 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Interesting and massive differences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
This has been going on for years, with many resorts claiming that the run length is the distance covered by the skier during the turns. So because a typical sine wave ski track is longer than a straight line, the run is 'longer' by 30-40%.
Resorts like Whistler are past master at creative marketing, with their snow depth and skiable area. When I was there in March the 8,000 acre ski area had only been reduced to 7,600 even though little below mid stations was open, so I assume all the woodland and rock is included. This means that if a run is closed, the proportion of the closed area is much lower. Their other trick is to leave a line of trees down the middle of a piste, and call each half by different names, thereby doubling that particular runs length.
I believe that most European resorts quote actual snow depth on piste, maybe village, mid and top etc. Whistlers trick is to report uncompressed snow depth in an isolated valley, so they can report 120cm, while the adjacent piste is 20cm with bare patches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Marketing people cheat. Back in the 1980s the UK "good ski guide" would print all the area maps to the same scale so you could see which resorts were bigger than others, although precisely what you mean by "bigger" is subjective. It's an odd metric - in places like (say) Snowbird the pistes are just a way to get to and from the (in bounds) powder. I'd trade thousands of miles of boring motorway for one interesting run.
Possibly uplift capacity per hour divided by bed count adjusted for the distance from major population centres would be more useful, depending on what you're trying to work out.
I'm not sure about snow depth - anyone here work for a resort who measures it? In the back country you just measure the daily accumulation and the total depth, you're not expected to bash it down first. I always thought snow depth data was like SCGB snow reports... something to be taken in context. I'm not defending the way they cheat on this, just suggesting that the audience isn't as daft as silly-season journalists appear to think.
Perhaps I'm lucky, but I never went to a ski resort and thought it was smaller than I could easily see it was on the map...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@PowderAdict, I am not sure if it is still there, but I recall a piste called "lifties leap" in Whistler. It had a sign and a piste marker (2). It was a 2m drop off from the lift top station to the main piste. That was all. I thought it was purely a joke or perhaps an attempt to get into the Guiness Book of Records as the worlds shortest piste. I thought the resort area quoted in North American resorts was the total inbounds area of the resort 8,000 acres = 3,200ha = 32 km2
Incidently I thought the argument about the Sarenne piste was that it claimed to be the worlds longst black piste not that it was the worlds longest piste. Whereas only the top could really be considered blaack and the vast majority of it was blue/green
As for simple lines on the snow delimiting pistes - Soldeau in Andora was the best example in my opinion. A very wide piste was split into two or more pistes simply by snow fences. to increase the number of pistes in the resort and of course the total piste length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Snow depth measurement varies from location to location, In the Jungfrau region in Switzerland they measure at the same locations each time, the locations are out of direct sunlight and sheltered from strong winds and are measured each morning, their most useful function is to see the amount of new snow, though if you are familiar with the area you know what is likely to give good results and what means bare patches. They won't measure on the piste as obviously the moment a piste basher or even a skier goes over the area it will alter the measurements.
In addition how much snow a resort has does not always give you a guide as to whether it will have good skiing, A resort like Wengen needs about 40cm on the lower slopes and about 90cm on the upper slopes to give good skiing without patches, this is because the area is mainly alpine pasture in the summer with little exposed rock, go to one of the higher purpose built resorts in say France and you may find you need twice as much snow to be able to ski without rocks showing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're sad enough to think that piste mileage is a particularly important metric, you deserve what you get in my view 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@Mike Pow,
Or some local has 8 nice stone blocks in his garden for seating 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If you're sad enough to think that piste mileage is a particularly important metric, you deserve what you get in my view
|
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| speed098 wrote: |
@Mike Pow,
Or some local has 8 nice stone blocks in his garden for seating |
Ha ha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| If you're sad enough to think that piste mileage is a particularly important metric, you deserve what you get in my view |
For recreational skiers and snowboarders who don't obsess over skiing like we do on here, I'd say the mountain stats are very important in their decision making process.
Much the same way as when high cost electronic items are purchased.
Hence the multitude of comparative websites.
So legitimising the stats is a forward step IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Much the same way as when high cost electronic items are purchased.
|
eh? Surely that's about price? That is a perfectly sensible metric to consider!
piste length is just silly because quality (however you personally define it - views, variety, snow, pitch, quality of grooming, availability of off-piste, restaurants) is far more important than quantity
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Quote: |
Much the same way as when high cost electronic items are purchased.
|
eh? Surely that's about price? That is a perfectly sensible metric to consider!
piste length is just silly because quality (however you personally define it - views, variety, snow, pitch, quality of grooming, availability of off-piste, restaurants) is far more important than quantity |
Price is certainly one metric. But also number of features for the same price is a popular way to choose.
