The "Sugarbush Thread"

[KustyTheKlown]

Any body been down tumbler? It's roped off at the bottom where the access road for the sb chair is . If one was to exit skiers left it's 70 yards or so of moderate uphill pitch. To the right its even more uphill all the way to sb lifeline. I ducked the rope and skied down in clear view of a patroller. I was nervous that we were going to have a " talk". Luckily said patroller didn't hassle me.

i skied tumbler saturday. it was kind of weirdly roped off at the bottom. i presume there's waterbars? the exit is a narrow path thru the woods skier's left but it wasn't at all obvious at first. i wouldn't say it was moderate uphill pitch tho, a few shuffle steps and a shimmy thru the trees to pop out onto the next trail skier's left.

 

[Powder Whore]

i skied tumbler saturday. it was kind of weirdly roped off at the bottom. i presume there's waterbars? the exit is a narrow path thru the woods skier's left but it wasn't at all obvious at first. i wouldn't say it was moderate uphill pitch tho, a few shuffle steps and a shimmy thru the trees to pop out onto the next trail skier's left.

I was talking about the access rd as an exit. I may have embellished a little to justify ducking the rope! Ether way its kind of odd, as you mentioned
there is no clear direction.

 

[Slidebrook87]

Any body been down tumbler? It's roped off at the bottom where the access road for the sb chair is . If one was to exit skiers left it's 70 yards or so of moderate uphill pitch. To the right its even more uphill all the way to sb lifeline. I ducked the rope and skied down in clear view of a patroller. I was nervous that we were going to have a " talk". Luckily said patroller didn't hassle me.

I skied Hammerhead. Really rocky.

 

[cdskier]

A video with Hammond was posted on SB's social media channels... Nothing particularly noteworthy other than the fact that apparently a lot of people have been e-mailing him complaining about "dangerous trails being open". WTF? Who are these people? SB is pretty well known for having a lenient trail opening policy. If you think a trail is too "dangerous" (due to thin cover, snowmaking whales, etc)...stay off it and go ski a different trail (there's plenty of groomed options). I guess people think those warning signs patrol puts up about "advanced skiers only" or "thin cover", etc are just for show? Hammond did tell those people politely in the video that their complaints aren't valid...

 

[KustyTheKlown]

i would hate to see sugarbush retreat from the 'throw up an experts only disc and let them have at it' terrain opening policy

safe assumption that these complaints are from new ikon customers who have never had a sugarbush season pass before?

 

[cdskier]

i would hate to see sugarbush retreat from the 'throw up an experts only disc and let them have at it' terrain opening policy

safe assumption that these complaints are from new ikon customers who have never had a sugarbush season pass before?

Definitely possible that's where they're from. Doubt they're longtime SB regulars. I don't think you'll see SB change their policy anytime soon. Hammond talked about SB believing in "personal responsibility" or something like that.

 

[shadyjay]

I think Hammond addressed it quite well in the video. If you don't like the way the trail looks, don't take it! Don't knock people who will. It's their choice. I used to look at those trails and be like "yeah, right" and move on.... way beyond my ability, but if someone wants to have at it, then go for it! I believed Sugarbush had/has some of the best skiers around, and they didn't get that good by just skiing the groomers. And that goes for the patrollers too... excellent skiers and riders! If Sugarbush patrol thinks a trail should be closed, then up goes the rope. And like I've said before... if the rope is up, it's up for a reason!

 

[ducky]

Ha ha

 

[ss20]

I understand what people are saying about SB's policy. It is very lenient which is great. I don't think this should change, but sometimes I've skied "thin cover" stuff that's awesome and other times I've skied "thin cover" stuff that just destroys skis, requires picking your way down, and wastes 15 minutes of the day.

Maybe there could be a way to differentiate different levels of coverage on the natural trails? If there's a green lollipop up top it's good/well-covered. Yellow lollipop means use extra caution/quite a few hazards/low snow pack. Red mean many hazards, rocks, walking may be necessary.

This would be simple and cheap to implement. And a great way to keep the trail policy but give people an adequate head's up.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

meh. if you proceed onto a black with an experts only - thin cover disc at the top, you deserve your fate whatever it may be.

 

[mikec142]

I love the sign at the base of the Castlerock lift.

