Jay 03/22/06, Stowe 03/23/06

sven

sven

New member
Having been lured in by overzealous snowfall reporting, I made the drive up to Jay from New York.... it flurried on and off the whole day, nothing significant really, and I found pretty similar conditions all across the mountain - skied off icy glades and even icier trails. Staircase was particularly scratchy and a bit bare, and I stuck to Evergreen Glade most of the day (is that its name? Two new ski areas in 2 days has me all confused) Met someone on the lift who told me to head over to Beaver Pond Glade, which turned out to be the run i did laps on the rest of the day - it was decent, but definitely not powdery by any means.

Deterred by my hopes & dreams being completely shattered by reality, I decided that I'd head down to Stowe to check out how conditions were there. Definitely a good decision... conditions at Stowe seemed like there was alot more fresh snow in the recent past, some trails had a bit of ice but I'd say that 90% of the trails were very edgeable packed powder, especially as it warmed up towards the end of the day. The best runs were off Bypass (I suppose these were the Bypass Chutes that I've always heard of but never seen for myself, since this was my first time skiing Stowe). I actually managed to find a few spots of fresh snow to ski through, and what wasnt fresh was still decently soft & fun to throw some jump turns down in. Not the waist deep snow I've seen photos of on here, but enough to get me psyched considering my best day this year was December 8 after 8 inches fell at Hunter Mountain (thats an objectively good day - but most years I've had a higher standard to beat). At the end of the day everything softened up to perfect corn snow, and the lower parts around Bypass were starting to get first sloppy/sticky, then kind of gritty when it started firming up again as the sun disappeared from those slopes. I skied the bottom half of Goat which seemed to be shaping up into a decent bump run, but it didnt really soften up as much as I would have hoped, and the bumps right now arent too big. It was not really icy, but extremely firm. A few bare spots on Goat were to be found and they came up rather quickly.... I luckily escaped with bases unscathed. The top of Goat looked like a real mess, it definitely was no surprise that it was closed. But all in all it was a great day.... I think Stowe is now my favorite eastern resort, I tried not to look at the lift ticket price when I tossed the ticket guy my credit card, and he gave a very cold reception to my wiseass comment about it being pricy - I guess he gets that like 300 times per day.

Sven
 
snow reporting definitely was not overzelous. you were just three days late and the good stuff and a full week late for the really good stuff. what was overzelous was the predictions of a foot of snow this week which we got nothing out of.
 
I would still call their reporting overzealous, even if it was a passive act (e.g. by not really modifying their reports since the snow was actually amazing). You definitely get the impression that the mountain is, as in their own words, having the "best conditions of the year" - if you can't put any faith at all in snow reports that ski areas release then what is even the point of it? I could get snowfall history amounts from any weather website and completely eliminate the need to check the ski areas own reports. Needless to say I planned to ski regardless of the snow reports, but rather than quietly accept the scandalous BS that the marketing departments pump into their snow report websites as just "the way things are", I don't see anything wrong with criticizing them as being overzealous on a message board called "no bull ski reports". Maybe they werent overzealous when theyre held to the standard that most ski areas have established for their snow reporting.
 
sven":2pksvfc9 said:
I would still call their reporting overzealous, even if it was a passive act (e.g. by not really modifying their reports since the snow was actually amazing). You definitely get the impression that the mountain is, as in their own words, having the "best conditions of the year" - if you can't put any faith at all in snow reports that ski areas release then what is even the point of it? I could get snowfall history amounts from any weather website and completely eliminate the need to check the ski areas own reports. Needless to say I planned to ski regardless of the snow reports, but rather than quietly accept the scandalous BS that the marketing departments pump into their snow report websites as just "the way things are", I don't see anything wrong with criticizing them as being overzealous on a message board called "no bull ski reports". Maybe they werent overzealous when theyre held to the standard that most ski areas have established for their snow reporting.
Click to expand...

And this is why you come to FTO for the no bull scoop. And I think you'll find that Steve pretty much agrees with you regarding snow reporting.

And your report is appreciated and very useful to others.
 
