Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:25 pm
Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:43 pm
Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:06 pm
jamesdeluxe wrote:Press about the new owners:
Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:15 pm
Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:46 pm
EMSC wrote:jamesdeluxe wrote:Press about the new owners:
Can't quite explain why, but I found the Guardian article rather hilarious to read with all the pretend altruism and "we're so enlightened" BS.
Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:12 am
Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:16 pm
jojo_obrien wrote:one of the best kept secrets and hidden gems in the country is about to change, not for the better IMO
powmow doesn't offer the thrill of the cirque but the no "powder pressure" that TC highlights makes up for it. love the new terrain as of last year but fearful of paradise/eden lost....
Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:59 pm
"MarcC wrote: One of the reasons it's such a "hidden gem" is that a ton of people in the SL valley don't go there due to the distance.
baldyskier wrote:"exclusive, socially conscious community"... Isn't that a little oxymoronic?
Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:43 am
Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:55 am
Tony Crocker wrote:That shares the dubious honor of largest discrepancy to "brochure quote" (PowMow claims 500) with Big Sky of any area in North America.
Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:16 pm
Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:37 pm
Tony Crocker, 8/30/2016 wrote:Quote = drewguy:
Is that at the Peak?
No. It's impossible to measure snowfall accurately in an exposed location like that. Every ski area with high alpine terrain has this issue and has to measure in a more sheltered location. Given Big Sky's ski elevation range of 6,970 - 11,145, the patrol plot at 8,903 is a good representative altitude to measure the snow.
Originally Posted by sibhusky:
I'm sure it's annual, including any freak storms after they close for the season.
Originally Posted by drewguy
I have a hard time believing that they get 10 feet of snow before/after ski season to get to 400", if the data show 288" average at the Lobo measuring point (I think that's the one Tony's referring to).
No, the 288" may not include snow after closing but it includes all of October, which I almost never count for other ski areas (some of you may recall I used to quote 260 for Big Sky starting Nov. 1). Given that caveat, I doubt the annual average is much over 300. Nobody gets appreciable snow in September. Only Front Range Colorado and the Cottonwoods average much more than a foot in May.
Quote = drewguy:
Tony - where do they come up with the 400" number?
Somebody made it up, a very long time ago. How do I know this? As a newbie skier I bought a couple of resort guides in the late 1970's. The Miles/Jaffe book on North America's top 50 resorts, published in 1978, includes the 400 inch snowfall claim for Big Sky, which opened in 1973. The authors bought the claim hook, line and sinker and rated Big Sky's snow along with Alta, Snowbird and Targhee as best in North America. This was long before the Lone Peak tram was installed in 1995, so any claim that the 400 is a "top of the mountain estimate" lacks credibility because top of the ski area then was 9,800 feet.
IMHO the fault here lies with the credulous ski media, which publishes whatever they are spoonfed about annual snowfall with not the tiniest effort at fact checking. You look at magazine resort guides, ski websites, that 400 inch claim is everywhere and has been since the 1970's.
I have sympathy for the current Big Sky marketing/patrol people. I've had some informal communications, they know the number is way off, say they might raise the issue with higher management. They would prefer to emphasize the positives that can be verified, like the snowfall consistency I mentioned, but what are they to do? The 400 inch claim has been out there for 40 years and I doubt anyone there now has any more idea that we do where it came from. I'm probably the only ski journalist who has questioned it. Are they really going to call all these magazines/websites and tell them to change the number from 400 to 300?
Tony Crocker, 8/31/2016 wrote:This is plausible. Big Sky's opening season 1973-74 was a spectacular one in the northern Rockies. It was Bridger's record high December-March at 145%, so may well have been Big Sky's only season over 400 inches. The 18 months I have for Bridger during the 5 seasons 1973-74 through 1977-78 average 120% of normal. Same is true for Big Sky's own 3 years of data through 1975-76 (most of 1976-77 and 1977-78 are missing at Big Sky). 120% supports a WAG of 350 but not 400.
Obviously I would welcome the implementation of drewguy's suggestion [Lower the brochure quote to 300 and blame it on changing weather patterns, global warming, etc.]. They can plausibly say the 400 inch claim was based upon the first few years of operation, but after 40 years it's now clear those were unusually high snow years.
Big Sky is not the only operation to make this kind of mistake. Consider the allocations of Colorado River water based upon an anomalously wet period in the early 20th century.
Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:50 am
Tony Crocker wrote:many Utah areas seem to think that since they are in the same state as LCC they get to make snowfall claims in the same ballpark. Powder Mt. is the most extreme but not the only offender.
Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:24 pm
Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:45 pm