or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › How do they get away with these lies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do they get away with these lies? - Page 4  

post #91 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


I think you just need to get a life and not worry about all this crap. It ain't curing cancer, and it's not solving world peace. Just my HO of course.

Oh and obviously you don't have a life either since you have time to post on my thread then

post #92 of 105

Ricardo, chill like a good snowman.  and is that snowmen or snowman? are there more Ricardo's?  

post #93 of 105
Quote:
From what I've read before (maybe it was from you), snow measurements in the West are more standardized in what elevation they must be taken from. 

Not at all.  I think Colorado areas are "supposed" to measure within the middle third of vertical.  You'll find nearly all of them measure close to 2/3 up the mountain (surprise!).  Official patrol records at Snowbird and Bachelor are taken from close to base area, with almost 3,000 vertical of skiing above the measuring site. Also to no surprise, Snowbird marketing in-season does not use those patrol numbers for daily/seasonal snowfall quotes.

 

Western areas that have high alpine are pretty good about choosing a location below tree line so that measurements will be less wind affected and more accurate.   A lot of area with trees measure as high up as they can.

Quote:
 Mansfield at 4380 feet averages 220 inches. 

You didn't read my explanation about that site (at ~3,900 or so) collecting snow in a 24-inch canister???

Quote:
How no one has come up with a machine that actually makes snow that is close to real snow is beyond me. We are using the type of tech from 40 years ago(they've just become more efficient, but blow out the same crap)  

Machine made snow can be calibrated for water content.  The priority in the East is usually covering the rocks or the sheet ice from the last rain/freeze event.  Reputedly Les Otten made his reputation at Sunday River by "topping off" the snowmaking with a lower water content layer that yielded a more pleasant ski surface.  I've never been there, so I don't know if that's true.  I did get a press tour of Sun Valley's snowmaking facilities, which some of you might find informative: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=8842 .   Mid-season snowmaking is referred to by the locals as "gunpowder," because it's the same 8-10% water content as the natural snow of the region and is designed purely for surface conditions as opposed to the base-building snow of November/December than can be 50% water.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I'm more interested in base depths.

Steamboat 60"
Whitefish 67"
Kimberley 86"
Fernie 65"
Bridger 65"
Jay 36"
Stowe 40"

I wish they'd publish some kind of rock depth info to tell us how much base is needed for most of the place to be skiable.

Which is why base depth isn't very useful unless you know the mountain. 36 inches may be fine at a lot of places but it's a minefield at Squaw or Snowbird.  Even within an area 36 may be OK for most of Whitefish, but I suspect not for a good chunk of Hellroaring Basin.  And I call :bs: on the 86 at Kimberley, which is generally snow deprived vs. its regional neighbors.  86 inches is its season snowfall (very good this early there) and the base is 42 inches.  I looked that up on Kimberley's site because I "knew" it had to be wrong.  This is an illustration of an error made by a "consolidator sites" like snowcountry.com or onthesnow.com, which somehow show a "42-86" inch base for Kimberley.

 

That's why "percent of area open" is the most important stat in early season.  You can cherry pick your snow depth, count your snowmaking in that, or even start counting your snowfall on October 1, but it's much harder to lie about what trails/acreage are open or closed.  If a trail is not open on Dec. 23, it doesn't have enough snow cover; end of discussion.  When Heavenly for example has 178 out of 4800 acres open today, that's enough to tell you to stay away from the Sierra for awhile.


Edited by Tony Crocker - 12/23/13 at 1:22pm
post #94 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo Snowmen View Post

Oh and obviously you don't have a life either since you have time to post on my thread then

No, I'd be at home enjoying pre Christmas rituals with family. I ski a lot, but it takes a back seat to the opportunity to spend time with elderly parents. It's good for my kid to know his Grandparents. Nope. No life here. smile.gif
post #95 of 105
I confess to having gotten the Kimberley number from our sister site. It was an eye popper.
post #96 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

And did you just find out that Santa Claus is a lie as well?

post #97 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo Snowmen View Post

 

How no one has come up with a machine that actually makes snow that is close to real snow is beyond me. We are using the type of tech from 40 years ago(they've just become more efficient, but blow out the same crap)

 

I don't think you will every make a practical machine that reproduces natural snow with any fidelity. Natural snow consists of crystals grown over a significant amount of time as it falls/circulates through the air. I don't think we can build a machine to do that and also produce any practical volume. You're are right that a lot of the development has centered on energy and water usage efficiency. I think it is generally accepted that modern snowmaking equipment makes snow that is "good enough" and the focus now is on efficiency. Man made snow certainly has less structure than natural snow but grooming tends to remove the structure of even natural snow. Grooming is as much responsible for the issues you have mentioned as is man made snow.

 

As far as base depth I think it is generally accepted that base depth is measured in an off piste area that is relatively protected from wind. Many areas report both base and summit depths and some report depths from other areas. The stakes are usually pretty accessible and I have never seen any shenanigans like piling snow around it or anything stupid like that, but yes location will often be chosen to maximize the reading without cheating "too much". If you cheat too much everyone eventually finds out about it and it really doesn't help you much.

post #98 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo Snowmen View Post
 

Hmmmm....It's more than personal opinion. I've shown data from climate sites, yet no one has shown any data against what I'm stating. Only someone who doesn't know anything about climatology would believe jay peak averages near 400 inches of snow a year or anything even close to that. The snowiest place east of the rockies is the tug hill plateau and the keweenaw peninsula, which average about 250 inches a year. I mean seriously, as much snow as wolf creek pass? Really people? Any people with some common sense on here?

