The "Sugarbush Thread"

[sugarbushskier9]

Grooming when snow is that warm and wet is generally speaking not a great idea. Traditionally when weather like this happens when SB has more open they will groom a couple beginner routes and leave it at that. With what is open right now they probably figure since they are targeting advanced skiers only, they can help preserve the snow as much as possible by not grooming at all. Stowe on the other hand is advertising that they have skiing available for all ability levels, so most likely to avoid discouraging or disappointing the beginners and intermediates opted to do grooming.

I should've read your post before multi-posting. What you said are my thoughts as well. Stowe needs to have at least one decent surface to get intermediates down the mountain where as Sugarbush can just say, hey we told you it was experts only. Save some labor and fuel dollars as well.

 

[cdskier]

I had several times last year Sugarbush didn't groom to "preserve snow" only to have horrific snow conditions in the morning because it wasn't as warm as they expected or the rain washed it down to rutted and cupped hardpack. I believe they delayed openings a couple times to get the cats up and do some grooming in those cases.

Its a crapshoot...proobably damned if you do and damned if you don't.

It is a tough call and I remember days like that as well where I said "wtf were they thinking not grooming last night." The biggest challenge is they have to make the decision early so they know whether to tell the groomers to come to work or not. If the forecast doesn't match reality, you can certainly get unexpectedly solid conditions. Generally speaking I'm in favor of not grooming when it is warm and/or wet. Let the snow drain out before running a heavy piece of machinery over it that will compact it and turn it into ice that you'll never recover from once it re-freezes. If you let it drain first and re-freeze by itself before grooming, then you get a much better surface in the future.

 

[skiMEbike]

Also I will say, for all the complaints about Stowe's ritzy vibe...when you pull into the Mansfield lot there's nothing but an old base lodge from the 1950s and the base of several lifts. I parked my car next to the snow surface, walked up a hill and was at the base of the lift within 15-20 seconds. I really like how they've compartmentalized the base development across the road and left Mansfield alone...feels almost like Mount Ellen in that sense when you pull into the lot.

And not having to download and riding one high-speed lift to their advertised 2000 vertical feet with multiple routes down...it was fairly impressive, not going to lie.

Love Stowe!! Don't get to go there that often, but couldn't agree more on the above two points....Even though they appear to cater/target the "ritz", it never feels that way on the hill. The Fourrunner Quad IMO is one of the best in New England. One of my best 3 days of skiing in New England was at Stowe in 2009 after 40 inches of snow, MidWeek, everything WFO!!!....Ahhhhhh

 

[hovercraft]

Also I will say, for all the complaints about Stowe's ritzy vibe...when you pull into the Mansfield lot there's nothing but an old base lodge from the 1950s and the base of several lifts. I parked my car next to the snow surface, walked up a hill and was at the base of the lift within 15-20 seconds. I really like how they've compartmentalized the base development across the road and left Mansfield alone...feels almost like Mount Ellen in that sense when you pull into the lot.

And not having to download and riding one high-speed lift to their advertised 2000 vertical feet with multiple routes down...it was fairly impressive, not going to lie. There gondola trail they made snow on looked very good too. Wonder if they open that this weekend or not. This should be an interesting winter for me to see where I gravitate to more given the mood I'm in at the time. Iv'e never held 2 seasons psses before.

Hopefully if both mountains keep this $500 young 30s pass going I'll be able to do my pre-season skiing at Stowe where they seem to get stuff going quicker, and then do my late season skiing at Sugarbush.

I had passes to both mountains last year. I went to Sugarbush for two days when they first opened and didn't go back until Stowe closed. When there isn't natural snow there really isn't any comparison. When there is snow both mountains are fun. With saying that there is just something magical to me about getting on that high speed quad and in 6 minutes or less you are at the top of the mountain with lots of options on how you are going to ride your way down. Also the Gondola is no slouch of a lift either. Stowe does not feel ritzy to me. The Mansfield side has an old school feel and when you want to feel like you are out west you're an over easy ride to the spruce side which has some excellent natural snow trails besides the beginner trails. Overall, it's really a fun diverse mountain that is well kept when it comes to the riders experience. It will be interesting to see where you gravitate to.