JimG.":152jlsnw said:
sven":152jlsnw said:
I would still call their reporting overzealous, even if it was a passive act (e.g. by not really modifying their reports since the snow was actually amazing). You definitely get the impression that the mountain is, as in their own words, having the "best conditions of the year" - if you can't put any faith at all in snow reports that ski areas release then what is even the point of it? I could get snowfall history amounts from any weather website and completely eliminate the need to check the ski areas own reports. Needless to say I planned to ski regardless of the snow reports, but rather than quietly accept the scandalous BS that the marketing departments pump into their snow report websites as just "the way things are", I don't see anything wrong with criticizing them as being overzealous on a message board called "no bull ski reports". Maybe they werent overzealous when theyre held to the standard that most ski areas have established for their snow reporting.
Click to expand...

And this is why you come to FTO for the no bull scoop. And I think you'll find that Steve pretty much agrees with you regarding snow reporting.

And your report is appreciated and very useful to others.
Click to expand...

It's sad to say, but if it comes for a PR department :^o , I generally ignore it. The only thing I want to know on a snow report is a trail count (which trails are opened when it's available). I generally have a clue of what the conditions are probably at by experience and reading the report from you guys and gals on the No-Bulls (not the No-Bull on the Smuggs website, but the original no-bull on FTO). :p
 
yea, i am no fan of snow reporting. but they did get the amount they claimed to get. problem was, you had to read between the lines... the three feet fell over the course of 5 days and by tuesday there was hardly an untracked line to be found. jay is definitely a big offender when it comes to hype. definitely why we have places like FTO. i think i posted my monday report monday night which indicated we skied on an average of 6" or fresh with up to 12" where blown and previously untracked.
 
I'm not trying to defend anyone but this has always been my take on snow reports:

Its a tough part of the business. There NEEDS to be some marketing involved. If that factor is not there, and a ski area puts up a report that says "The Snow sucks, trails are icy, I think you should save your money for another day" then they might as well just hang out the "closed" sign. Why even bother to open? Know what I mean?

We are such a small group of the people who give ski resorts $$ that it really doesn't matter what the "core" group thinks. However, ski areas do not want to alienate us, but there still needs to be a marketing spin. You can't consider yourself a business if you tell people to go elsewhere or that your product is horrible. However, ski areas take the "glass half full" approach and that's how ski reports need to be approached.

So ski reports recently have said that X amount of snow has fallen in the past 24hrs, 48hrs, 7 days, etc. It is generally a false rumor that ski areas inflate snowfall totals. From a meteorogical point of view, its flat out wrong as I can vouch for almost all snowfall totals through radar, average precipitation, storm system tracks, etc. Ski areas are higher in elevation so they get more precipitation than inhabited regions and its also colder so the fluff factor is higher. People tend to want to not believe that. However, fluff factor means that 6" of snow can settle to 1" after one quasi-sunny day. Or 18" goes down to 5". Everyone here seems to understand that, thought.

There are also other verification that some don't know about...the Mansfield stake (which has its problems since it is measured at 5pm, 12hrs different from Stowe's snow report and a lot can happen in 12hrs, especially after a sunny or snowy day), the NWS has cooperative stations at Jay Peak and Smugglers Notch which are NWS certified independent parties usually for government research purposes. If Jay Peak reports 12-18" but the Jay Peak co-op reports 12"...well, its probably closer to 12.

Ski area 7 day snowfall totals are mis-leading, too. BUT THEY ARE TRUE! No one is making numbers up. But if it snows 24" then rains for 2 days, new snowfall in the past week can be 2-3 feet. There's no lie there although that snow is no where to be found.

Basically, you need to be there when it snows and the day after. Then when you go online and see pictures and reports of people in thigh deep powder the day after a storm, and you show up a couple days later you'll find the reports misleading overall as that thigh deep has settled to shin deep where you can find untracked. Its a tough business and I give the ski resorts credit for what they do. Jay Peak's skiing has likely been the best of the season the last 10 days. It might not be the best, ever, but out of the last 10 days there have probably been 3 true powder days with another few of packed down leftovers...and a few of not epic in the least but can hardly be considered "bad."