Mansfield at 4380 feet averages 220 inches. You're telling me jay peak at mid elevation gets around 160 inches more? That's MORE than an entire season's snowfall at mount snow difference. Give me a break!

You have strangely failed to respond to any of Tony Crocker's posts. Or did I miss something? Since many (most) ski areas are not directly covered by official NWS measurement sites I don't really think your climate site data is incredibly relevant, especially given micro climate effects that occur around a number of ski areas - like Jay and Wolf Creek. I don't know how much snow Jay gets but I do know it has had a reputation for years for its micro climate and snowfall totals. And I think Tony has about as much credibility in the area of snow measurement as anyone out there so I would tend to trust his numbers.

post #99 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Crocker View Post
 

That's why "percent of area open" is the most important stat in early season.  You can cherry pick your snow depth, count your snowmaking in that, or even start counting your snowfall on October 1, but it's much harder to lie about what trails/acreage are open or closed.  If a trail is not open on Dec. 23, it doesn't have enough snow cover; end of discussion.  When Heavenly for example has 178 out of 4800 acres open today, that's enough to tell you to stay away from the Sierra for awhile.

 

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas though, there will often be terrain closed for budget reasons, not lack of snow.   I know this has been true for several CO ski areas this year.   They just don't have enough skiers to justify the cost of opening everything they possibly could.   Usually folks don't notice, but in a decent year like this year it starts to become apparent.  In a really great early season it becomes pretty obvious.

 

Point is: between T-day and Xmas percentage open isn't always the best indicator of conditions in a good snow year.

post #100 of 105
Quote:

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas though, there will often be terrain closed for budget reasons, not lack of snow.   I know this has been true for several CO ski areas this year.   They just don't have enough skiers to justify the cost of opening everything they possibly could.   Usually folks don't notice, but in a decent year like this year it starts to become apparent.  In a really great early season it becomes pretty obvious.

 

Point is: between T-day and Xmas percentage open isn't always the best indicator of conditions in a good snow year.

Probably true Dec. 7, to a lesser extent Dec. 15, once you pass the weekend before Christmas not so much.  We know everything possible will be open Dec. 26, and I'd be surprised if it's much different than last weekend.

 

The hypothesized incentive to hold back opening terrain before Christmas exists every year.  So when I comment on what's open mid-December, it's comparing to mid-December of past seasons.  For example Breck was 52% open this Dec. 14 (vs. 83% in the banner year of 2010-11) and the average since 1988 was 54%.  By contrast Aspen and Telluride were 85% open, in both cases the second best year of the past 12.  FYI I'm voting with my $$$ on this one, driving to Aspen/Telluirde for the first part of January to escape the dismal situation here in California.  

post #101 of 105

post #102 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDevil63 View Post
 

Man made snow certainly has less structure than natural snow but grooming tends to remove the structure of even natural snow. Grooming is as much responsible for the issues you have mentioned as is man made snow.

 

 

Not true. Go to a ski area that has just had an overnight dump and groomed everything. Then go on a day when they've blown fake snow overnight and groomed.

Tell me if you see a difference  ;)

 

The difference is staggering. You'll hear scraping with the fake stuff within a few hours of it being groomed/skied on. The real stuff you won't hear a sound and it will stay as snow.

post #103 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDevil63 View Post
 

You have strangely failed to respond to any of Tony Crocker's posts. Or did I miss something? Since many (most) ski areas are not directly covered by official NWS measurement sites I don't really think your climate site data is incredibly relevant, especially given micro climate effects that occur around a number of ski areas - like Jay and Wolf Creek. I don't know how much snow Jay gets but I do know it has had a reputation for years for its micro climate and snowfall totals. And I think Tony has about as much credibility in the area of snow measurement as anyone out there so I would tend to trust his numbers.

His numbers are not based on climate data(jay peak has no climate data conveniently for the ski area!). Show me the nws official climate reporting stations showing the numbers he listed? He's guessing based on what jay peak reports.(badly).

 

Microclimate.....lmao. Trust me there's not a 160 inch difference between jay peak and the top of mount mansfield. Upslope effect happens along the entire ridge of the greens.A little extra rise near jay peak due to surrounding topopgrahy would never account for that type of difference. Oh and there's a drastic reduction in average snowfall in this area as you head down in elevation. So mid elevation at jay peak getting 160 inches more than at 4400 feet is absolutely absurd. You're not thinking very logically or you have some kind of agenda/enjoy arguing facts. You need to not suspend critical thinking skills. 

post #104 of 105
Thread Starter 

There isn't a single nws official climate snowfall reporting station that has an average snowfall of over 200 inches in the entire state of vermont other than the summit of mount mansfield at nearly 4400 feet as far as I;ve seen. Considering jay peak's base elevation is around 1800 feet. The snow that you are skiing would/should be measure at around 2500-3000 feet. The notion that this area of the greens at this elevation receives nearly 400 inches of snow while mount mansfield averages 220 inches is absolutely absurd. You are relying on a ski area that has all the motivation in the world to lie about the snow they received. I pay attention to official nws climate sites that are independent of a ski area for actual snowfall figures. The notion of a microclimate significant enough to cause an enormous difference in average snowfall over 160 inches is absurd. The only type of area's you see that in is the great lakes(clearly discernible on radar and far different than a little extra upslope) or areas that have enormous differences in elevation.(thousands of feet difference. An area at 500 feet vs 4000 feet). I'm arguing with fools

All the best. Onto the next.

post #105 of 105

Someone's spoiling for a fight with anyone who will answer the trolls.  I'm shutting this down.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › How do they get away with these lies?