A large number of recreational skiers and snowboarders are all about the distance they cover on a one week holiday.
Hence the popularity of the big ski circuses like the 3 Valleys, Espace Killy, Sella Ronda etc
It may not be your most important metric - or one at all - but for many it's the starting point.
At least that's been my experience trying to recommend family, friends and prospective customers to the smaller resorts out there.
For example, Whitefish Mountain Resort, Montana, USA; Kicking Horse, BC, Canada; and the Hokkaido resorts I ski at and represent at the moment have all been hard sells to the UK recreational skier & snowboarder because km of piste, number of lifts, altitude and vertical drop are always bigger factors than quantity and quality of snowfall, grooming, availability of off-piste etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
If you're sad enough to think that piste mileage is a particularly important metric, you deserve what you get in my view
|
It may or mat not be important to you, but it should be correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Jonny Jones, @jedster, @Mike Pow, when I was 19 and looking to book a ski holiday without parents for myself and mates, we compared piste km/snow depth record/cost, to come up with a choice of 2 or 3 resorts. Then we just went for the one with the best nightlife
At that point I had never even heard of snowheads and certainly wasn't someone who professed to know much more than how to ski. We ended up in the SkiWelt which indeed has a of lot piste km and doesn't require much snow for skiing to be brilliant (alpine pastures). So I think making these more accurate is definitely a good thing.
Nowadays, I would always do more in depth research on a resort than look at lift company produced figures but then again I have more experience and more requirements from a ski trip than back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| ..the same way as when high cost electronic items are purchased. |
I worked with some high profile people in those businesses and that's exactly how it works. Actually they used to sell Ski boots the same way - many people would end up buying "controls" on their boots which they would never use.
--
There are lots of people doing "snow sports" and they have different needs. In my own early years size was pretty much everything, because I was going to go and stay in one place for two weeks and I get bored with the same runs. Now I just wander around and take what I like where I like. I can ride powder right on the piste because I'm somewhere no one other than locals know, and you can't get there without driving up a road tourists would not risk. Both approaches work really well.
I'd say that mostly resort selection probably isn't about price with the exception of some specific top/ bottom range places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
I'd say that mostly resort selection probably isn't about price with the exception of some specific top/ bottom range places.
|
I agree. Except for the very expensive places - like Lech - where there just don't seem to be any cheap options - most resorts offer an enormous range of prices for accommodation. Val d'Isere has some eye-wateringly expensive chalets but it also has an excellent UCPA and plenty of lower cost apartments. Chamonix has some upmarket options but lots of cheaper apartments and even hostels. And lift price costs - a bigger factor for most families than accommodation - tend to look fairly similar, overall, as do the cost of lessons and equipment hire (again, with the exception of some of the notorious rip-off places).
Of course the "mileage claimed" should be accurate, and consistent - some of the discrepancies quoted above are ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| If you're sad enough to think that piste mileage is a particularly important metric, you deserve what you get in my view |
OK, I was being provocative - hence the smiley I chose! I accept that although piste length might be unimportant to me, it is very important (obsessionally so in some cases) for other people, and everyone has a right to choose how they make their decisions. For that reason, I'd love to see an embarrassing legal challenge being brought against some of the dishonest resorts.
Having said that, when friends talk to me about choosing a resort, I advise them that precise piste km figures are unimportant, although the choice between a small, medium or large resort can be important when drawing up a shortlist. There's little point in having extensive black pistes if you enjoy blues (or vice versa) for example. Lengthy pistes at the far end of a mega-resort might be inaccessible to all but the fastest skiers, and pistes that are a bus or taxi journey away are even less useful. Many resorts have bottleneck pistes (St Anton, I'm looking at your Happy Valley), so lovers of variety might find they have to do loads of tedious repetitious stuff even in a large ski area. Some resorts have multiple near-identical pistes running parallel, while other, smaller resorts have a great spread of runs at different altitudes facing different directions. Some cross-border ski areas offer a choice of widely varied mountain villages (Zermatt/Cervinia, for example), but most people would be hard-pressed distinguishing between two 1960s purpose-built high-altitude battery farms.
