Serious Vert

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Serious Vert

Postby soulskier » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:08 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:
soulskier wrote:This is more conducive to the type of terrain we are looking to work with.

Avalanche control, not cheap in terms of labor and other costs. It was interesting discussing this issue last July at the New Zealand club areas. With limited resources often the response is to wait it out and let the snow settle. I believe this is common at Silverton also. Depending upon weather, often the snow isn't powder anymore by the time you're allowed to ski it. Soulskier should be quite familiar with this situation from Las Lenas.


Tony, that particular mountain range is world renowned for it's quick ability to stabilize the snowpack, ie a couple clear cold nights.

No doubt avie mitigation is going to be a big cost, though we have some unique outside the box ideas to aid with that.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Serious Vert

Postby soulskier » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:16 pm

Mike Bernstein wrote: Tight, steep EC trees with chutes, waterfalls and occasional bobsled tracks for the full 2000'. The more you dismiss it, the more clueless you appear.

That is not the type of terrain we are looking for, not sure why it's so hard to grasp that.

Apparently you don't, if your previous statements in the Shames thread are any indication. You came out and flatly stated that MRG wouldn't be a good model for Shames b/c of the terrain/snowpack.

Shames has 480 inches of coastal snow and 8,000 acres including a large Alpine zone within their land lease. That is totally different than MRG, with gladed trees runs and lots of firmer type snow.

This is despite the fact that, within an EC context, they practice EXACTLY the type of business model you claim to aspire to: big terrain, deep snows, environmentally sensitive, collective vibe, focused on long-term sustainability and not short-term profits.

Again, the business model is similar, the terrain is not.

Moreover, if this were what you are so focused on, then why waste your time and energy thinking about urban jibber "ski energy centers". BTW, I just love that term you've coined. It takes useless eco-business jargon to an entirely new level.


Because we believe we can apply our hippy idealistic core values and just tweak the ski model, filling another niche, besides lift served big mountain skiing, which is needed in North America. In fact, I predict the urban job center will be the cash cows of the MRA.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Serious Vert

Postby soulskier » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:20 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:I just hope the nuts and bolts of soulskier's first MRA business plan do not jibe with the rhetoric that has alienated much of his audience here.



Tony, no offense, but you guys aren't our target group. Just reread this thread where some posters think MRG's terrain or 25 degree slopes, etc are serious. It's the people that aren't posting and only reading that might be interested.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Serious Vert

Postby soulskier » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:22 pm

rfarren wrote:.

MRG offers as close a big mountain experience as you can get on the EC.


That's great for people on the East Coast.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Serious Vert

Postby Admin » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:31 pm

soulskier wrote:
Tony Crocker wrote:I just hope the nuts and bolts of soulskier's first MRA business plan do not jibe with the rhetoric that has alienated much of his audience here.



Tony, no offense, but you guys aren't our target group. Just reread this thread where some posters think MRG's terrain or 25 degree slopes, etc are serious. It's the people that aren't posting and only reading that might be interested.


Soulskier, you just don't get it. Tony said nothing about target audience, he commented specifically on attitude, which honestly I take offense to as well. And frankly, forum users here are your target audience, which further proves that you just don't get it.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9969
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Serious Vert

Postby soulskier » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:58 pm

Admin wrote:
soulskier wrote:
Tony Crocker wrote:I just hope the nuts and bolts of soulskier's first MRA business plan do not jibe with the rhetoric that has alienated much of his audience here.



Tony, no offense, but you guys aren't our target group. Just reread this thread where some posters think MRG's terrain or 25 degree slopes, etc are serious. It's the people that aren't posting and only reading that might be interested.


Soulskier, you just don't get it. Tony said nothing about target audience, he commented specifically on attitude, which honestly I take offense to as well. And frankly, forum users here are your target audience, which further proves that you just don't get it.


My attitude? Forgive me for being so bold in my way of stating that there is a large group of the ski industry that are very good to excellent skiers, and want rad terrain, not 25 degree slopes and Easy Coast pseudo big mountain skiing. My time on this forum is now complete, good bye and good luck.
http://www.MountainRidersAlliance.com
User avatar
soulskier
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:48 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Serious Vert

Postby rfarren » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:10 pm

soulskier wrote:Tony, no offense, but you guys aren't our target group. Just reread this thread where some posters think MRG's terrain or 25 degree slopes, etc are serious. It's the people that aren't posting and only reading that might be interested.