 

[hovercraft]

I had several times last year Sugarbush didn't groom to "preserve snow" only to have horrific snow conditions in the morning because it wasn't as warm as they expected or the rain washed it down to rutted and cupped hardpack. I believe they delayed openings a couple times to get the cats up and do some grooming in those cases.

Its a crapshoot...proobably damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That was the experience as well. There were a few times I went in the morning to ride with some friends who have passes there and the trails were a mess. I left sugarbush went over to Stowe and it was a completely different experience. I know it's a crapshoot but if you are going to error I think it should be in the favor of grooming.

 

[nhskier1969]

I personally like Sugarbush better than Stowe. Ya I complain at the beginning of each year with their sluggish start for a major resort. But once they get going it's the best mountain in New England. With everyone comparing Sugarbush to Stowe, its just a different Clientele. For the Glitz and Glamour go to Stowe. For more of a laid back approach with go to the Mad River Valley.
I like the trail layout much better at Sugarbush. Where most New England resorts are laid out in horizontal pods, Sugarbush is laid out vertical Pods. More like a ski area out west would be set up. Castlerock vs. the Front four at Sugarbush, I think most people would go with Castlerock. Length of season, Sugarbush is normally one of the last to stay open in the east. Back country skiing, Stowe/Smuggs probably have everyone beat in the east, but I wouldn't discount Slide brook.

 

[slatham]

I think Hovercraft's main point was when there isn't natural snow Stowe is the better option. In this case many of the true and unique assets of Sugarbush - Paradise, Spills, Moonshine, Twist, Black Diamond, Hammerhead, Tumbler, Bravo and of course the entirety of CastleRock (not to mention the Slide Brook Quad) - are not options and thus make Stowe a pretty easy choice. Just like, IMHO, when there is ample natural, the opposite is true. So let it snow....

 

[cdskier]

I think Hovercraft's main point was when there isn't natural snow Stowe is the better option. In this case many of the true and unique assets of Sugarbush - Paradise, Spills, Moonshine, Twist, Black Diamond, Hammerhead, Tumbler, Bravo and of course the entirety of CastleRock (not to mention the Slide Brook Quad) - are not options and thus make Stowe a pretty easy choice. Just like, IMHO, when there is ample natural, the opposite is true. So let it snow....

I guess it depends what you want to ski. Without natural snow, many of Stowe's best trails wouldn't be open either. Sure Stowe has more of their trails covered with snow-making and can expand quicker and get more terrain open without natural, but that still doesn't help their best terrain... Even with last year's lack of snow I still managed to ski a good number of the natural trails at SB that you mentioned.

Hopefully we get plenty of natural snow this year so we don't need to continue to have these discussions

 

[thetrailboss]

The "Sugarbush Thread"

About ten years ago or so, Stowe and Sugarbush were pretty comparable. But now Stowe is WAY ahead in terms of the skiing product and have really set themselves apart. Pains me to say that, in terms of ski product, Sugarbush has remained relatively static. Win has done a good job, but I think they are just limited in terms of money in comparison.

Then again Stowe's pass price has gone up a lot while Sugarbush, at last check, had not gone up that much relatively speaking. The last season I was there it was $1,149 I think for a full pass at SB.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

 

[nhskier1969]

About ten years ago or so, Stowe and Sugarbush were pretty comparable. But now Stowe is WAY ahead in terms of the skiing product and have really set themselves apart. Pains me to say that, in terms of ski product, Sugarbush has remained relatively static. Win has done a good job, but I think they are just limited in terms of money in comparison.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

I would agree that Stowe has set themselves apart from Sugarbush, but I wouldn't say it's better or worse. It just depends what you are looking for in a ski resort. The village at Stowe is incredible, very trendy. Sugarbush has a more laid back feel. again it's what you are looking for. I think Sugarbush is better in the sense that the lift system really spreads the people across the mountain. Stowe everything is funneled back to the bottom. Stowe the powder gets skied out inbounds the day of the storm. You could go a couple days after a storm and still ski some powder at Ellen(i.e. lower FIS).
I think another place that sets Sugarbush apart from Stowe is Sugarbush is more family friendly. The value for a family with the terrain that they offer is why I'm sold of Sugarbush.