I just think that ski areas need to put a positive spin on things...they are a business not a public service. They also do not lie. All snowfall totals are true. The Jay Peak station and Mansfield stake both had a 6 day stretch of 35-45" of snowfall. So it did snow. Best conditions of the year? Thats subjective but likely overall, true. And especially true if you hit anyone of the *big* days. And Sven said his best day was in December at Hunter up to this point...were the conditions at Stowe and Jay not the best you've skied this winter?

I don't work for a ski resort so this is all kind of a devils advocate thing...but I do think for the most part they are doing their job right for the lack of credit they get.
 
It is generally a false rumor that ski areas inflate snowfall totals.
Click to expand...
that depends how you define "inflate." ;) do you suppose that jay peak actually got a year to date snowfall total of 371" ?? part of the problem, is that figure includes everything that fell in december and november before the ski area even opened :eek: so you can knock that figure down to AT LEAST 300" for a realistic total because all the early snow fall melted before the ski area opened. i noticed this issue around december and started a topic over on the AZ forums about the fact that resorts were counting snow that melted before the skia areas opened and some were not. the more honestly perceived ski areas like cannon and mrg were not.

the other factor is jay uses a range, and it is usually a pretty big range, like 6-12" or something like that. fact is, a range is a good thing and i appreciate having a range. but you need to take the upper figure with a grain of salt as the upper figure is not nessicarily the predominent depth on the mountain in most cases. has jay really received 371" for the current season? if you include snow that fell and melted before the ski area even open and only count the deepest snow fall areas during storms, than yea, i guess they are not exactly "lieing" but they sure stretch the truth to its absolute breaking point.

i am all for marketing. marketing involves putting a positive spin on things and looking at the glass half full. it doesn't involve adding water to the glass by including snow fall that occured and melted before the ski area even opened. regardless, a lot of ski areas push the envelope without directing telling a lie. take a look at jay's report today. the first words are "it's snow again". but it isn't accumulating. then they report 7 feet of snow for the month of march. you'd never know it once you are at the mountain. and that 7 feet was definitely the upper end of the scale, but it is essentially irrelevent. i guess that is part of marketing though, using irrelevent information that is factual to make your product look better. in a case of argueing a logical case, you would get called out pretty quickly for doing that. but this isn't logic, it is saying the right things to influence people's behavior. and they do it well.

my point of view on the issue is most resorts spin things. numbers may be factual or truthful; however, as with all numbers and statistics, they can be reported in ways that mis-represent reality. statistical juryriging to present a biased perspective is amongst my number one petpeves. a marketing director thinks it is the most beautiful thing in the world. but the caveat will always be there: "buyer beware." with ANY industry, you must become an informed consumer and not take marketing for its word. you need to research what the marketing means, what the numbers mean, and make an informed decision taking the official spin from the brand with a grain of salt. the only ski area out there willing to call a spade a spade is mad river glen. but they are in the unqiue position of being able to be blunt about the conditions and then citing the reputation of the mountain: "yea, conditions are tough, but this is mad river glen so ski it if you call" etc. they also don't want to excessively spin conditions because they might influence the decisions of their owners who would not be happy to be deceived. it all comes back to buyer beware. you wouldn't trust a car company when buying a $15k car when they said their engine was the best, would you? you would do a lot of research and take the sales poersons info with a grain of salt. why trust a ski area?
 
Scott, I generally agree with your arguments about resort snow reports. I have no problem with them seeing the glass half full, and certainly expect to have to read between the lines when reading resort reports.

But that said, Jay has an annoying tendency to outright lie. I mean lie in the sense of saying "the Face Chutes are open today" on their morning conditions/trail report. You get to the top of the mountain, and they're closed. And have been closed all day, and stay closed all day. And then have the gall to lecture you when you complain about their blatant lying. Or lie when you call up, telling you that the Flyer will open at 9 this morning. And you show up at 9 and they haven't even starting attaching the chairs to the line yet, so that there's absolutely no way they could possibly open before 10:30 or so even if they started right now, which they're not doing.

