Which of these is like the other?

[EPB]

Sunapee and Gunstock are similar in size and vert and have great views of nearby large lakes. For some reason, NH kills it with views from ski area summits in a way that VT and ME do not.

100% - of course I can only imagine my NH bias shines through there.

Both Sunapee and Gunstock have summit quads with similar length and vert (6,000+ feet and 1,300-1400 feet, respectively). I tend to look those types of things up before I try somewhere new because it tends to give me a good sense of what I'm working with and whether a new area/pod has decent pitch.

 

[deadheadskier]

Sunapee, Gunstock, Ragged and Shawnee Peak all kind of fit into the same niche to me. Maybe I'd throw Cranmore in too, but I haven't skied there in 30+ years. Mid sized mountains that certainly feel much larger than the next tier down in places like Wachusett, Crotched, Pats, Abram and others. But all lack substantial natural snowfall and aren't particularly challenging.

I like Shawnee the best of them even with their poor lift infrastructure. It has the most consistent pitch with minimal run out and I think the most interesting trails. Powder day I probably pick Ragged for their vast glades. Sunapee is likely the most consistent product and skis the biggest, but is also the most crowded. Gunstock I'd rank last of the group. I had a pass there when I went back to school 2011-2014 because it was $199 and it's only 1:10 from home. I skied there maybe only 10 of my typical 25-30 ski days each season. The terrain just bores me. Pretty nice bar though. I'll give them that.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[EPB]

Sunapee, Gunstock, Ragged and Shawnee Peak all kind of fit into the same niche to me. Maybe I'd throw Cranmore in too, but I haven't skied there in 30+ years. Mid sized mountains that certainly feel much larger than the next tier down in places like Wachusett, Crotched, Pats, Abram and others. But all lack substantial natural snowfall and aren't particularly challenging.

I like Shawnee the best of them even with their poor lift infrastructure. It has the most consistent pitch with minimal run out and I think the most interesting trails. Powder day I probably pick Ragged for their vast glades. Sunapee is likely the most consistent product and skis the biggest, but is also the most crowded. Gunstock I'd rank last of the group. I had a pass there when I went back to school 2011-2014 because it was $199 and it's only 1:10 from home. I skied there maybe only 10 of my typical 25-30 ski days each season. The terrain just bores me. Pretty nice bar though. I'll give them that.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

I've still never been to Shawnee. Whenever I hopefully make it back to the Boston area, I'd really like to try the midsize places in western ME (lumping in Abram and Black, too). I haven't been to any of the midsize places you've mentioned in ~15 years, too. Even with Cranmore right down the street, it just never felt enticing enough to justify a day there when we could go to Attitash (and for half of those ~15 years, Wildcat) for no additional cost.

On a somewhat related note, I tend to associate Bretton Woods with Okemo and Mt. Snow.

I also tend to lump in SR, Killington and Tremblant into the same bucket in my head, although the latter tends to ski noticeably longer. Those three are the mega resorts that have a good amount of challenging terrain - something I can't say about Mt. Snow, Okemo, or (likely) Stratton.

 

[crank]

Whiteface is like a tilted ironing board.

 

[xlr8r]

I would add Bromley to the Sunapee Gunstock Shawnee mix.

Pico and Mount Ellen I feel are very similar. Overlooked next to their sister resorts, big vert with a long run out. Multiple pods, but still very tall and narrow layout. Both have 2 HSQs to serve majority of Terrain. Burke might also fit in here as well.

Attitash and Loon are both like small versions of Sunday River

Obviously Mount Snow, Okemo, and Stratton all are very similar.

 

[EPB]

I would add Bromley to the Sunapee Gunstock Shawnee mix.

Pico and Mount Ellen I feel are very similar. Overlooked next to their sister resorts, big vert with a long run out. Multiple pods, but still very tall and narrow layout. Both have 2 HSQs to serve majority of Terrain. Burke might also fit in here as well.

Attitash and Loon are both like small versions of Sunday River

Obviously Mount Snow, Okemo, and Stratton all are very similar.

So VT has been a blind spot for me, but I've driven by Bromley, and that seems accurate from the street.

I grew up skiing at Attitash and think the mini SR/Loon comp is spot on.

Another pair I find similar is Orford and Burke.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Slidebrook87]

I would add Bromley to the Sunapee Gunstock Shawnee mix.