For all these reasons, a sensible skier looks at the piste map before booking a holiday. It's not rocket science, and it tells you far more than the km figures ever can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Unfortunetly amongst my social skiing friends the two most common resort put-downs are:
1. X is too low, I prefer Y because it's higher and more snow-sure.
2. X is too small, I prefer Y because it has more miles of piste.
Sadly that's usually the end of the argument, with no interest in hearing that although Austrian resorts are often lower so is their snow line, or that 140km of good runs in a 150km resort is better than a 300km resort with only 50km of good runs and 250km of tracks and loose tape measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Mjit, I once had an argument with some friends of my father (I'm 27) who kept telling me they only ski in North America because the Alps are too low and they ALWAYS get more snow in NA.
They insisted that Whistler/Blackcomb Mountain was 7500 and weren't best please when I informed them that was feet and not metres and that the top of whistler was not higher than the Ischgl Mid Station, alse they weren't best pleased when I suggested there beloved Tahoe was in drought.
I had returned about 3 weeks before from Ischgl at the beginning of May with skiing to village level(1600m). As usual though the argument ended there because "they were right" and "I was wrong"....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| If you're sad enough to think that piste mileage is a particularly important metric, you deserve what you get in my view |
OK, I was being provocative - hence the smiley I chose! I accept that although piste length might be unimportant to me, it is very important (obsessionally so in some cases) for other people, and everyone has a right to choose how they make their decisions. |
I wouldn't say that I was obsessional, but as someone with little over 3 weeks skiing under my belt I do find that a lot of mileage is the best way to develop, plus by skiing a large area I believe (although could be wrong) that you are more likely to get the varied conditions that come from pistes facing different directions and being subject to different weather across the day. Some of the softer snow that I was skiing at La Plagne in March was great for getting experience on lumps and bumps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love the way some resorts claim the distances are correct if you ski in sinusoidal wave forms down the slopes. So if I run my finger in a sinusoidal wave form down my todger does that make it twelve inches long?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Km of piste has always been a selling point but often doesn't tell the whole story. Many French resorts have many runs in the same bowl so that 50km of runs can all seem very similar and served by a few lifts.
No surprise to see L2A on the list.
I think few would argue that, even if the figures are stretched a bit, EK and the 3V are vast.
I think it's pretty well established now that the highest mileage around is the Dolomites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piste is S h i t .
lets hear about real skiin km' s in Off Piste 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
For all these reasons, a sensible skier looks at the piste map before booking a holiday. It's not rocket science, and it tells you far more than the km figures ever can.
|
Well exactly.
Even if the numbers were rigorously comparable you would still need to look at the piste map to decide which ski area offered the best package for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SnoodyMcFlude,
| Quote: |
wouldn't say that I was obsessional, but as someone with little over 3 weeks skiing under my belt I do find that a lot of mileage is the best way to develop, plus by skiing a large area I believe (although could be wrong) that you are more likely to get the varied conditions that come from pistes facing different directions and being subject to different weather across the day. Some of the softer snow that I was skiing at La Plagne in March was great for getting experience on lumps and bumps.
|
There's a couple of things wrapped up in what you say:
1. variety in altitude and elevation is good so that you can find good snow in a variety of conditions (or indeed a variety of snow). Agreed. But mileage is not necessarily a good proxy for that - some smaller areas offer a lot of variety. You need to look at the piste map. Personally I think La Plagne is a classic big area that flatters to deceive. A lot of the runs are very samey. I do agree that you have N and S facing options though which helps. Different topic but the high max altitude there also flatters - it takes ages to get up there and the pistes are quite limited (I know there are some amazing off-piste options)
2. lots of mileage is a good way to improve. Yes and no. Lots of PURPOSEFUL practice is a good way to improve (not just skiing but thinking about what you are doing, making adjustments, seeing what the results are, doing some more). You can do that by skiing lots of miles on different pistes or lots of miles on the same piste. There is actually something to be said at times for trying and retrying things on the same ground so you can reduce the variables you are messing with.