One time I got into real trouble with this lying when I took a friend who was a beginner/low intermediate skier up the flier, intending to take her down Northway around to the triple side. Checked the reports to make sure this was all open, but when I got up there there was a rope across Northway! There is really no other gentle way down, and I didn't want to duck a rope with a low intermediate skier who might not be able to handle whatever legitimate reasons for the closure there were. After many hairy sideslipping moments, we got to the bottom where I complained to the patrol -- not for closing the trail, which was certainly their business, but for not stating that said trail was closed in the appropriate places. They argued that the people putting up the trail report were not the patrol and hence not qualified to say which trails were open!!! Unreal. I understand them temporariliy opening/closing expert trails like everglade or valhalla, but you don't expect the easiest way down from a spot to be closed unless it's clearly stated on the report and/or at the base of the lift.
 
I didn't mean to sound too bitter in my write up - my day at Stowe was definitely awesome. Jay, not so much so. The way reporting is done certainly makes sense from a marketing perspective - but alot of practices that are considered harmful to consumers also make sense from a marketing perspective. Could it be considered false advertisement? There are probably a whole bunch of disclaimers to make sure that it's legally not (although i don't see one on Jay's site), but in spirit I'd argue that it basically is, at least the way many resorts go about doing it. And it's somewhat cathartic to whine about it once in a while.

Wishing it to be otherwise is probably hopeless idealism, and I don't really think I care enough to want to form some kind of "American Association for the Assurance of Accuracy in Ski Reports" type organization, or even to bother joining them (although I might toss them $20 if they solicit me for money). I don't know how much of an influence a resort's snow reports have on how many lift tickets/accomodations they sell, but it would be interesting to see the results of a study on that. I wonder if there are really any checks and balances at all to the whole snow report scheme that most resorts have in place. What repercussions would be in store for a resort that only measures snow depth, for example, in the biggest drifts they can find? Good skiers would likely pick up on it immediately, but I'd bet a whole lot of wealthy vacationers might not (I'm stopping short of actually accusing any resorts of doing this, though, but wondering more about what is to stop them - who would be the one to go after them and how might they even be punished?). Marketing departments will do pretty much anything they can get away with as long as they think it helps them turn a profit.

All that aside, my day at Stowe was probably my best day of skiing this year, maybe not the "powderiest" but I was definitely glad I made it up. I also wrote my initial post after having driven like 7 or 8 hours and before my first beer :)

Sven
 
riverc0il":3fvj7rh2 said:
It is generally a false rumor that ski areas inflate snowfall totals.
Click to expand...
that depends how you define "inflate." ;) do you suppose that jay peak actually got a year to date snowfall total of 371" ?? part of the problem, is that figure includes everything that fell in december and november before the ski area even opened :eek: so you can knock that figure down to AT LEAST 300" for a realistic total because all the early snow fall melted before the ski area opened. i noticed this issue around december and started a topic over on the AZ forums about the fact that resorts were counting snow that melted before the skia areas opened and some were not. the more honestly perceived ski areas like cannon and mrg were not.

the other factor is jay uses a range, and it is usually a pretty big range, like 6-12" or something like that. fact is, a range is a good thing and i appreciate having a range.
Click to expand...

We have a great discussion going here...I agree with a lot of the points made here, but can also agree on the otherside as well as I have a business oriented mind. So for the sake of devils advocate...

Agreed on your above points, River. I know that Stowe started their ski season with 0" of snowfall...they did not count the 3 feet that fell freakishly in October. Now, what is seasonal snowfall? If you are going by just how much snow falls on the mountain during any given winter, then October snow can be counted...the NWS wouldn't omit it. However, as a business are they saying that all their snowfall fell while the mountain was open? No, its just sort of there. Killington counted what fell in October, but that seems justified because we were skiing in that 3 feet...which evidently was the most snow they've had on the ground this winter in the lower elevations.

