Patrick
Active member
Morgane agree to come skiing with me on Sunday, unfortunately I didn't get to bring Tara, her younger sister, on Saturday, so we went to the museum instead.
My daughter has been on a mission this year. Ski areas that she's never been before (Watch out Tony, Chris and Admin). :wink: I believe Mt. Blanc was area #20 for her, not bad for a 9 yr old. 8)
Here are the stats:
Trails: 40
Lifts: 7
Magic Carpets: 2
Glade Trails: 4
Vertical Drop: 1000 ft (300m)
Snowmaking: 85%
Snow Parks: 3
The mountain has 3 areas or faces. The main face called Mont Blanc, which is the original part of the ski area. Slightly offset is Mont Faustin which used to be a separate area when I was a kid in the 70s. I remember skiing when it was a seperate area. A area was added in the 90s which is a different peak connected to Mont Faustin called Mont Blanc Nord.
It claims to be the second highest vertical in the Laurentians. I guess they might want to try to convince people from Montreal to drive further North than the St.Sauveur Valley and all the other Laurentians areas closer to Montreal. Most of these are around 200 meters (600-700ft).
This was my first time back since I moved from Montreal 12 years ago. I remember that I liked this small mountain, although I wouldn't necessarily bother driving over 60 minutes (from MTL) to ski there. This place has changed and there is even a new mountain.
It had snowed maybe 2-3 inches of wet snow. The texture of the base (under the fresh snow) had been transformed by the rain. It was soft ice.
On this day Morgane realised that the greatest of the ski area doesn't necessarily increase with distance. Mt. Blanc is slightly more than 2 hours from Ottawa, pretty much 20 minutes from Tremblant. I guess we did a few 2-3 hours trips to many to places like Tremblant or Vermont (from Montreal).
As we started off some of the main steeps off the main face of Mont Blanc like Couloir, Mambo. As we went to the Faustin side, Morgane wanted to ski le Tigre trail under the lift which is listed as a double diamond run. :shock: You should have heard my daughter complain. "A Double Diamond, this trail IS a GREEN." She was of course exagerating, but she was discourage by the lack of challenge.
Mont Blanc isn't that bad, but I guess that after skiing two days at Mad River Glen two weeks ago, her perception of what is hard and steep has been altered forever.
When went exploring the new part of the hill (Mont Blanc Nord) which I had never skied. There was a few good runs expert runs.
Here are some quotes from their website:
http://www.ski-mont-blanc.com/eng/home.php#
WTF is Frankontour going on the homepage (the video)???
:^o
How many ski areas exagerated their stats like snow accumulations or VERTICAL??? The first is hard to verify, but Vertical? My Suunto watch is generally pretty acturate. You don't even need an altimeter, find a topo map. The front side of Mont Blanc isn't more than 200 meters. WTF??? Mont Blanc has claimed for years that it was 300? I skied all side of the ski area, there is no long that the vertical is even close to 300 meters. The vertical for this area is approximately 200 meters which would make it roughtly the same as St-Sauveur. I guess some people figured that the area would be more attractive if you artificially inflate the number to 300. :x
My daughter has been on a mission this year. Ski areas that she's never been before (Watch out Tony, Chris and Admin). :wink: I believe Mt. Blanc was area #20 for her, not bad for a 9 yr old. 8)
Here are the stats:
Trails: 40
Lifts: 7
Magic Carpets: 2
Glade Trails: 4
Vertical Drop: 1000 ft (300m)
Snowmaking: 85%
Snow Parks: 3
The mountain has 3 areas or faces. The main face called Mont Blanc, which is the original part of the ski area. Slightly offset is Mont Faustin which used to be a separate area when I was a kid in the 70s. I remember skiing when it was a seperate area. A area was added in the 90s which is a different peak connected to Mont Faustin called Mont Blanc Nord.
It claims to be the second highest vertical in the Laurentians. I guess they might want to try to convince people from Montreal to drive further North than the St.Sauveur Valley and all the other Laurentians areas closer to Montreal. Most of these are around 200 meters (600-700ft).
This was my first time back since I moved from Montreal 12 years ago. I remember that I liked this small mountain, although I wouldn't necessarily bother driving over 60 minutes (from MTL) to ski there. This place has changed and there is even a new mountain.
It had snowed maybe 2-3 inches of wet snow. The texture of the base (under the fresh snow) had been transformed by the rain. It was soft ice.
On this day Morgane realised that the greatest of the ski area doesn't necessarily increase with distance. Mt. Blanc is slightly more than 2 hours from Ottawa, pretty much 20 minutes from Tremblant. I guess we did a few 2-3 hours trips to many to places like Tremblant or Vermont (from Montreal).
As we started off some of the main steeps off the main face of Mont Blanc like Couloir, Mambo. As we went to the Faustin side, Morgane wanted to ski le Tigre trail under the lift which is listed as a double diamond run. :shock: You should have heard my daughter complain. "A Double Diamond, this trail IS a GREEN." She was of course exagerating, but she was discourage by the lack of challenge.
Mont Blanc isn't that bad, but I guess that after skiing two days at Mad River Glen two weeks ago, her perception of what is hard and steep has been altered forever.
When went exploring the new part of the hill (Mont Blanc Nord) which I had never skied. There was a few good runs expert runs.
Here are some quotes from their website:
http://www.ski-mont-blanc.com/eng/home.php#
WTF is Frankontour going on the homepage (the video)???
:^o How many ski areas exagerated their stats like snow accumulations or VERTICAL??? The first is hard to verify, but Vertical? My Suunto watch is generally pretty acturate. You don't even need an altimeter, find a topo map. The front side of Mont Blanc isn't more than 200 meters. WTF??? Mont Blanc has claimed for years that it was 300? I skied all side of the ski area, there is no long that the vertical is even close to 300 meters. The vertical for this area is approximately 200 meters which would make it roughtly the same as St-Sauveur. I guess some people figured that the area would be more attractive if you artificially inflate the number to 300. :x