 

[thetrailboss]

I would agree that Stowe has set themselves apart from Sugarbush, but I wouldn't say it's better or worse. It just depends what you are looking for in a ski resort. The village at Stowe is incredible, very trendy. Sugarbush has a more laid back feel. again it's what you are looking for. I think Sugarbush is better in the sense that the lift system really spreads the people across the mountain. Stowe everything is funneled back to the bottom. Stowe the powder gets skied out inbounds the day of the storm. You could go a couple days after a storm and still ski some powder at Ellen(i.e. lower FIS).
I think another place that sets Sugarbush apart from Stowe is Sugarbush is more family friendly. The value for a family with the terrain that they offer is why I'm sold of Sugarbush.

True....assuming that they have the terrain open.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

 

[thetrailboss]

And, again, I am a Sugarbush North homer. It is a great mountain with good terrain and lift layout. Never a crowd. But I will admit that I have been pretty damn impressed with my ski days at Stowe...and it has been a while.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

 

[bdfreetuna]

IMO Sugarbush should lose the pretense of even trying to compete on a top ritzy level and go au-naturale with minimal snowmaking (which I would argue is more or less what they do anyway), and lower ticket prices a bit.

They already have a policy of opening trails with thin cover and keeping them open late into the season. This along with the "ski woods whenever you want" are their best policies and should define their ski experience.

It is a gnarly mountain terrain-wise and they usually get blessed with natural snow, but when it comes to being top-tier in other aspects, perhaps they should secede that territory to others.

I go there for the terrain, plain and simple, and too often lately I've been unable to ski it or have gotten fewer runs in than is worse the drive due to their weak attempts at infrastructure. Why not just lower their ticket price and be honest.


Mt Ellen is a different story btw I have zero complaints there.

 

[cdskier]

About ten years ago or so, Stowe and Sugarbush were pretty comparable. But now Stowe is WAY ahead in terms of the skiing product and have really set themselves apart. Pains me to say that, in terms of ski product, Sugarbush has remained relatively static. Win has done a good job, but I think they are just limited in terms of money in comparison.

Then again Stowe's pass price has gone up a lot while Sugarbush, at last check, had not gone up that much relatively speaking. The last season I was there it was $1,149 I think for a full pass at SB.

If you buy a full pass at the early rate, it was $1149 this year. And yes, they certainly have less money than Stowe. Sugarbush has a handful of private individuals that financed it. Stowe has a giant corporation behind them. Granted I'm sure they aren't given carte blanche to spend whatever they want either.

I would agree that Stowe has set themselves apart from Sugarbush, but I wouldn't say it's better or worse. It just depends what you are looking for in a ski resort. The village at Stowe is incredible, very trendy. Sugarbush has a more laid back feel. again it's what you are looking for. I think Sugarbush is better in the sense that the lift system really spreads the people across the mountain. Stowe everything is funneled back to the bottom. Stowe the powder gets skied out inbounds the day of the storm. You could go a couple days after a storm and still ski some powder at Ellen(i.e. lower FIS).
I think another place that sets Sugarbush apart from Stowe is Sugarbush is more family friendly. The value for a family with the terrain that they offer is why I'm sold of Sugarbush.

In the past I've been blasted for saying I liked Sugarbush's lift system with more of a "pod" setup than Stowe's T2B every run setup. I completely agree with you though. I like having the option of whether to go back to the bottom or not.