Stowe has 294" on the year and Jay has 371". I have always regarded the two as getting similar snowfall. If you subtract Jay's october snowfall, they closer than it seems. Now with regards to snowfall...the past two winters I have not been able to ski as much as this winter, but being up on the mountain 3-4 days per week (Stowe) I see where the snowfall comes from. 294" is likely high, yes. However, there are plenty of days during the winter, between thaws, where it snows 4",6",8". We get a ton of those light snowfalls and they add up. No one really pays attention to them because they are smaller amounts, but I skied so many 6" days this year its not even funny. And several 12-24" days starting with the 20" Dec 2nd dump. No one really knew that one but at Stowe all terrain was opened up with that one. Its the day in-day out snowfalls that aren't "major" but surprisingly adds up.

Also consider this:
The Mansfield stake has gotten as high as 80" and is right now around 70". So that is 6-7 feet of settled snow depth. Now, also consider the number of rain events and thaws that we have had. Out west, find a resort that claims around 300" of snowfall and then see what their summit base depth is. Generally, a 300" average snowfall resort in the Rockies will see a summit base depth max out around 80-100". Steamboat often does that (this year is different since they're over 400" for the season).

And if you think western resorts don't measure snowfall at the top, then check again. Most give a base or mid-mtn snowfall and then a summit snowfall. Sierra resorts are horrible at this. It'll be pouring rain at the base of Squaw but snow 24" of slop at the summit. 24" goes into the book. If you look at Sqaw's records, they get something like 160" at the base and 400" at the summit. All magazines and brochures say 400" average snowfall. Same goes for Alpine Meadows. Kirkwood's website says seasonal snowfall this winter is between 422-635". Either way, its a crapload of snow...but that's a 200" range for 2,000ft of vertical feet. The difference between 122" at the base of an eastern mounain and 322" at the summit. Kirkwood says they got 800" last winter when the range was 550-800". Nevermind that its a lot of snow, its the difference between 2,000 vertical feet which is similar to most eastern resorts. I'm not saying it is correct or the right way to do things, but it is not only a problem here in the east.

The Green Mountains often see incredible snowfall differences from base to summit...as can be seen now as the bottom of Stowe is starting to melt out but there's 6 feet of snow on the ground 2,000ft above that. I'm sure Jay is the same way. These upslope snow events are highly orographically driven so 6" at 1,500ft can easily be 12-18" above 3,500ft. I've skied plenty of belly-button deep powder in the higher elevations along the ridgelines that drops to boot deep at best by the bottom.


For 20thskier: That does suck and I understand the frustration in that. You'd be surprised how much ski areas do care what people think of their snow report and want to make it better for people. The problem is that when 7am reports go out, no one has actually been on the mountain. It usually goes out more like 6am-630am especially on a powder day. A few calls are made to mountain ops that have been out all night, mostly to find out what they've groomed and what the weather conditions are like. The early snow report is a PLAN of operation and it is the resort's job to update it if that plan is not going right. To make matters worse with lift operations, the highest winds on any given day will be when the sun goes up and when the sun goes down due to several atmospheric causes or energy imbalances. So at 6am it might be windy but not enough to close lifts but by 8am when the suns rays start doing their work, the wind can really crank before settling down again 10-11am. From my point of view, with a lot of meteorology knowledge, that can really throw a wrench into any plans. However, there are days when the planned snow report says all lifts and I look at a high-res weather model over the northern Greens only to find out that winds that day will be 60mph at the summit elevation and 45mph at the base elevations. Now, I know that none of the major lifts will be turning at Sugarbush, Stowe, Jay, Smuggs, etc but all resorts say they plan on operating all lifts. So of course, I know what to expect but it shouldn't be expected that everyone has that inside information. I'd like to see resorts do a 4-6pm report that gives a little information on what the forecast is overnight and the next day as well as its implications on operations. Snowfall can not materialize overnight, but wind generally happens as forecasted.

In the right position, I'd like to make a snow report that is real-time and can provide the customer with the highest level of satisfaction, especially when that information is used in the decision to purchase a 50-75 dollar lift ticket. Really, snowfall is the least of a mountain's concerns. Lift operation and trail openings and getting that information out to the people who use the facilities is much more important than whether or not 8" or 12" fell last night.

