 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Thanks, looks like alot went into producing that, a good read
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
A wealth of stats in here . Would be interesting to combine the SM number , lift capacity and visitor numbers into one table...
To find the quieter resorts (in theory). I reckon Espace San Bernado (La Ros + La Thuile) would come out well on that.
26th in the SM list (249 points) , 37th in the VTM but 80th in visitor numbers...
My experience of the Italian side at least has always been virtually empty pistes and lifts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Agree with the comments above.
A very interesting read - must have been a huge amount of work to calculate all the figures in it! Also great that it's now free; the document's been available in previous years but it's been very expensive. Now, I know that size certainly isn't everything, but the real piste length figures are useful to know, as the exaggeration of figures by resorts is a pet hate of mine.
For example:
Les Sybelles claim (or claimed) 310 km; real figure = 163 km
Via Lattea claim (or claimed) 400 km; real figure = 269 km
I'm not quite sold on the weighting of variables determining Skimiles. Personally I don't think "longest run", "elevation difference" or "number of mountain flanks" necessarily affects enjoyment of a ski area. The longest runs often take multiple lifts to get to the top anyway, and I'd enjoy skiing two runs of half the length just as much as a single run of the combined length. As a result I think some resorts benefit disproportionately from the factors above.
For example:
Engelberg-Titlis real figure = 38 km; Skimiles figure = 159 km
Murren real figure = 46 km; Skimiles figure = 177 km
Monterosa Ski real figure = 80 km; Skimile figure = 204 km
Whereas other resorts lose out (or gain less):
Morzine real figure = 120 km; Skimiles figure = 169 km
...which means, for example, that according to Skimiles, Murren is bigger than Morzine-Les Gets...
I've also some reservations about the calculations for transport capacity (e.g. some lifts are in more useful places, but no weighting is given to this; pulsed gondolas are given very high scores, despite actually being very inefficient; cable cars have high speeds but involve lots of standing around waiting for them).
The piste comfort figures are also determined solely by the lifts which serve them, but actually the number of visitors is just as (or more?) important. For example (and this is a hypothetical scenario) a resort where every run was served by its own huge cable car would generate a low score for piste comfort. But if you were the only person on the lift, you'd still have the run to yourself...
Skier visits are very interesting though, especially if you look at them alongside (real) piste length. It justifies the oft-held view that La Thuile / La Rosiere has very quiet pistes. Other ski areas which stood out as being particularly quiet include Big White, l'Espace Lumiere and Livigno.
I wonder if in a future edition we'll see all the above scores brought together to produce an "overall ski resort amazingness" figure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The snow reliability figures will be interesting next year because they are going to take account of 'skiable days', rather than just snow cover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Saas Fee claimed 100km, actual 51km. i've never been to Saas Fee, however when previously considering it; i thought the piste map looked small. I'm surprised the length has been misquoted as double what it is.
like others i'm looking to divide length by number of skiers to find the quietest slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, with such a list I am already going down it ticking off where I have been and where not. Pretty big bucket list left though, and some big ones still on my list. (I've only done 50% of the top 10!)
My previous target was to go to the highest. Like Himilayas, or when Tibet opens up some skiing there would be ace. (I've done Breckenridge and Zermatt, just Yunnan China and Kashmir India to go)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ski/news/world_s-highest-ski-resort-to-be-built-in-tibet/
Not sure if I will make the other 50% before I run out of juice. (or they run out of snow)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And they do a (German language) Top Trumps game for ski resorts! Cool!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Good spot.
No surprise to see so many Swiss resorts making up their mileage stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some interesting stats/data I wonder when this information was compiled, as I feel that the information re Espace San Bernardo is a little out of date. The two new lifts on Mont Valasain have given five new pistes which have increased the maximum Vertical drop available - 2800 meters down to 1176 meters and added possibly another 25 kms of piste as well as increasing the off-piste potential. Glad to see that visitor numbers do not reflect the attributes of this area, keep staying away- more room for those of us who enjoy skiing there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Lee Shaw wrote: |
| Some interesting stats/data I wonder when this information was compiled, as I feel that the information re Espace San Bernardo is a little out of date. The two new lifts on Mont Valasain have given five new pistes which have increased the maximum Vertical drop available - 2800 meters down to 1176 meters and added possibly another 25 kms of piste as well as increasing the off-piste potential. Glad to see that visitor numbers do not reflect the attributes of this area, keep staying away- more room for those of us who enjoy skiing there. |
I have a feeling the now verified and published km for Espace San Bernado already includes the Mt Valaisan extension ... so the data / report must be quite recent.
From this article - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ski/news/first-look-at-new-ski-area-in-la-rosiere-france/
"The lift company made a second announcement while I was there - it has had the length of its pistes officially measured by independent expert Christoph Schrahe of pistelength.com, who measures slopes straight down the middle. His verdict - 152km of piste, including the new area; La Rosière previously claimed 160km."