Pico and Mount Ellen I feel are very similar. Overlooked next to their sister resorts, big vert with a long run out. Multiple pods, but still very tall and narrow layout. Both have 2 HSQs to serve majority of Terrain. Burke might also fit in here as well.

Attitash and Loon are both like small versions of Sunday River

Obviously Mount Snow, Okemo, and Stratton all are very similar.

I agree about Pico and North feeing similar in some ways but here are 3 key reasons that they also feel very different.

1. Ellen is not a separate resort unlike Pico and therefore it doesn’t feel too small.

2. Pico has more terrain or at least feels bigger. At Ellen you basically have the summit area from the top of GMX up, the terrain off of GMX and Inverness. At Pico you have the terrain off of Knome’s Knoll, Little Pico, Outpost, Golden and Summit. Pico just feels like it can stand alone as its own mountain whereas at Sugarbush, I have not once only skied Ellen because there’s just not enough to do over there, especially without natural snow.

3. Ellen has a far better lift system IMO. At Ellen there are two detachable quads that run quite fast and get you to a lot of vertical. GMX is a bit annoying to lap due to the runout so North Ridge is superior. Inverness serves some good terrain and is never really crowded. At Pico there are 2 very slow detachables with the one serving the most vital terrain taking 10 minutes. Other than the detachables at Pico you have Outpost which is a quick and rare double chair along with two other Hall triple chairs.

I’ve only skied Pico once and it was only for a half day, but I thought it was pretty good, but Pico really is begging for something other than a lack of crowds that can set it aside from Killington and bring in more customers. What real advantage other than a lack of crowds would make somebody want to ski Pico over Killington?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skiur]

I agree about Pico and North feeing similar in some ways but here are 3 key reasons that they also feel very different.

1. Ellen is not a separate resort unlike Pico and therefore it doesn’t feel too small.

2. Pico has more terrain or at least feels bigger. At Ellen you basically have the summit area from the top of GMX up, the terrain off of GMX and Inverness. At Pico you have the terrain off of Knome’s Knoll, Little Pico, Outpost, Golden and Summit. Pico just feels like it can stand alone as its own mountain whereas at Sugarbush, I have not once only skied Ellen because there’s just not enough to do over there, especially without natural snow.

3. Ellen has a far better lift system IMO. At Ellen there are two detachable quads that run quite fast and get you to a lot of vertical. GMX is a bit annoying to lap due to the runout so North Ridge is superior. Inverness serves some good terrain and is never really crowded. At Pico there are 2 very slow detachables with the one serving the most vital terrain taking 10 minutes. Other than the detachables at Pico you have Outpost which is a quick and rare double chair along with two other Hall triple chairs.

I’ve only skied Pico once and it was only for a half day, but I thought it was pretty good, but Pico really is begging for something other than a lack of crowds that can set it aside from Killington and bring in more customers. What real advantage other than a lack of crowds would make somebody want to ski Pico over Killington?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pico is begging for the interconnect.

 

[Harvey]

I got a my only day at Platty this year (baby at home). Conditions weren't great, but I loved that place.

Come on out when it's all in, we'll show you around.

 

[Harvey]

Never been to flattekill.

Typo or misinformed snark?

 

[deadheadskier]

I’ve only skied Pico once and it was only for a half day, but I thought it was pretty good, but Pico really is begging for something other than a lack of crowds that can set it aside from Killington and bring in more customers. What real advantage other than a lack of crowds would make somebody want to ski Pico over Killington?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First off, do you really think you can judge a mountain based off a half day skiing there + what you've maybe read online about it?

Skiers have vastly different preferences. When fully open, I actually prefer Pico to K. Bigger isn't always better for some of us. I tend to prefer more mid sized, old school mountains to bigger resorts. It's a vibe / sense of place thing that doesn't show up on a mountain stat page. It's why for the same reason I live in my little town of 10k people in NH vs Boston. Some of it is crowd avoidance, but it's more the feeling of a small, tight knit community. It's why Wildcat is my home hill. Pico has a similar feel to me.

But as for the skiing product here are a few things:

1. Though limited, I think Pico has better cruising terrain than K. I'll take KA, Sunset, 49er or Pike over basically anything at K.

2. I adore A Slope and Upper Giant Killer as bump runs.

3. Summit Glade is one of the most unique and cool trails in New England.

4. Love the Outpost area. It's a step back in time you can't find at many places.

5. I enjoy the base lodge at Pico more than any of the lodges at K.

I honestly wouldn't change a thing about Pico except for maybe additional snowmaking capacity and consistency.


Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[flakeydog]

I feel the need to stick up for Pico here. Only skied there a handful of times but it didn't take long to "get it" .
-Peak is ~4000 ft (3957 to be exact). Not many others that can ski this high.
-Vert is there- almost 2000 feet
-They have legit terrain, good glades, steep trails (nothing south of here in VT can claim)
-good gladed areas, very impressed by the offering here
-Diverse lifts and pods- Outpost is really cool, gnomes knoll- need I say more
-crowds are not there to take advantage
- Vermont Ski Museum display in the lodge, worth a look!

Worth the trip if you go. The one downside was that is was cold when I was there but it's a big, tall mountain, perhaps I was expecting a more southern VT experience as opposed to a northern one. Hmmm, another thread idea- Northern Vermont vs Southern Vermont: Discuss...

 

[Not Sure]

Typo or misinformed snark?

F & P are on opposite sides of the keyboard . Perhaps he's confusing Scottys Belle flat comments ?

Platty is in no way flat ,just take a walk around the outside of the lodge or walk up from the lower parking lot.

Or then again? Yes terribly flat no need to ever go there :razz:

 

[Domeskier]

F & P are on opposite sides of the keyboard . Perhaps he's confusing Scottys Belle flat comments ?

Just having some fun with the fanboyz.

 

[Smellytele]

Pico just feels like it can stand alone as its own mountain whereas at Sugarbush, I have not once only skied Ellen because there’s just not enough to do over there, especially without natural snow.

I’ve only skied Pico once and it was only for a half day, but I thought it was pretty good, but Pico really is begging for something other than a lack of crowds that can set it aside from Killington and bring in more customers. What real advantage other than a lack of crowds would make somebody want to ski Pico over Killington?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First off I have spent many days just skiing Ellen. I have only taken the SB once and find it a waste of time. I just saty on oine side or the other and ski it.

As far as Pico is concerned I like the layout more than the traverse ridden layout of Killington where I usually have to ski lift to lift because each lift only has a couple good runs on them. The reason I like Wildcat as DH does.

 

[Harvey]

Platty is in no way flat ,just take a walk around the outside of the lodge or walk up from the lower parking lot.

From the owners perspective Plattekill is almost too steep. The based area could use some flat for more parking etc.

 

[NYDB]

I feel the need to stick up for Pico here. Only skied there a handful of times but it didn't take long to "get it" .
-Peak is ~4000 ft (3957 to be exact). Not many others that can ski this high.
-Vert is there- almost 2000 feet
-They have legit terrain, good glades, steep trails (nothing south of here in VT can claim)
-good gladed areas, very impressed by the offering here
-Diverse lifts and pods- Outpost is really cool, gnomes knoll- need I say more
-crowds are not there to take advantage
- Vermont Ski Museum display in the lodge, worth a look!

Worth the trip if you go. The one downside was that is was cold when I was there but it's a big, tall mountain, perhaps I was expecting a more southern VT experience as opposed to a northern one. Hmmm, another thread idea- Northern Vermont vs Southern Vermont: Discuss...

I love pico too, but you you may be forgetting about another place further south in soVT with steeps and trees and legit terrain

 

[flakeydog]

Don’t get me wrong, Magic is great. Really the “Mad River” of southern Vermont (Ive heard that since the 80s). The difference is that for those that know, or at least pay attention, Magic has the reputation of the cool funky mountain with good terrain that Stratton/Bromley/Okemo just don’t have. Pico suffers from being chronically under-rated and thus somewhat unknown. And when you get there you see it’s 2000’ vert and summits at just shy of 4000’. Who knew? (Magic is 1500 vert but the summit does not even reach 3000’).

 

[skiur]

Pico gets a lot more snow than magic.

 

[NYDB]

Don’t get me wrong, Magic is great. Really the “Mad River” of southern Vermont (Ive heard that since the 80s). The difference is that for those that know, or at least pay attention, Magic has the reputation of the cool funky mountain with good terrain that Stratton/Bromley/Okemo just don’t have. Pico suffers from being chronically under-rated and thus somewhat unknown. And when you get there you see it’s 2000’ vert and summits at just shy of 4000’. Who knew? (Magic is 1500 vert but the summit does not even reach 3000’).

yeah, I agree with you on everything except this line

-They have legit terrain, good glades, steep trails (nothing south of here in VT can claim)

And yes, magic gets less snow......much less sometimes