You're not getting it... MRG's terrain is serious. Is terrain only to be considered serious if it's high alpine? For me serious terrain is about how much challenge there is, and frankly as far as challenge is concerned MRG is right on up there.
soulskier wrote:
rfarren wrote:.

MRG offers as close a big mountain experience as you can get on the EC.


That's great for people on the East Coast.

Firstly, it is great for people out here. Don't think that we are entirely lacking in tough terrain because our terrain is different. You ought to come out here and hit the slides at WF or MRG before you pass judgement on terrain. You don't hear me spouting out that terrain at some mountain I've never been to isn't serious. Furthermore, I'm not backing it up with lame evidence like a trail map, and then covering my ears and shouting "I'm not listening" when people call you out for your dubious assertion.

Secondly, in regards to this:
soulskier wrote:
Tony, no offense, but you guys aren't our target group. Just reread this thread where some posters think MRG's terrain or 25 degree slopes, etc are serious. It's the people that aren't posting and only reading that might be interested.


Most people on this forum are the people who can handle and enjoy pushing their limits on the mountain. They happen to be the type of people who stay at cheap hotels to get turns. We take off time and lose income to follow are passions. Case in point, look at the number of us who continue to post over the summer. We have a tremendous passion for skiing. We are far more likely to visit your MRA than the vast majority of people who make it out in a season. In short you need our support, because we are the few who will travel and pay to ski your place, especially if it is serious alla:
soulskier wrote:Image



Most recreational skiers aren't going to feel comfortable on terrain like that, and you're going to need as much support as possible as the business margins in skiing are tight as it is.

I now see you wrote one more post.
soulskier wrote:My attitude?

Yeah your attitude, hence your next comment:
soulskier wrote: Easy Coast pseudo big mountain skiing.

which also shows your tremendous ignorance.
soulskier wrote:there is a large group of the ski industry that are very good to excellent skiers, and want rad terrain

There is, and we want "rad" terrain, whether it is tight east coast trees or steep powder bowls out west. We just don't want annoying ideology spoon fed to us while we search for it, and we certainly don't want somebody telling us where we live and ski is inferior.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Serious Vert

Postby longshanks » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:29 pm

My attitude? Forgive me for being so bold in my way of stating that there is a large group of the ski industry that are very good to excellent skiers, and want rad terrain, not 25 degree slopes and Easy Coast pseudo big mountain skiing. My time on this forum is now complete, good bye and good luck.


Take a good look...the last of the bad guys
Vivat Rex...rez ipsa loquitor
User avatar
longshanks
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: Serious Vert

Postby coldsmoke » Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:13 pm

soulskier wrote:My time on this forum is now complete, good bye and good luck.


If you can't handle a good natured discussion on this forum, you should exit the Interweb, it's only gonna get worse.
User avatar
coldsmoke
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:36 pm
Location: Under the Big Sky

Re: Serious Vert

Postby Mike Bernstein » Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:28 pm

soulskier wrote:
Tony Crocker wrote:I just hope the nuts and bolts of soulskier's first MRA business plan do not jibe with the rhetoric that has alienated much of his audience here.



Tony, no offense, but you guys aren't our target group. Just reread this thread where some posters think MRG's terrain or 25 degree slopes, etc are serious. It's the people that aren't posting and only reading that might be interested.

This just serves to underline how you are both clueless AND pig-headed - a fantastic combination for any budding entrepreneur. The fact of the matter is that I am exactly your target group. I want big mountain terrain and don't need any frills. I'd also like to get a warm and fuzzy about where I spend my money, so maybe the hippy-dippy approach you're taking would make a difference to me at the margin.