Its an extremely tough area I've found through research and talking with people. Its something I'm very interested in as it mixes my love of skiing, weather, and business. My goal would be someday produce a snow reporting/weather system that ski areas can benefit from or kind of be a consultant in that area of operations. You can't please everyone, but you can try. And believe it or not, resorts are not trying to piss you off or blatantly lie. Everyone I've talked to genuinely wants to provide the best information possible. A lot of times its just too much to do with too little time to do it.
 
I don't read much into any ski area conditions report, and when I do it's very much between the lines. Sven's description of conditions is pretty much what I would have expected. In his case (and mine), the long distances driven to get to the "goods" has a greater impact on the disappointment factor. For Scott or Steve, driving 45 minutes and finding less than epic conditions isn't a big deal...if it's so bad, they just turn around and drive 45 minutes (or an hour or 90 minutes, whatever) and go home, no harm no foul. NOT true for someone driving 7 hours one way.

As for how these reports affect skier numbers, there's an old business axiom that says it's better to underpromise and overdeliver. I believe in that and feel that any skier numbers gained from overhyped snow reporting is wiped out by loss of RETURN skier visits.
 
As for how these reports affect skier numbers, there's an old business axiom that says it's better to underpromise and overdeliver. I believe in that and feel that any skier numbers gained from overhyped snow reporting is wiped out by loss of RETURN skier visits.
Click to expand...
great observation jim. i think ski areas may have fallen into a bad habit of assuming people are going to complain no matter what (and some will, there is always that very small margin of customers that you MUST ignore because no amount of service will ever be satisfactory). the loss of return visits is probably not studied enough in relation to being upset with a bad snow report. i think almost everyone has written off a ski area for not living out to their promises. and i think there is a big difference between an inch or two or a lot of images or the difference between powder and hard pack.
 
Jim...you are completely correct that driving distance plays a large factor in choices made with regards to a day of skiing. Driving 7 hours is an incredible amount of time to go for even slightly less than advertised (or even if they are as advertised!) conditions. I'd want to be pleasantly surprised if I was driving 7 hours.

Right now, it takes me 45-50 minutes to get to Stowe...evenly divided between interstate and state routes (about 25 minutes on I-89 and 25 minutes on RT100-108). That can be shorter than it takes some people to commute to work around the big cities like Boston, Providence, Hartford, NYC, Philly, etc. Even a good commute into a place like NYC is only 10-15 minutes shorter than the drive from my house in Burlington to Stowe.

So, as you speculated, I go to the mountain regardless. I've driven there only to realize I forgot my ski boots, dropped my buddies off, gone back to Burlington then back to Stowe and its still only 10am in the morning. If conditions completely suck, I'll ski a few runs just to explore, maybe cruise some groomers or something since I'm there, then head home. Most of the time, my buddy Dave and I only ski 4 hours a day and then head home...unless its an epic thigh deep day.

When I lived in Albany, NY, even going to Killington took the better part of two hours and at that distance, I usually thought hard about whether or not I wanted to really go. The snow report and forums were looked at a little closer the night before. I held a pass to Gore Mountain which a shade under 1.5hrs in the Adirondacks...I went there on more marginal days than I would've gone to Killington just because that extra half hour to 45 minutes as well as paying for a day ticket (or even getting a free ticket from something like Warren Miller...want to use it wisely). Jiminy Peak was 45minutes away and at that distance (and considering it is a Berkshire ski area), I never expected much although my family went there every Sunday evening as we had a town ski pass from 3-9pm every Sunday. Again, Jiminy can't be *that good* but if it truely was horrible then you ski from 3-5 and go home.

