or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Big Sky & Yellowstone Club Buy Moonlight Basin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Big Sky & Yellowstone Club Buy Moonlight Basin - Page 3

post #61 of 89
That's a one year jump??
post #62 of 89

Yep. Why?

 

Does that seem a bit excessive considering that nothing has been added and one parking area is possibly being turned into pay park?:D

 

Of course that could be 1/2 truth and misinformation.....

post #63 of 89
I'd be upset.
post #64 of 89

To clarify though;

 

Last season if you had bought as season pass to Moonlight Only prior to the sale that was the only way one was available.

 

I don't think after the sale you could get one. So there is that.

 

Glass 1/2 full and all. Personally I just can't see making it happen this year.

 

Probably skiing BB for the first time in 20+ years. Could be worse, it could be raining.

post #65 of 89
Our pass has been sneaking up a bit every year, probably because you guys down there are paying so much they feel justified in doing it to us back here. We cracked the $600 line this year. Lockers have been even worse in % of increase.
post #66 of 89
A "Gold" season pass for Boyne's 500-foot Michigan resorts is $799 and only gives you free skiing at their places like Big Sky and Maine's Sugar Loaf if you also are a paying lodging guest. Otherwise it's 10 days of half off ticket rates.
post #67 of 89

The Big Sky advertising of Biggest Skiing in America was absolutely based upon acreage, and I'm guessing something will change by 2015-16.  I suspect Boyne is not interesting in a legal :duel: with battle-tested Vail Resorts.

 

I would be more interested in Big Sky changing this part of their advertising:

Quote:
Best of all,  the slopes are blanketed in more than 400 inches of snow each year. Do the math. That’s over 30 feet.

When advertising claims are pushed far beyond reality, it undermines credibility.  I have had off-the-record conversations with people at Big Sky who agree with this. 

post #68 of 89

Tony, 400/12=33.3333333333 so they are actually under-reporting.;)

post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Crocker View Post
 

When advertising claims are pushed far beyond reality, it undermines credibility.  I have had off-the-record conversations with people at Big Sky who agree with this. 

 

I'm curious. You have the data- what ski area would you say cheats most on claimed vs. actual snowfall?

post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post

Tony, 400/12=33.3333333333 so they are actually under-reporting.wink.gif
If you've seen Tony's posts or perused his bestsnow.net site you'd be familiar with his view that 400" is wildly inaccurate for BS. BS b.s. you might say. His data indicates more like 285".

Bunion do you have data on average annual snowfall, from mid-November to closing, that Big Sky does indeed receive 400", not just at the top of Lone Peak but also at the base or mid-mt?
post #71 of 89

I'd not put bunion in that position :)

 

I honestly do not see the issue with them continuing to use their tag line. "Big" is a pretty generic description. Standard puffery type tag line.

 

I'm more disturbed by any claim of 400 inches a year. If this is true, they have  vastly undersold themselves! Where I ski day to day, 400 inches of snow means 100-ish inches of settled pack and rocks the size of trucks that don't even begin to melt out until late spring... Is this the case in that part of MT?

 

Vanilla tagline puffery does not trouble me. And the area does have a reputation for "big". Lying about snow statistics does trouble me. Especially if it is likely to cost me the bottoms of my skis. Or make for a crappy experience. I, for one appreciate honesty about snow (snowfall, water content, settled pack) and terrain. I can have fun at a whole lot of places - but I get quite temperamental if I feel the owners/managers/marketeers have misled me.


Edited by spindrift - 9/21/14 at 2:29pm
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

I'd not put bunion in that position :)

 

I honestly do not see the issue with them continuing to use their tag line. "Big" is a pretty generic description. Standard puffery type tag line.

 

I'm more disturbed by any claim of 400 inches a year. If this is true, they have  vastly undersold themselves! Where I ski day to day, 400 inches of snow means 100-ish inches of settled pack and rocks the size of trucks that don't even begging to melt out until late spring... Is this the case in that part of MT?

 

Vanilla tagline puffery does not trouble me. And the area does have a reputation for "big". Lying about snow statistics does trouble me. Especially if it is likely to cost me the bottoms of my skis. Or make for a crappy experience. I, for one appreciate honesty about snow (snowfall, water content, settled pack) and terrain. I can have fun at a whole lot of places - but I get quite temperamental if I feel the owners/managers/marketeers have misled me.

Wind direction, overnight lows & snowfall since the lifts closed yesterday, wouldn't hurt either. 

 

As I recall from my couple of visits to Big Sky they do report when runs were groomed in relationship to recent snowfall. 