None of that means it isn't fun to blast from one end of a big resort to the other and back sometimes
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
| So if I run my finger in a sinusoidal wave form down my todger does that make it twelve inches long? |
No, but if you do it enough times, it might end up being twice as long as when you started. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Yep, these stats drive us crazy. We film pistes and lifts: http://www.pisteview.com/ski-areas/stubai-glacier/
There can't be too many marketing games with the lifts - they know how much cable they use so cannot really bend the facts too much. But the pistes (which can be accessed by clicking the icons int he player module) are a whole different ball game. We film straight line descents and basically take the shortest route - we have had some interesting discussions with the lift companies!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Piste View, That must be the worlds fastest lift wow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
....you will find the slopes to be a little more leisurely!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| jedster wrote: |
There's a couple of things wrapped up in what you say:
1. variety in altitude and elevation is good so that you can find good snow in a variety of conditions (or indeed a variety of snow). Agreed. But mileage is not necessarily a good proxy for that - some smaller areas offer a lot of variety. You need to look at the piste map. Personally I think La Plagne is a classic big area that flatters to deceive. A lot of the runs are very samey. I do agree that you have N and S facing options though which helps. Different topic but the high max altitude there also flatters - it takes ages to get up there and the pistes are quite limited (I know there are some amazing off-piste options) |
Agreed about the altitude there. Getting up to the glacier area seems to take an age and when you get there you're greeted by a handful of runs. There are a few cases of pistes running alongside each other, granted, but you also get a mixture of the pasture type run, stuff in amongst trees or up high on the glacier. Compared to my experience of the pistes at VT I actually preferred to be grasping the basics at La Plagne (although the weather conditions when I went to VT kinda spoilt it). Like I say though, my experience is limited and I've only experienced La Plagne and the 3V 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
It's hard to argue with 3V - think it does offer outstanding variety. But it doesn't feel that way if you are stuck in a blizzard in VT - tree skiing in Courchevel might as well be on Mars! And I like VT, although probably not in January...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
For me it’s about terrain variety and total single run length, not always the size of the whole ski area.
What I really love and want on-piste is really long runs, or series of pistes joined together where I can ski for ages without stopping (for a lift, or anything else like flat sections) – I want to be challenged with different gradients, different snow types, and arrive at the bottom with my legs muscles knowing they've worked, and at least a little out of breath (preferably mostly red, with some black thrown in, not too much long cruisey blues). Not many of the smaller resorts have runs long enough for that, though some do.
I love the space of the 3V, and know what runs to head for there, no problem. But I also love Chamonix with smaller non-linked areas. But that’s more about off-piste, and I've barely scratched the surface of it even after two seasons. I can easily spend entire days just skiing Lavanchets over and over again – I've actually done many days doing that, and again, feel I've barely touched most of it. I can easily see why some people never ski anywhere other than Grands Montets. Offpiste I wouldn't do the same really long non-stop runs – it’s ski from one safe point to another, check the group is ok, agree the next section, ski it, repeat. But worth it for the snow and challenge.
Re. La Plagne, I just confirmed yesterday I’ll be there for a week next winter, which I’m really excited about! It’ll be my first time there , so the trip will be about covering as much ground as possible in a big area, just to see what it’s like. And if I find some favourite runs, I’ll be very happy to repeat them too. (And I’ll do a couple of offpiste days too with the local schools/guides).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
(And I’ll do a couple of offpiste days too with the local schools/guides).
|
Think that is a good idea - my sense was that there is some great offpiste but it requires more local knowledge that, say, 3V which has massive off piste potential which is kind of obvious right in front of you.
The Grands Montets is not quite like anywhere else. Each of the bowls has a huge skiable area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't be as bad if they all lied in the same way, but the fact that each of them differs makes it even more difficult. As an average-joe-british-Skier - I've always thought it to be a decent metric (and certainly one used when making a decision on where to go). Obergurgl is a good example as someone mentioned, and when you've got runs that end up merging - I'd bet they still count them as individual runs for the purposes of length.
Would be nice to have a standardised metric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Dunny#1 wrote: |
It wouldn't be as bad if they all lied in the same way, but the fact that each of them differs makes it even more difficult. As an average-joe-british-Skier - I've always thought it to be a decent metric (and certainly one used when making a decision on where to go). Obergurgl is a good example as someone mentioned, and when you've got runs that end up merging - I'd bet they still count them as individual runs for the purposes of length.
Would be nice to have a standardised metric. |
Agreed, but don't you think they would just come up with another way of double counting that piste? Like putting markers down the middle of it to double up anway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
don't you think they would just come up with another way of double counting that piste? Like putting markers down the middle of it to double up anway?
snow report Sat 12 Sep, 15
12:51 Reply with quote
|
where pistes are wide enough, if they did this and left one side unpisted, it would actually make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