"Please Note: The trails accessed by this lift are for EXPERTS ONLY! Every trail has moguls with thin cover! There is no easy way down! Did we mention rocks?!?! NO GROOMING!!

 

[ktrerotola]

Really liked the candor in Hammond's video - Sugarbush should probably consider using that same candor in the daily snow report, not unlike MRG does. Look I am ALL for opening the thin cover trails and allowing skiers to assume such risk - frankly, the groomers get boring and I welcome the challenge of the gnarly terrain (my skis may have a different opinion) - but putting myself in the shoes of someone unfamiliar with the mountain and its terrain, reading that SB "has the most open acreage in the East," could be misleading without REALLY disclosing the condition of many trails. If anything, I hope that Hammond's video is that start of Sugarbush sharing more honest snow reports, too. Honestly getting tired of the slander that is East Coast ski resort snow reports!

 

[cdskier]

I understand what people are saying about SB's policy. It is very lenient which is great. I don't think this should change, but sometimes I've skied "thin cover" stuff that's awesome and other times I've skied "thin cover" stuff that just destroys skis, requires picking your way down, and wastes 15 minutes of the day.

Maybe there could be a way to differentiate different levels of coverage on the natural trails? If there's a green lollipop up top it's good/well-covered. Yellow lollipop means use extra caution/quite a few hazards/low snow pack. Red mean many hazards, rocks, walking may be necessary.

This would be simple and cheap to implement. And a great way to keep the trail policy but give people an adequate head's up.

An open trail at Sugarbush marked as "thin cover" means it is skiable, but you may or may not encounter the items listed under your "yellow" and "red" definitions. Two of us can ski the same trail at the same time but take different lines and encounter substantially different conditions. I might know skier's right of a particular section of trail is usually thinner than skier's left while you might not know that. I'll say "that run was thin but great" based on the experience on my line while you'll say "that was thin and a challenge to navigate." Simply saying "thin cover" covers all the bases. When you start providing "Ratings" of the "thin cover", then you open yourself up to further problems (conditions changing throughout the day from one rating to another, one person's definition of yellow may be different than someone else's, etc). A rating system just over-complicates things and is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. People sometimes have a hard enough time grasping the concept that a black diamond at Sugarbush is not the same as a black diamond at some ski area in the Poconos. I can only imagine how much of a problem people would have with a color coded "coverage" rating system.

It comes down to you need to take personal accountability/responsibility and learn the area you are visiting/skiing and become familiar with how they rate trails and conditions. Don't just jump onto a trail without knowing anything about it. Worst case, ask someone else. You also need to use some common sense. We haven't exactly had a lot of natural snow yet this year. What do people expect to encounter on natural trails with so little snow having fallen?

 

[cdskier]

Really liked the candor in Hammond's video - Sugarbush should probably consider using that same candor in the daily snow report, not unlike MRG does. Look I am ALL for opening the thin cover trails and allowing skiers to assume such risk - frankly, the groomers get boring and I welcome the challenge of the gnarly terrain (my skis may have a different opinion) - but putting myself in the shoes of someone unfamiliar with the mountain and its terrain, reading that SB "has the most open acreage in the East," could be misleading without REALLY disclosing the condition of many trails. If anything, I hope that Hammond's video is that start of Sugarbush sharing more honest snow reports, too. Honestly getting tired of the slander that is East Coast ski resort snow reports!

I'm in favor of more of that same candor in the snow report. And it is something SB has certainly done plenty of times (i.e. they often say things like "Natural trails are thin and obstacles do exist. Take it slow until you know.")

But then again, I've come across a lot of people over the years that don't even bother to read the reports or look at a map. I've had questions on the lifts from people asking questions about what trails were groomed or what time a particular chairlift opens/closes or how you get to the Gatehouse lift, etc. (I always help people out when they ask, but it often is abundantly clear they didn't even look at the snow or trail report).

 

[jimmywilson69]

There is open, then there is Sugarbush open which is a joke amongst some people I have traveled to VT with in the past. I appreciate that they sign appropriately and give you a warning. That's enough.

 

[djd66]

Not disagreeing with anything you guys are saying - But - did any of you ski Sleeper 2 days after it opened? I have no idea what people are complaining about to Hammond, but the day I skied it was absolutely horrendous - complete bullet proof on the headwall. Yeah, they had a gate at the top advising people what they were getting into - but plenty of peeps still went. I made it down fine. But I was watching people go down it and it was scary to watch. I always think of the guy that died on that trail a few years back coming off the headwall - and certainly was thinking of him that day.