The mountain is covered with scree & shale & takes a lot of snow to keep your ski bases in good shape.

post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post


If you've seen Tony's posts or perused his bestsnow.net site you'd be familiar with his view that 400" is wildly inaccurate for BS. BS b.s. you might say. His data indicates more like 285".

Bunion do you have data on average annual snowfall, from mid-November to closing, that Big Sky does indeed receive 400", not just at the top of Lone Peak but also at the base or mid-mt?


Actually yes I do. I was with the Snow Safety Dept. for Big Sky and we did crunch the numbers and come up with a 25 year average, Nov. 1-April 30.

 

Not gonna say one way or the other though......:D

 

Let us just say you need to read the claim very carefully and you need to parse what the word "annual" means.

 

This is a decent resource.

 

http://www.onthesnow.com/montana/big-sky-resort/historical-snowfall.html?&y=2007

 

Total snowfall is a number used to measure... total snowfall. It doesn't really tell you how a mountain skis.

 

If you examine the On the Snow site it is very clear that Lone Mountain is not a double digit kind of place. Storms usually move through very rapidly and it is not uncommon for the wind to play as big a factor in the overall depth of snow as how much really fell. I have skied knee deep at Big Sky on the strength of 2-3" new snow, it really depends on aspect and elevation. That 400" number has been a hallmark of Big Sky for much longer than I have been around and some years it is actually true.

 

A great quote I once read was, Averages are just a bunch of extreme events watered down. My 1st 2 seasons at Big Sky, 92/93 and 93/94 were winters that we barely broke 200", 95/96 and 96/97 were exact opposites.


Edited by bunion - 9/21/14 at 4:36pm
post #74 of 89

Revelstoke claims 972cm/389 in for the 13/14 season. Sounds too high to me so I suspect that they count all the snow that falls in Sept. and Oct. that melts before the skiing starts. This is backed up up a huge discrepancy in the difference between YTD snowfall and settled snow level that they usually report.

 

I suspect that Big Sky gets its 400 in. in a similar manor. So I am guessing it is not part of the Nov.15 to April 15 level playing field that Tony Crocker tries to use in his comparisons.

post #75 of 89
Quote:
 

 

I suspect that Big Sky gets its 400 in. in a similar manor. So I am guessing it is not part of the Nov.15 to April 15 level playing field that Tony Crocker tries to use in his comparisons.

 

Results may vary. As an example 1995/96 Lone Mountain received 99" in October and I can attest that it did not melt and that 95/95 was a most excellent ski season. So I ask you, is it incorrect to count snow that falls that you ski on? Or does it just skew the averages a bit?;)

 

The other side of the coin is whether or not the snow that falls post season gets factored. Because I can also attest that it does indeed melt before being skied upon.

post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
 

 

Results may vary. As an example 1995/96 Lone Mountain received 99" in October and I can attest that it did not melt and that 95/95 was a most excellent ski season. So I ask you, is it incorrect to count snow that falls that you ski on? Or does it just skew the averages a bit?;)

 

The other side of the coin is whether or not the snow that falls post season gets factored. Because I can also attest that it does indeed melt before being skied upon.

 

I agree with your answer that early season snowfalls that stick do skew the averages a bit, but if a place like Revelstoke misleads the public on a annual basis then it skews the averages a lot.

 

Ski resorts that are open late into the spring are also going to play havoc with comparative snowfall numbers. Example: ski areas in the B.C. Interior all close in early April due to lack of skiers but not a lack of snow to ski on. But resorts like Lake Louise which has good snow preservation and a large local population stay open much latter and if they count the snowfall from late April and early May it will inflate their comparative snowfall numbers. This is why Tony Crocker's attempt to compare snowfall from mid November to mid April regardless of the resorts actual operating dates, gives the best resort to resort comparison. (BTW in spite of a long season Lake Louise gets closer to 150" than 200" and it is not unusual to go 4 or 5 weeks without any significant new snow).

post #77 of 89

Yes, I totally agree with leveling the snow totals by defining a set time period.

post #78 of 89
Quote:
Yes, I totally agree with leveling the snow totals by defining a set time period.

Which I do, that period being Nov. 1 - Apr. 30. 

Quote:
That 400" number has been a hallmark of Big Sky for much longer than I have been around and some years it is actually true.

Actually not.  The record high in 2010-11 was 389 and 1996-97 was second with 379.  This is based upon 28 complete seasons and another 12 with scattered months, measured by ski patrol at mid-mountain. In the Northern Rockies overall 1973-74 and 1981-82 were comparable to but no greater than 1996-97 and 2010-11. 