So they must have way over egged the pudding in the past !! After the Schrahe measurements , the km of pistes went down from 160 to 152 (and that includes the new sector)
never felt as big as they claimed...!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
What is Schrahe's methodology? Does he measure on the ground or use maps? I don't think figures being exact to the km are the issue but they should be comparable between resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof,
I've wondered this. Given how many resorts he looks at I'm guessing he's using maps, maybe even Googlemaps, as I doubt he could get around to measure 'on the ground'.
If this is the case then resorts with a high percentage of steep slopes could be being downgraded on km of piste if the measurement is from a 2-D perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Anyone know if this pdf is still available anywhere? Can’t find where I saved it off and it’s a great source of info
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Thanks, it worked
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Thanks for the link... obviously I supplied my 'junk' email address, and not the one I use for real email use etc.
They supplied a download link immediately, no need to go to my junk email site... so i'd bet you could put any old silly made-up email address in there if you like 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bigtipper wrote: |
So, with such a list I am already going down it ticking off where I have been and where not. Pretty big bucket list left though, and some big ones still on my list. (I've only done 50% of the top 10!)
|
The logic of which completely escaped me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Anything giving skiers more information about which resorts to visit can't be a bad thing so well done to whoever created it. Of course with these things the results are very dependent on which variables are used and then how they are weighted in the formula to come up with the final figures. There's no right answer how to do it and I'm sure a lot is down to personal preferences.
Firstly I'm surprised to see so many north american resorts up there in the top 20 for most length of runs. I'd definitely been sold on the narrative euro resorts are much bigger. I am still assuming that in terms of posted runs euro resorts have much more length, but maybe not? This leads me onto the next thing though, what exactly constitutes a "ski run" in the analysis?
Would two pretty much identical pistes side by side seperated by only a little island of trees be two runs? How do you quantity the huge bowls found in North America with numerous lines down (e.g. spankys ladder at Whistler, Vail back bowls, lake Louise back bowls etc.). What about all the unofficial lines not actually shown on piste maps? Is a random patch of trees actually a run or just a random patch of trees people choose to ski through?
The obvious missing variable is quality of ski run. It's all well and good who has the most km, area, and longest run but if they are all flat and boring it's rather useless. I accept that this is pretty much impossible to define, but it does make a huge difference. I would have liked to seen a variety variable (i.e. more points if you offer a mixture of skiing: groomed, trees, bowl, couloirs etc) but suspect this would favour the n American resorts too much.
I'm also not sure total vert/longest run is a good variable. Yes a certain length is needed for an enjoyable run (else we'd all just stick to the snowdome!). However, at a certain point runs become uncomfortably long for a lot of skiers to the point where they require numerous stops (e.g. peak to creek at Whistler). Also huge vert usually means the base is incredibly low and suffers with rain and ice (Whistler, revelstoke).
I'm also not sure about the snow sure algorithm. For example, Silvretta scores higher than Breckenridge even though Breck has a longer season and higher piste availability. Yes it has more snowmaking, but surely the fact Breck has zero snowmaking and still opens longer and with more piste availability is a sign the area is much more snow sure? Also I think most of us would agree artificial snow is not as good as the real thing.
As for the resort reported km compared to measured it is quite shocking in some cases! I'm assuming this is not just a flat out lie but some kind of "creative" measurement? I could imagine putting a GPS on a skier and telling them to make some nice big turns and not straight line anythin could result in a measurement around double the straight line distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
FYI Breck has snowmaking. Partly so they can compete with other areas for "first/most open bragging rights" and other nonsense, and partly so valley runs are skiable early on. I think I saw 657 acres of coverage for Breck.
As for "longest runs", few of them are any good. They seem to find the theoretical longest distance one could ski and call it a run, even if its really a road to nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
FYI Breck has snowmaking
|
Ok I haven't visited I'm just going off the snowsure table they use which suggests 0 for snowmaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
Anything giving skiers more information about which resorts to visit can't be a bad thing so well done to whoever created it. Of course with these things the results are very dependent on which variables are used and then how they are weighted in the formula to come up with the final figures. There's no right answer how to do it and I'm sure a lot is down to personal preferences.
Firstly I'm surprised to see so many north american resorts up there in the top 20 for most length of runs. I'd definitely been sold on the narrative euro resorts are much bigger. I am still assuming that in terms of posted runs euro resorts have much more length, but maybe not? This leads me onto the next thing though, what exactly constitutes a "ski run" in the analysis?
Would two pretty much identical pistes side by side seperated by only a little island of trees be two runs? How do you quantity the huge bowls found in North America with numerous lines down (e.g. spankys ladder at Whistler, Vail back bowls, lake Louise back bowls etc.). What about all the unofficial lines not actually shown on piste maps? Is a random patch of trees actually a run or just a random patch of trees people choose to ski through?
The obvious missing variable is quality of ski run. It's all well and good who has the most km, area, and longest run but if they are all flat and boring it's rather useless. I accept that this is pretty much impossible to define, but it does make a huge difference. I would have liked to seen a variety variable (i.e. more points if you offer a mixture of skiing: groomed, trees, bowl, couloirs etc) but suspect this would favour the n American resorts too much.