Seasons Passes skew what one person thinks of a ski day vs. what another person thinks of a ski day. How much you pay for each day of skiing, mixed with how often you ski, mixed with how far you need to drive to pay for that day of skiing, means that if it is anything short of expectations you will likely not return. Buying day tickets will on average, make you less satisfied with a day's conditions. I've found that when I used to ski with day tickets, probably only 25% of the time I could honestly say I was satisfied for what my money got me and I couldn't wait to come back. Another 50% of the time was satisfied enough to come back but needed some help from the marketing departments by saying things like "epic conditions" on the snow report or showing pictures of skiers drowning in snow. That's just where the ski areas want you, just satisfied enough so with a little marketing, it'll push you back towards the "can't wait to come back" side.

I know from behind the scenes that one northern VT resort shoots fairly high with their ambitions and are not trying to fool you as much as you might think. I'm sure its actually fairly similar at other resorts, too. I can honestly say no one is sitting behind a desk rubbing their fingers together trying to figure out how to trick you. They want pure, satisfaction. They want loyalty (that you'll return). They want advocacy (that you'll recommend it to others). They want you to have a great time.

Trust me, River, they know their stats and the stuff they know would blow your mind...down to exactly how many cars are in the parking lots at certain times and what state or place those cars are from. They'll know when you arrived at the mountain and when you left. They know that more than the majority of their business comes from return visitors as that is the most important factor. It is not a forgotten/unstudied part of the ski/tourism industry. There are only so many people that can go to a place once, but its infinite how many times people can return. And its the people that return that invest in the mountain by staying longer, purchasing longer duration tickets, hotel rooms, condos, timeshares, etc.

Learning and doing research about this stuff really opened my eyes to just how much some ski areas really do care that you have a great vacation...and will do everything in their power to get you to have such a good vacation that you can't wait to come back.

Snow reports are just one of those things that I want to find a way to satisfy more people...but I think there are always going to be those bad days that just aren't good for skiing, and no one will ever tell you not to come. Those are the days that'll get people annoyed. The easiest way is to instead of saying the conditions are amazing is to come off with enthusiasm that any day on the mountain is a good day. But is that true if you have to pay 70 bucks and drive 7 hours? What about no money at that time and only 1.5 hours round trip?
 
i don't think anyone is questioning that ski area should report with entusism. i fully support and want a ski area to be enthusiastic about their product. their is a thin line though between enthusiasm and stretching things. also, i don't think anyone is suggesting that ski areas are purposefully lieing. and also, i don't think anyone is suggesting that ski areas don't want complete and total satisfaction from their guests. you have great points scott and i don't think any one is going to contest any of them. but their is a discrepency between what the average paying customer perceives as the real snow conditions and what the ski areas are reporting. i have suggested else where that the ski areas need to ski down as an industry with a panel of skiers (quite a few of them actually) and try to bridge the gap between "snow report speak" and "resort talk" and what customer perceive. ski areas must be aware that the customers and marketing folks are speaking completely different languages sometimes? because that is how i see it. consumers are forced to read between the lines on snow reports, and you gotta admit scott, i am sure you do it too when reading reports from ski areas you plan on going to... though as you said, your current pass situation could skew your perceptions... but i am referring to going somewhere as a one off paying customer not just going down the road to your local mountain. why is mad river glen's reporting so worshipped as accurate? because mad river glen reporting speaks the language of skiers when most areas do not.
 
WOW!!! What a discussion, I don't have anything to add 'cause it was probably was said already.

Regarding Snow Reporting, I would be curious to see what Tony would have to say in this. He deals with these snow numbers and ski areas all the time and has a certain quantified experience with them.
 
