really thought they dropped the ball there this year. I wonder if any other SB regulars agree.

 

[Marc]

Does Sugarbush or any other resorts ever consider giving discounts to military or those in public service? I think that would be more beneficial than discounted student tickets.

 

[kcyanks1]

My read of Win's response on this was that they didn't really envision doing much on that lowest section of Liftline. Rather, they would extend the hoses to adequately cover the Casltrock Run-in and maybe the area directly around the base of the lift. It would take a ridiculous amount of manpower to snowfarm for that entire last section though.

My only disappointment was that my question on Allyn's Lodge didn't get included in the discussion. I really thought they dropped the ball there this year. I wonder if any other SB regulars agree.

Even if they don't put snow on lower Liftline, I'm plenty happy with his reply. We all deal with it as is already. I know Win didn't expressly say they'd do it, but going from memory now I thought that the question implied the possibility, and Win did seem to indicate (here and maybe in a prior post not in the AZ Challenge) that not pulling over a nearby snowgun and doing snowfarming was a backup plan.

I agree with you Allyn's Lodge could get a lot nicer. I know in the 2005 AZ Challenege you asked about Allyn's and were told about the Waffle Haus, but then that replaced what they had I think rather than being an addition. While they still could improve the options, I think that Allyn's will probably need to remain somewhat limited as they do not even have rela plumbing there.

 

[Newpylong]

I don't chime in here much but having gone to school in the valley for 4 years and having experienced both ASC and post-ASC 'Bush I find this topic very interesting.

First, didn't the ASC replace the Castlerock lift before they sold to Summit Ventures?

Secondly, I couldn't be any happier that they do not plan on putting in more high speed lifts. I think installing one at the Valley House or Heaven's Gate would be a big mistake, there simply would be no place for the people.

I don't know why you would think the Slidebrook would be removed or is getting old... there still are HSQ's from the 80's operating everywhere... and I think the SBX is integral to the modern Sugarbush.

Lastly, it drove us mad when they removed the GMX... thank god it came back.

 

[thetrailboss]

I don't chime in here much but having gone to school in the valley for 4 years and having experienced both ASC and post-ASC 'Bush I find this topic very interesting.

First, didn't the ASC replace the Castlerock lift before they sold to Summit Ventures?[

Secondly, I couldn't be any happier that they do not plan on putting in more high speed lifts. I think installing one at the Valley House or Heaven's Gate would be a big mistake, there simply would be no place for the people.

I don't know why you would think the Slidebrook would be removed or is getting old... there still are HSQ's from the 80's operating everywhere... and I think the SBX is integral to the modern Sugarbush.

Lastly, it drove us mad when they removed the GMX... thank god it came back.

Castlerock Double: yes, ASC had to replace it in the Summer of 2001 because the state failed it. They used new towers and judging from pics it appears that they reused a Poma Alpha Base.

SBX: As said, they are waiting to get more folks.

GMX: You got it. Awesome to have it back :wink:

 

[Greg]

Some fantastic responses....straight from the top. I'd really be interested to see what, if anything, materialized out of questions 5. The historical response to question 8 was very interesting. Glad to hear Castlerock will be preserved as well as no additional high speed lifts in the near future. I kind of like the clunky VH double. But a FGT or FGQ is a reasonable replacement - More audience for The Mall!

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Some fantastic responses....straight from the top. I'd really be interested to see what, if anything, materialized out of questions 5. The historical response to question 8 was very interesting. Glad to hear Castlerock will be preserved as well as no additional high speed lifts in the near future. I kind of like the clunky VH double. But a FGT or FGQ is a reasonable replacement - More audience for The Mall!

I think a FGQ would be a really, really bad idea. Sure, Win dismissed the notion of a high speed lift for VH as contained in the early artist's renderings. But if they are considering a FGQ as a replacement, then he didn't really address the reason for opposition to a HSQ - too much capacity!

In the end, I hope that Win and SB mgmt will stay true to their borader commitment of having the right balance of uphill capacity and skiable terrain. I could see a FGT working, assuming that the top terminal area is re-worked somewhat, with a bit more room to roam as you come around the corner of VH traverse. That area is always danerous and gets scraped off. However, if they build it such that skiers are able to exit to the left and go directly on to Upper Snowball (where 90% of traffic from that lift and VH Traverse goes anyway), then that would serve to alleviate the overcrowding at that intersection. However, if they were to double capacity by putting in a FGQ, this would, IMHO, overcrowd that area no matter what traffic mitigation measures are implemented. there simply isn't enough terrain to handle all of the people that a FGQ and spillover from the VH traverse can deliver. Realistically, how many people are going to be going down Mall and Stein's at any one time? Twist and Moonshine, while fantastic trails, are rarely corwded, and are only open 50% of the tim ein low snow years. I'd be willing to bet that the bast majority of traffic heads to Snowball and Spring fling/Racer's Edge, two trails that are already too crowded as it is considering the ever-present racing gates set up.