I'm also not sure total vert/longest run is a good variable. Yes a certain length is needed for an enjoyable run (else we'd all just stick to the snowdome!). However, at a certain point runs become uncomfortably long for a lot of skiers to the point where they require numerous stops (e.g. peak to creek at Whistler). Also huge vert usually means the base is incredibly low and suffers with rain and ice (Whistler, revelstoke).
I'm also not sure about the snow sure algorithm. For example, Silvretta scores higher than Breckenridge even though Breck has a longer season and higher piste availability. Yes it has more snowmaking, but surely the fact Breck has zero snowmaking and still opens longer and with more piste availability is a sign the area is much more snow sure? Also I think most of us would agree artificial snow is not as good as the real thing.
As for the resort reported km compared to measured it is quite shocking in some cases! I'm assuming this is not just a flat out lie but some kind of "creative" measurement? I could imagine putting a GPS on a skier and telling them to make some nice big turns and not straight line anythin could result in a measurement around double the straight line distance. |
I'm from Australia so my experience skiing in Europe is limited and I must say I really enjoyed the huge resorts I visited. The sense of having a 'day out' by skiing from your start point to your pre-determined lunch destination and back while not riding the same lift twice is super fun. On the other hand I traveled to the US in February/March this year (and avoided Covid) for a road trip style holiday. One of the days was spent at Snowbird. I rode just two lifts all day (Gadzoom and Gad 2) and I doubt I skied the same 'trail' twice the entire day. The ability to safely ski anywhere at all within the resort boundaries opens up so much variety. For that reason I would say bigger is not always better.
Oh and on snow quality. I don't know much about algorithms but the gold standard in my experience is Little Cottonwood Canyon in Utah. Hokkaido is often mentioned for great snow quality and I found that to be the case but the extra elevation of LLC does wonders for snow preservation. It's generally wonderfully chalky days after a storm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
As a novice/intermediate skier large European ski areas allowed you to have variety and loads of distance to improve on piste skiing. As you become more experienced and hit black runs, and off piste, the size of the ski area becomes less important. Some small ski areas allow you access to great skiing which is cheap, not so crowded, and convenient. The corrollary to this is that small ski areas often allow beginners and intermediates to learn cheaply without crowded and manic skiers zooming past. As a complete beginner you do not need a large area to learn, you need a small gentle slope which is protected from nutters and mobs of skiers.
Large European ski areas are not really top of my bucket list anymore. I have been there, and finding my own space is often more appealing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<shrug> the report is 404 at the moment. I like small areas and big ones, for different reasons.
As pointed out, it depends hugely on how you measure it. And then I'm unconvinced that what you're measuring is actually useful.
The PDS covers a lot of ground, but when I was there scale is delivered via "transport mode" skiing, which the cynical may think
exists mostly to deliver this sort of metric. Revelstoke's bottom lift & slope is only there for to achieve the vertical in the brochure.
These things have marketing benefits, but don't deliver benefits in terms of "skiing experience".
With 3/4 of people overweight, perhaps a list of small resorts with short runs and pie shops at each lift base
would be more useful?
| sbooker wrote: |
| ... One of the days was spent at Snowbird. I rode just two lifts all day (Gadzoom and Gad 2) and I doubt I skied the same 'trail' twice the entire day. The ability to safely ski anywhere at all within the resort boundaries opens up so much variety. For that reason I would say bigger is not always better.... |
When I first went to Snowbird, even though I'd done my research, I found it extremely small and disappointing.
It was only when I returned a decade later with locals that I discovered what the fuss was all about: you really need to know how
to navigate the terrain to get the best from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
small ski areas often allow beginners and intermediates to learn cheaply without crowded and manic skiers zooming past
|
Im not sure small area necessarily means less crowds? Surely crowding is a product of area size and number of people? As for manic skiers I'm sure you can find them everywhere. The solution seems to be patrolled slow ski areas which at least a few of the bigger resorts in North America have.
| Quote: |
you really need to know how to navigate the terrain to get the best from it
|
I think this is true for a lot of North American resorts. Very rarely will you find the best stuff on your first day (unless you get lucky with a local showing you around). One of the reasons I don't like the road trip style approach of doing a single day or two in a bunch of different resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@boarder2020, I am thinking of small ski areas like the Lecht in Scotland. In my experience, very few advanced and lunatic skiers go there. It is a basic up and down ski resort with mostly greens and blues. Very friendly for beginners, pretty much not somewhere intermediates or advanced would be attracted to.
Compare that to trying to learn in Val Thorens like I did. If you strayed into the fast lane as a beginner, you would be disorientated and harassed by the skiers skiing too close and not giving you enough social distance. Having said that, in a week in Val Thorens I was skiing down reds. I was an aggressive beginner, but I was learning with some who were extremely cautious beginners who were put off by the crowds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
