Vail Claims Most Runs In The World.

[ozskier]

VAIL CLAIMS MOST TRAILS IN WORLD
September 27, 2005, From World Snow News--In a new brochure, Vail Ski Area in Colorado is claiming that it contains more pisted runs than any other ski area in the world. It is currently unclear whether the claim refers to the length of piste, the area of piste or possibly to the amount of terrain groomed each night.

Whistler Blackcomb in Canada has a larger ski area and dozens of European ski regions appear to have more ski pistes than Vail, but comparison is difficult as Europe's areas measure ski runs by their length, North American by area.

Vail Resort is entering "phase two of its grooming initiative" which means it will manicure thirty percent more terrain each night. It is adding nine new grooming machines for this winter in order to achieve this ambitious target. On average the resort will groom 1,300 to 1,600 acres oper night--a larger area than most U.S. ski resorts offer in total.

On a side note, to meet these grooming requirements, Vail will groom at 55mph.

 

[ctenidae]

I'd say acreage, since, well, because it's the least prone to fudging, maybe. I love it when resorts chop one trail into 5 different names. Padding the balance sheet, an American tradition. Miles of trails tells you absolutely nothing, and converting to hectares gives me a headache.

 

[JimG.]

I voted "Who gives a &$#!"; most of the really good stuff isn't on the trail map anyway.

 

[ozskier]

You'd be amazed how anal some places are about trail count. The average day tripper pays heavy attention to silly things like the number of open trails.

Some resorts need to chop trails into many subsections simply because the degree of difficulty changes.

Acerage is still the best bet.

Jim, you're right on the money with that statement.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I think acreage is lousy. It enables places like Mt. Snow with many wide trails to fool us into believing they ski bigger than they do. Seriously - how many different ways can you go down Snowdance before getting extremely bored? When you're talking about an area that isn't all about sub-alpine runs (Alta and Snowbird come to mind), or has a boundary-to-boundary policy that is relevant (Sugarloaf and Smuggs come to mind) then I suppose acreage is more relevant. After all, when you're going through the trees, every run is pretty unique. But for places in southern New England or even Southern VT that don't really get enough snow for good, consistent glade skiing, then it's entirely misleading, IMHO.

 

[JimG.]

I think acreage is lousy. It enables places like Mt. Snow with many wide trails to fool us into believing they ski bigger than they do. Seriously - how many different ways can you go down Snowdance before getting extremely bored? When you're talking about an area that isn't all about sub-alpine runs (Alta and Snowbird come to mind), or has a boundary-to-boundary policy that is relevant (Sugarloaf and Smuggs come to mind) then I suppose acreage is more relevant. After all, when you're going through the trees, every run is pretty unique. But for places in southern New England or even Southern VT that don't really get enough snow for good, consistent glade skiing, then it's entirely misleading, IMHO.

This is a great analysis...A-basin out west and MRG in the east are other examples of areas that have policies that make acreage a relevant measure. Otherwise, I just don't pay much attention to these things.

 

[Sky]

hmmmm...trail count is a consideration...but on an "order of magnitude" scale vs exact count. EX: Crothed and Wachusett offer a trail-count in the upper teens. Whereas Sunapee @ 65, or Ragged @ 50 or Okemo @ 113 and Sunday River @ 93.

As far as being the "biggest"...it may matter for the brochure, but does it matter to you and me? I have no plans to go to Vail. I wouldn't go if they had more trail count or more acreage. Same (almost) with Europe.

If I were headed out west, it would be with consideration towards who I was going with and how much it will cost. Way down on the list would be Which one has more trails or more acreage.

Look at the options we have here in New England. What make you choose between Sugarloaf and Sugar Bush? Cannon or Wildcat? Wachusett or Crotched? Okemo or K-Mart?

 

[ozskier]

Cough, cough, 128 at SR.

If places like Sunday River went boundary to boundary you'd be talking a resort somewhere in the 3,500 acre ranage just for what is currently developed. That is rediculous. This isn't the west, just because you have a boundary to boundary policy doesn't mena you can ski every single acre that is owned by the resort. I still think places need to go by the amount of opened and patrolled terrain. You can state that you have a boundary policy and that you're more than welcome to ski that terrain, just do so at your own risk knowing that patrol isn't going to do an end of day sweep.

Many resorts publish open acres, I know Sunday River does. When you fill out the excel spreadsheet for snow-reporting it auto calculates the acerage when you open/close trails. Hell, the backend page for the website asks you a million questions...

Number of Trails Open:
Number of Trails Open This Weekend:
Primary Surface:
Secondary Surface:
Number of Lifts Open:
Number of Lifts Open This Weekend:
New Snow In the Past 24 hrs.:
New Snow In the Past xx days:
Number of Days For Above Entry:
Grooming:
Snowmaking:
Miles of Skiing:
Acres of Skiing:
Average Base Depth:
Summit Depth:

 

[GrizzlyFD]

Cough, cough, 128 at SR.