IMO Sugarbush should lose the pretense of even trying to compete on a top ritzy level and go au-naturale with minimal snowmaking (which I would argue is more or less what they do anyway), and lower ticket prices a bit.

Yup, Sugarbush used over 235 million gallons of water last year for snowmaking. Sure sounds pretty minimal to me. I'd also argue that they aren't trying to compete on a "top ritzy level". I think they do a good job of marketing themselves as a "true skier's mountain with great terrain" for lack of a better way to put it.

They already have a policy of opening trails with thin cover and keeping them open late into the season. This along with the "ski woods whenever you want" are their best policies and should define their ski experience.

It is a gnarly mountain terrain-wise and they usually get blessed with natural snow, but when it comes to being top-tier in other aspects, perhaps they should secede that territory to others.

I go there for the terrain, plain and simple, and too often lately I've been unable to ski it or have gotten fewer runs in than is worse the drive due to their weak attempts at infrastructure. Why not just lower their ticket price and be honest.

I had about 30 days in at SB last year and with the exception of December or days with bad weather really didn't have any problems getting in the vertical that I wanted to. Not sure what type of infrastructure issues you experienced, but based on my experience they are the exception rather than the rule.

The 2 years prior to that I had about 40 days each at SB and again see very few days where I had low vertical totals.

 

[deadheadskier]

Why not just lower their ticket price and be honest.

Just a guess, but I would assume it's because they feel they have the product priced at a level that's most profitable for them.

Let's be honest. They've got 5 high speed quads. They have to operate 9 lifts, two base areas and provide ski patrol and staffing to operate all that at minimum when fully operational. It takes a lot of revenue to do all that. You could reduce snowmaking and save some operating costs, but the price could never be workable dropping to say a Jay/Smuggs level. The decision to do that would be based on increasing volume considerably. That would result in all of that terrain skiing with less snowmaking having much poorer conditions, which ultimately would drive those volume gains away.

 

[Newpylong]

There isn't a place I rather be in the East than back up in Waitsfield skiing the Bush every day. For all the faults yoi folks seem to be finding it is a special place and hard to beat.

 

[sugarbushskier9]

One thing Stowe doesn't have is Castlerock and other narrower, windy classic trails. I love higher intermediate to expert natural snow terrain like Moonshine/Twist/Mall and Castlerock, Paradise, etc. Stowe's front four is incredible but they do have less in the way of winding natural snow trails.

 

[sugarbushskier9]

There isn't a place I rather be in the East than back up in Waitsfield skiing the Bush every day. For all the faults yoi folks seem to be finding it is a special place and hard to beat.

The MRV community and vibe is definitely it's largest selling point from a brand standpoint.

You have to understand this is the Internet and most of us are people with too much time on our hands that love to talk "shop"...the good and the bad.

 

[SIKSKIER]

The temps were barely above freezing yesterday.Stowe isn't a lot different than most areas when it comes to grooming wet snow.Today:"Due to the mild overnight weather we limited grooming to only the Lord to North Slope route off of the FourRunner Quad. All other open terrain will be ungroomed today"

 

[cdskier]

There isn't a place I rather be in the East than back up in Waitsfield skiing the Bush every day. For all the faults yoi folks seem to be finding it is a special place and hard to beat.

Yes. +1. Never mind the fact that some of the people finding faults don't even ski the Bush that often (or at all anymore).

One thing Stowe doesn't have is Castlerock and other narrower, windy classic trails. I love higher intermediate to expert natural snow terrain like Moonshine/Twist/Mall and Castlerock, Paradise, etc. Stowe's front four is incredible but they do have less in the way of winding natural snow trails.

And this +1 as well. And in a year with a lack of natural snow, only half of Stowe's front four are really in play. So the arguments that some are making of "well most of SB's good trails aren't open without natural snow" are again kind of pointless as many of Stowe's best trails face the same challenges.

Bottom line in my view is that arguing about who is better when you don't have natural snow is like arguing whether it is more fun to watch grass grow or paint dry.