 

[ss20]

An open trail at Sugarbush marked as "thin cover" means it is skiable, but you may or may not encounter the items listed under your "yellow" and "red" definitions. Two of us can ski the same trail at the same time but take different lines and encounter substantially different conditions. I might know skier's right of a particular section of trail is usually thinner than skier's left while you might not know that. I'll say "that run was thin but great" based on the experience on my line while you'll say "that was thin and a challenge to navigate." Simply saying "thin cover" covers all the bases. When you start providing "Ratings" of the "thin cover", then you open yourself up to further problems (conditions changing throughout the day from one rating to another, one person's definition of yellow may be different than someone else's, etc). A rating system just over-complicates things and is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. People sometimes have a hard enough time grasping the concept that a black diamond at Sugarbush is not the same as a black diamond at some ski area in the Poconos. I can only imagine how much of a problem people would have with a color coded "coverage" rating system.

It comes down to you need to take personal accountability/responsibility and learn the area you are visiting/skiing and become familiar with how they rate trails and conditions. Don't just jump onto a trail without knowing anything about it. Worst case, ask someone else. You also need to use some common sense. We haven't exactly had a lot of natural snow yet this year. What do people expect to encounter on natural trails with so little snow having fallen?

I totally agree- it's certainly a judgement call on conditions and yes they change rapidly and it can vary depending on which side of the trail you're on. But it's quite similar to the trail difficulty rating system as you bring up, in that it's never going to be perfect and is always subjective. I certainly think my idea would help people out with deciding whether or not they want to ski that trail. Especially for someone like myself who's been to SB 10-15 times in my life- I certainly know my way around the the basic trouble spots, but I'm still hesitant to ski a trail with "thin cover" I'm not totally familiar with.

 

[njred]

i would hate to see sugarbush retreat from the 'throw up an experts only disc and let them have at it' terrain opening policy

safe assumption that these complaints are from new ikon customers who have never had a sugarbush season pass before?

I am one of those new ikon customers who never had a sugarbush season pass before. I skied at SB once last season for the first time ever before heading out to Tahoe for the winter. This season so far I've done 3 days at SB and I thought the terrain opening was totally reasonable and even a little bit conservative. Although I recommend they switch the warnings to a rating system based on a number of rock skis. One rock skis = expect some minor scratches. Two rock skis = expect deep gashes. Three rock skis = core shot time!

 

[HowieT2]

Not disagreeing with anything you guys are saying - But - did any of you ski Sleeper 2 days after it opened? I have no idea what people are complaining about to Hammond, but the day I skied it was absolutely horrendous - complete bullet proof on the headwall. Yeah, they had a gate at the top advising people what they were getting into - but plenty of peeps still went. I made it down fine. But I was watching people go down it and it was scary to watch. I always think of the guy that died on that trail a few years back coming off the headwall - and certainly was thinking of him that day.

funny. I skied sleeper one of those days. I should have known better because my son, who had skied it the day before, and is usually up for anything, refused to go. Anyway, I skied down the headwall and there were 2 patrollers trying to get a pole in the ground where sleeper road meets sleeper, so I stopped to tell them that the ice was really bad, like for real bad. That's when I fell on my ass (actually my side and my elbow). thankfull I can laugh about it now.

 

[Blurski]

I don't see any change required, the majority of the runs are somewhat visible from a chair or skiing an intersecting trail, if in doubt don't go pretty simple. Remember you can't fix stupid.

I skied multiple runs on Steins and The Mall this weekend snow was good, looking ahead and turn placement was key, I actually enjoyed it, much more technical skiing, a few minor rock hits but nothing of concern. Don't get me wrong, if you do not have the ability to place your turns precisely you could wreck a pair of skis in a heart beat.

I also ventured over to CR for a Middle Earth run, the Long Trail in my book was treacherous for both body & skis, I chose to boot pack the entire length to save both, again once skiing I had no issues linking turns and enjoyed the challenge it presented.

This type of skiing is great training in my book for skiing much more difficult terrain, just not for most I guess.

Everyone needs to analyze their own risk reward meter.