I also recognize that while you wouldn't want to target MRG (or any other EC hill) based on what you're looking for (no one said that their terrain/challenge/snowpack fits your target - that was your idiotic strawman), you have to understand that, within an EC context, it is as close as you're going to get to the model you are striving to build. What does that mean? That means it attracts skiers who are looking for a challenge in a no frills environment. Skiers who care more about what's on the hill that what's at the base. Skiers who are willing to travel a little farther past the corporate resorts so they can get to the mountain that inspires them. It also happens to have an ownership and economic model which you would be well-served to study extremely closely, as it is the closest comp you are likely to find in North America to your proposed model.

But no - since the terrain doesn't fit the bullseye you're looking for, there's nothing to learn here. Much better to focus you efforts on diversifying into the urban eco-jibber market. It's not like those facilities take enormous amounts of man-made snow, and therefore dirty fossil-fuel energy to maintain, right? Better to start watering down one of the key planks of your marketing strategy before you're even out of the gate. And what's all this talk of that being your cash cow? Even if it were true (doubtful), you sound like any other filthy capitalist.

Finally, do you really mean it this time when you say you're going to leave? You sort of fell off the wagon last time.
Mike Bernstein
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: The City of Studios

Re: Serious Vert

Postby Patrick » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:05 am

As someone who bought in MRG from the start, although I didn't join at first.

I want to make a few things clear:

There are two words that are over used in the ski industry right now:

1) Extreme skiing.

Example: I'm an extreme skier...extreme skier are the one that ski DFU terrain. There is no DFU terrain (or so very little in proportion) within the ski area boundaries - even less in the East, period. And you I've always said that I like the East as much as the West.

2) Big Mountain Skiing

There is no Big Mountain skiing near any ski areas in the East. Period. Big mountain are the Alps, the Andes, Alaska, and an infinate proportion of the Appalachians.

Soulskier's definition of points 1 and 2 are what these meant initially. I, for one, can't wait to hear and see soulskier give birth to his baby. :drool:
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Serious Vert

Postby longshanks » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:53 am

Patrick wrote:
...Big mountain are the Alps, the Andes, Alaska, and an infinate proportion of the Appalachians.



uuuh, sorry but don't you mean Rockies? (or Himalayas?)
User avatar
longshanks
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:45 pm

Re: Serious Vert

Postby Patrick » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:13 am

longshanks wrote:
Patrick wrote:
...Big mountain are the Alps, the Andes, Alaska, and an infinate proportion of the Appalachians.



uuuh, sorry but don't you mean Rockies? (or Himalayas?)


I was working with the letter 'A' as examples. Yes, of course there is big mountain skiing or potential in the Rockies, Himalayas, etc.
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Serious Vert

Postby rfarren » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:35 pm

The word used was serious, not big.

Big Mountain implies something completely different than serious terrain.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Serious Vert

Postby Tony Crocker » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:57 pm

I'm very surprised Patrick is still on board with soulskier after all the snarky comments dissing eastern skiing and alienating much of his target audience.
Patrick wrote:There is no Big Mountain skiing near any ski areas in the East

I suspect icelantic would remind us that there is Big Mountain skiing in the East if you're willing to hike for it in the Presidentials or the Chic-Chocs.

My skepticism of eastern skiing as viable for destination skiers is primarily due to a significant percentage of time (unfortunately not predictable more than few days in advance) of marginal conditions that often close the most interesting terrain. With regard to terrain preferences, mine are very similar to soulskier's in terms of high alpine and steeps. I do regard their absence within eastern lift service as a major flaw. What soulskier does not seem to get is that 30 degrees at MRG among dense trees and variable snow is at least as demanding upon one's ski skills as high alpine at 40 degrees, and also similar in consequences if you screw up. Most people on "serious" ski forums would equate "serious" terrain as "high demand upon one's ski skills, with consequences if you make a mistake."

I have observed that the eastern skiers who are comfortable in MRG-type terrain (in 3rd gear?) like Patrick and rfarren can almost immediately translate their skills to the 40+ high alpine. Thus, as admin has noted, they are a key part of soulskier's target market.

I do, by the way, agree with soulskier that the marathon fall line cruisers like Revelstoke and Sun Valley do not constitute "serious" terrain by most skiers' definition. All they require is a lot of stamina and some intermediate carving skills.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9801
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use