Quote:
Results may vary. As an example 1995/96 Lone Mountain received 99" in October and I can attest that it did not melt and that 95/95 was a most excellent ski season. So I ask you, is it incorrect to count snow that falls that you ski on?

The most technically way to count would be to start at the last day of zero base depth, since prior snow would have melted out. For most western areas November 1 is not far off that date on average.  My practice is to count October snowfall only if it materially affects the opening date/conditions of the ski area. 

 

This year I was able to engage Big Sky patrol in a discussion about their data.  It turns out that their April data is incomplete, and due to Big Sky's cold climate I am persuaded that most October snow would stick around.  So I made a revision to include October, which accounts for the average being 285 inches while before 2014 I showed it to be in the 260 range. 

 

Quote:
A great quote I once read was, Averages are just a bunch of extreme events watered down. My 1st 2 seasons at Big Sky, 92/93 and 93/94 were winters that we barely broke 200", 95/96 and 96/97 were exact opposites.

Interestingly enough Big Sky is one of the most consistent areas in my data, with standard deviation being only 18% of average.  SD's as percent of average are 23% in Colorado, 25% in Utah, 28% in the Northwest and 36% in California.  In most regions you would expect a 285 area to have the occasional 400 inch season.  The flip side of this is that Big Sky's lowest season of the past 28 years was 203 inches in 1993-94, 71% of normal.  It's likely that it was lower in the widespread drought years of 1976-77 and 1980-81, but it probably wasn't 50% of average like it was in many places.

 

Quote:
I'm curious. You have the data- what ski area would you say cheats most on claimed vs. actual snowfall?

Revelstoke has in the past claimed 40-60 feet, but in fairness this is what's on the website now:

 

Historical Snowfall
Revelstoke Mountain Resort 9-14 metres
30-45 feet
Selkirk Mountains 12-18 metres
40-60 feet

 

Actual Nov-Apr snowfall at Revy's 6,429 foot snow plot is 348 inches.

 

Powder Mt. claims "Over 500 Inches of Real Snow." The past 8 years of in-season reporting are 112% of Snowbasin, which projects to a Nov-Apr average for Powder Mt. of 350 inches.

 

Sunshine Village claims 360 inches. Actual 44 year average at the mid-mountain hotel 7,028 feet is 256 inches.  This includes May up to closing but not October.

 

Big Sky's 400 inches claimed vs. 285 actual rounds out the group of greatest snowfall exaggerators.


Edited by Tony Crocker - 10/4/14 at 11:22am
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
 

 

Canyons/PCMR are already making noises about the upcoming battle of the acres. Seems fitting as there are people from Jackson who are still livid about the whole Vertical feet thing.

I am confused. I didn't think they were connected yet? They are still two separate ski areas correct or at least you can't ski from one to the other? 

post #80 of 89

Well, depending on your determination and physical shape I would say that you "Could" ski from PCMR to Vail if that is your idea of a good time.

 

Currently the 2 areas (PCMR and the Can)  are not physically connected by lift service, that is the future. Edit for clarity.

 

Also surprised there is nothing in this thread about DVs acquisition of Solitude.

 

http://www.saminfo.com/news/deer-valley-acquire-solitude


Edited by bunion - 10/6/14 at 2:20pm
post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
 

Well, depending on your determination and physical shape I would say that you "Could" ski from PCMR to Vail if that is your idea of a good time.

 

Currently the 2 areas are not physically connected by lift service, that is the future.

 

Also surprised there is nothing in here about DVs acquisition of Solitude.

 

http://www.saminfo.com/news/deer-valley-acquire-solitude

 

I know Utah and Colorado have a common state border, but it is still a pretty long walk. lol Typo on your part bunion, I'm guessing.

post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
 

Well, depending on your determination and physical shape I would say that you "Could" ski from PCMR to Vail if that is your idea of a good time.

 

Currently the 2 areas are not physically connected by lift service, that is the future.

 

Also surprised there is nothing in here about DVs acquisition of Solitude.

 

http://www.saminfo.com/news/deer-valley-acquire-solitude

For those who missed it, look here:

http://www.epicski.com/t/129282/deer-valley-buys-solitude-ski-resort

post #83 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 

 

I know Utah and Colorado have a common state border, but it is still a pretty long walk. lol Typo on your part bunion, I'm guessing.


Typo? Not so much, tongue in cheek, yes.

post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
 

If you are talking about the rope I think;

 

Beaverhead Natl. Forest owns the upper section, not sure who owns the lower portion, Y/C or Big Sky.