riverc0il":3vurhk9d said:
consumers are forced to read between the lines on snow reports, and you gotta admit scott, i am sure you do it too when reading reports from ski areas you plan on going to... though as you said, your current pass situation could skew your perceptions... but i am referring to going somewhere as a one off paying customer not just going down the road to your local mountain. why is mad river glen's reporting so worshipped as accurate? because mad river glen reporting speaks the language of skiers when most areas do not.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. With no new snow in a week in January with temps of -10, I assume that packed powder is really frozen granular. Or that after a 45 degree rain and then its 15F out the next day, frozen granular really means lots of ice. I do admit that just by looking at the weather all the time, its easy to judge what the surface conditions will be like. The toughest ones are when it snows 12-18" of dust on top of boilerplate like it did so many times this winter. It could be anything from pure ice to wind-drifted 3 feet of powder. Of course it'll be called "powder" and no one can truely argue with that one. But what about the next day? When it settles to 5" on top of ice? Or once everything is skied out, those face shots turn to ice. That was probably the biggest problem this year, is that it was easy for the ski resorts in northern VT that got hammered with snow when no one else did, to say, "hey, we got 3-4 feet of snow this week! How can it not be great?! " when each of those 12" dumps seemed to erase the one before it so there never was 3-4 feet on the ground at anyone time.

As far as Mad River Glen goes, they are a different or unique case with regards to snow reporting. They fill a certain client base that has likely already decided to go to MRG on any given day regardless of what the report says. They do not get many day skiers who have decided to go there based on just browsing through 10 different ski resort reports to see who has the best snow. You must admit that they attract skiers who see "powder, variable, ice, moguls, moss" on the snow report whereas a lot of the money providing families/skiers at Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, Sugarbush, Killington, Okemo, Loon, Attitash, Sunday River, etc do not pick their resort based on if "ice/variable" is listed under the current conditions. MRG skiers often go there regardless of conditions or what it says, so the area knows it can put that on the report.
 
I have to agree with just about everything you guys have said. I know it's tough for ski areas to market their product AND still be totally honest. I guess we all expect some exaggeration from marketing departments. How to keep it enthusiastic and not over hyped is a tough call.

In Sven's and my case, geographic distance and the weird (and poor for most areas) winter made nailing good conditions almost impossible. What chance do we have 7 hours away when every powderhound in New England is ready to pounce and claim their share during and just after every storm? And this season everyone flocked to a small area in the northern greens.

So I just passed on it for a number of factors. I probably should have asked Sven to car pool up because frankly, I still wish I had gotten a few runs up at Jay or Stowe even if the snow was scraped. But for me, with all the expenses of bringing my family, it just didn't make sense.
 
I can add just a few thoughts to this.

Kirkwood: I average upper and lower numbers. This fits historical data from carson pass 8526, which would be a mid elevation at Kirkwood.

Squaw: Squaw's website has a daily snowfall log for the entire season, which gets an A+ in my book for informative reporting. Normal relationship is lower about 60% of upper, so when lower was running 30-40% back in December with numerous days of new snow upper and none lower, tere was obviously a rain problem and sensible skiers would have gone elsewhere.

Jay: I had been using lower for Jay since 1999-2000. A Jay advocate e-mailer persuaded me to take a second look, and now believe that average of upper and lowerr best fits 1982-1999 histoical data and the long term relation to otherVermont ski areas since 2004. I have modified this year's reports accordingly,
 
My last post in Paris airport was rudely interrupted when I timed out.

Jay vs. Stowe: In 2003 I had a similar contrast in conditions. I think Jay gets more wind, and I suspect its grooming and snowmaking aren't quite as good. Powderfreaks' advice about hitting the storm day or the day after applies most particlualrly to Jay.

I count any and all snowfall between Nov. 1 and April 30. October snowfall only counts if it's enough to permit quality skiing, as in the Sierra/Wasatch in 2004 and in New England in 2005. Jay did not run its lift's but there was an FTO report of excellent earn-your-turns skiing.

In the West we are used to base depths steadily rising through the season. In the East they fluctuate up and down with rain or thaw. All snowfall should still be counted IMHO. It still works for those like powderfreak who are close and flexible enough to take advantage of it.

With regard to snow reporting in the East I think trail counts are the key stat, and skiers are certainly justified in complaining if the areas lie about that. With regard to surface conditions it's better to look at the weather sequence over the past few days than trust anything coming from a ski area. If it rains in L.A. and Mt. High and Mt. Baldy don't report new snow you can can be fairly sure what happened. That probably works for powderfreak in Burlington vs. the Vermont areas. From Boston or N.Y. it may not be as easy, but there should be enough web resources to figure it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top