 

[Lostone]

From Win's post:

We will put in a new lift in a couple of years that will start down closer to the base area. However, it will either be a fixed grip triple or quad. One of the real beauties of Sugarbush is that we do not over populate the trails on even the busiest weekends. If we had all high speed quads or six packs, we would get people up the Hill a few minutes faster, but we would create a far less pleasant experience on the Mountain.

Sounds like he is taking into consideration the possibility of too many people on the trails. And thatis good. 8)

 

[Tin Woodsman]

From Win's post:



Sounds like he is taking into consideration the possibility of too many people on the trails. And thatis good. 8)

Agreed, which is why I'm a little confused. Contrary to popular perception (and I'm sure Win is aware of this) the uphill capacity of fixed grip lifts and high speed lifts is identical, assuming a standard distribution of chairs on the line. That's why I'm perplexed as to why a FGQ would even be under consideration given Win's stated commitment to match lift capacity to trail carrying capacity.

 

[kcyanks1]

Agreed, which is why I'm a little confused. Contrary to popular perception (and I'm sure Win is aware of this) the uphill capacity of fixed grip lifts and high speed lifts is identical, assuming a standard distribution of chairs on the line.

I never knew that. Is it necessary that the chairs on a high-speed lift are spaced out more than a fixed-grap? I guess they can always do a fixed grip quad with super-spaced out chairs, but at that point they might as well go with a double.

 

[win]

A couple of added comments. Allyn's Lodge was a terrible disappointment. I give myself a D-- on it. We used two outside vendors and in hindsight that was a mistake which we will not make next year. Because we do not have running water there we are limited as to what we can legally serve. However, it will be better next year.

Castlerock was in the planning by ASC, but in our negotiation with them, we committed to it and paid for it.

The VH replacement comments was what Tin Woodsman clarified. I would not like to put too much traffic on that part of the Hill. HSQs move people faster and therefore put more people up top and do not allow for as much slope distribution. That is why I feel a fixed grip quad or triple would be better for us than a HSQ (or Heaven forbid a six pack.) I have to do more homework before deciding between a triple and quad. It is also good to have some insurance in case we have a problem with Bravo or a windhold. The current VH used to exit to the left but that was stopped by the tram authority as not being safe. The current narrowness at the exit of the VH lift is not at all desirable, but we are currently unable to change it. We hope that in working with the USFS that we can have a much better exit ramp with a new lift.

We do have active military tickets. We were also really flattered that the Vermont National Guard honored us with a citation for our support of an employee who was called to duty in Iraq and then in New Orleans.

I spent 10 years travelling to China, so I appreciate their culture and sayings. Readers probably know that the Chinese character for crisis is the same at that for opportunity. It is also fitting for the ski and ride business.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I never knew that. Is it necessary that the chairs on a high-speed lift are spaced out more than a fixed-grap? I guess they can always do a fixed grip quad with super-spaced out chairs, but at that point they might as well go with a double.

They have to be more spaced out on a HSQ b/c they all end up bunching together at the top and bottom terminals when they move over to the slower haul rope. You wouldn't have time to slide in between the apraching chairs if they were as close as a normal FGQ.

So you run at 2x the speed but with 0.5x the chairs. The math is pretty simply from that. This all assumes, of course, a standard distribution of chairs on the lifts in question. Resorts can and do use fewer chairs than max capacity in certain situations. I would agree that unless you think a particular terrain pod is going to be seeing more traffic in the future (additional trails off the same lift, for example), it wouldn't make sense to incur the expense of a quad (even a fixed grip one) if you can accomplish the same capacity goals with a triple.

There's no doubt in my uninformed mind that a triple is the least bad alternative for replacement of VH given the terrain available and summit terminal crowding issues. I'd prefer they just keep the double with the erector set towers and simply extend it down the hill. But that's just me.

 

[Greg]

Perhaps an FGQ would be okay if they don't extend it further down the hill. The spot where the VH double loads is sort of removed from the base so it would only service folks skiing that section of the hill. Nobody is going to hike up from the base to load it so it may keep use down a bit. Not sure that is worth it or meets the goal here, but it might serve to keep overcrowding down a bit. Consider this: would a FGQ which loads at the current station see more, less, or roughly the same use as a triple that loads down at the base-proper?