If places like Sunday River went boundary to boundary you'd be talking a resort somewhere in the 3,500 acre ranage just for what is currently developed. That is rediculous. This isn't the west, just because you have a boundary to boundary policy doesn't mena you can ski every single acre that is owned by the resort. I still think places need to go by the amount of opened and patrolled terrain. You can state that you have a boundary policy and that you're more than welcome to ski that terrain, just do so at your own risk knowing that patrol isn't going to do an end of day sweep.

Many resorts publish open acres, I know Sunday River does. When you fill out the excel spreadsheet for snow-reporting it auto calculates the acerage when you open/close trails. Hell, the backend page for the website asks you a million questions...

Number of Trails Open:
Number of Trails Open This Weekend:
Primary Surface:
Secondary Surface:
Number of Lifts Open:
Number of Lifts Open This Weekend:
New Snow In the Past 24 hrs.:
New Snow In the Past xx days:
Number of Days For Above Entry:
Grooming:
Snowmaking:
Miles of Skiing:
Acres of Skiing:
Average Base Depth:
Summit Depth:

This is true. Most eastern resorts don't want their customers venturing off the trails b/c of liability etc... So they state the resorts skiiable acreas.
But, most resorts in the west publish their total area. Is Vail really 12 times larger than Stowe? or 15 times larger than Jay peak? No way. But since the resorts have a much more liberal policy when it comes to skiiable terrain, they can say that.

 

[RISkier]

Don't think there's any entirely really valid way so I voted who gives a #$%&. Skiable acreage would probably be the best but I'm not sure many places report it. Total acreage can include tons of unskiable terrain. Number of runs? Let's see, Sunapee has 65 or so, Stowe claims 48 -- guess Sunapee is nearly 1.5 times larger. And KMart dang sure isn't 4 times larger than Stowe. Mileage of marked runs doesn't capture all the possible lines through glades or open bowls. The real question is whether the area has sufficient terrain to keep you interested for the time that you'll be visiting.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

all lies

"Statistics are lies. lies and more lies"(Mark Twain)

Almost all the major resorts manipulate them. The weekend desination skier DOES pay attention to them.

One guy told me he figured out the trails per cost as a measure to decide where to take his family. The Bush at 112 trails at $62 VS Stowe at 49 trails at $62. As it was pointed out they both have about the same amount of skiable terrain.

Regarding the idea that Vail has more trails than Val d'Isère for example. Now that's just silly! Val d'Isère has 100 lifts with 10 trams/gondola's.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I love it when resorts chop one trail into 5 different names.

That's always bugged me too. Everybody but Stowe does it though.

 

[ozskier]

During the early season I used to have to make this one sheet flyer at Sunday River called 'You made the right choice' which would list resorts open acres to lift ticket dollar price. We'd put it at the ticket counters, food and beverage checkouts, retail and rental. Most large resorts have that info readily available in their snow reports. It is a good way to figure out what kind of bang for your buck you're getting.

It is going to be interesting to see Mount Snow's whole take on trail count and acerage is this season with Haystack leaving the ASC fold.

One guy told me he figured out the trails per cost as a measure to decide where to take his family. The Bush at 112 trails at $62 VS Stowe at 49 trails at $62. As it was pointed out they both have about the same amount of skiable terrain.

Sad.

 

[JimG.]

One guy told me he figured out the trails per cost as a measure to decide where to take his family. The Bush at 112 trails at $62 VS Stowe at 49 trails at $62. As it was pointed out they both have about the same amount of skiable terrain.

Sad.

If you use enough marketing spin folks eventually get dizzy and stop thinking clearly.

 

[ozskier]

One guy told me he figured out the trails per cost as a measure to decide where to take his family. The Bush at 112 trails at $62 VS Stowe at 49 trails at $62. As it was pointed out they both have about the same amount of skiable terrain.

Sad.

If you use enough marketing spin folks eventually get dizzy and stop thinking clearly.

That was actually the senior capstone course at Assumption for my marketing degree.
"Spin 400 : Confusing the masses to open their wallets"

 

[riverc0il]

i voted acres but Tin Woodsman brings up a very important point. milage may be a better measure. in either way, i am delighted to see that all AZ'ers to date answering the poll do not think trail count is a good way to measure the size of a ski area.

 

[Greg]

in either way, i am delighted to see that all AZ'ers to date answering the poll do not think trail count is a good way to measure the size of a ski area.

Likewise and what the hell are "Hectares"? :wink:

 

[bvibert]

in either way, i am delighted to see that all AZ'ers to date answering the poll do not think trail count is a good way to measure the size of a ski area.

Likewise and what the hell are "Hectares"? :wink:

From here:
hectares-A unit of area equal to 10,000 square meters. Equivalent to 2.471 acres

 

[Sky]

Cough, cough, 128 at SR.

I went with the figures available from Skimaps.com vs hunting every individual website. No harm intended.

At least I didn't get jammed for my "groupings"!

Almost went with Wa/Jiminy Peak...but after checking Skimaps...opted for Crothed.

 

[Sky]

milage may be a better measure.

I voted mileage with the one other smart person.

*smirk*

It's still all relative per my previous post.

If my pal with a condo @ Butternut asks me an my family to come for the weekend. I'm going regardless of trail count, miles, acres...whatever.