 

Disorientation is normal as Lenin/Marx face ESE and are called the S. Face while Liberty faces South and is also referred to as the south face.

 

Next to the Little Couloir is the West Wall, it faces East.

 

No biggie.
 

I'm not entirely sure how it would run, but I think the idea is to run it up in the Liberty Bowl area (or perhaps between Liberty and Lenin/Marx).  The Shedhorn lifts bottom comes pretty close to the YC boundary and some homes, so somewhere near that or closer to the main expert area of YC on Pioneer Mountain could be a base station with the end at the peak.  Not sure if the topography would work, but better minds with better maps seem to have figured something out.

 

As for opening YC to everyone else - the more likely outcome (though not likely) is that YC buys Big Sky and turns it into an even larger area for YC members only.

post #85 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewguy View Post
 

 

As for opening YC to everyone else - the more likely outcome (though not likely) is that YC buys Big Sky and turns it into an even larger area for YC members only.

No that is not likely at all ever, not ever, like never.

 

Certainly there is development that Cross Harbor is interested in all over the place, especially on the north side golf course. The Moonlight Club "founders" had a big catered lunch down there this winter and they talked about the development of a new base area and gondola. All of these things are years and years out. I think we may possibly see triple chair replaced this summer or next but not much else for awhile. 

post #86 of 89
Triple chair replacement was postponed last year due to unexpected spending needs at other Boyne resorts and the 2015 triple replacement has been delayed again due to another unanticipated spending need at other Boyne Resorts. Big sky had a relatively good year with skier days ahead of last year until the drought in February - March but other PNW resorts were a problem.
As to snow totals, I agree the 400 number seems optimistic. It's hard to know how to account for the snow that falls outside the ski season. Last time we had a year as light as 14-15 we got six feet of unuseable snow in May. Seems to me if you live in an area that snows frequently from October until May there will be some years it falls during the season and some years it's outside the season but the total overall would be of some interest to me when I look at the stats.
I find two aspects of Big sky snow interesting. We get very few Big DUMPS. mostly four inches today, six inches tomorrow and a little more later in the week. We also get a lot of blown in snow. There may a dusting of fresh on Liberty bowl but knee deep blown in powder on Marx. The large vertical and almost 360 degree skiing around the mountain also contributes to the variety of conditions.
During this past year there were extended dry periods where the groomed skiing was marginal but skiing off some sides of the tram were great day after day. Both the snow field and couloir were open on days when some runs on the lower mountain were closed.
Bottom line it's a big mountain with a lot of vertical and runs facing in every direction so regardless of the measured snow there is almost always something available for skiers of every skill level.
Yes there are a lot of good ideas/plans about how to improve BS. If the area gets a few good snowfall years there will be a number of significant improvements including new lifts and on mountain eating. A lot of planning has been completed by outside experts on how to improve the integration of BS and Moonlight and eliminate bottlenecks. All that's needed is money, skiers and snow.
I doubt if Yellowstone and BS will ever merge. No need for new terrain for Yellowstone members. No reason for them to give up their private secure space just to ski lone peak. There are better solutions to that issue that will give BS and Yellowstone skiers more access.
post #87 of 89
Quote:
It's hard to know how to account for the snow that falls outside the ski season.

Not that hard.  It seems completely logical to ignore May snowfall for areas that are never open in May.  As I discussed above November 1 is a consistent and reasonable date to start counting for most places.  Given that Big Sky's April data is incomplete and that it's a cold mountain that should retain early snow better than most places, I've decided to count October, which I do for almost no one else.   So it's hard to argue that my current quote of 285 inches is not very close to reality, particularly since there's lots of data and the variation in that data is unusually low.

post #88 of 89
I understand and agree the historical averages are a good indicator of what snowfall we might expect at a given location. Im glad there are folks like you who present this data so folks like me can talk about it.
I was thinking about al the other effects on the snow after it falls, like overnight temperature, wind, cloud cover and sunshine, that impact our skiing. I wasn't very clear on these other related points.
post #89 of 89
Quote:
I was thinking about al the other effects on the snow after it falls, like overnight temperature, wind, cloud cover and sunshine, that impact our skiing. I wasn't very clear on these other related points.

I have only had 3 trips to Big Sky, but I still saw significant variation in coverage based upon wind deposition.  I'm somewhat attuned to this issue from all my years at Mammoth.  So I'm sure Big Sky is one of those places where getting local input about the current season's snow deposition is quite valuable.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Skiing News
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Big Sky & Yellowstone Club Buy Moonlight Basin