 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
And your point is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Well Fernie, BC gets prize from my personal experiences of worst tag line ever "legendary powder".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Monterosa ski area was claiming 135km up to this year, it has now gone down to 73km.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Markymark29 wrote: |
| And your point is? |
A few years ago the Stubai scam was already published by a number of alpinforum members.
They (stubai) got away with it, because of the lack of stature of the whistle-blowers.
Not anymore, mr Schrahe who wrote the article is also publisher of the 2 best known ski atlases (ADAC and DSV).
http://www.ski-weltweit.de/buecher.html
His point is that some ski areas are honest, and some are outright liars.
And the degree in which they lie, varies widely.
We can reward the honest ones (and punish the liars) by voting with our feet (or ski's).
The price tag charged is proportional with claimed ski area size, not actual size.
In Schladming (AU) and Sierra Nevada (E), just to name 2, you get 100% of what you pay for.
In Stubai you only get 30% of what they claim, and charge for.
For instance Heiligenblut (ever heard of???) is larger than the whole Stubai glacier area. For a fraction of the price.
The honest ones deserve support, the liars not.
Besides, it's in everyone's interest to get what you pay for. This list helps.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 17-02-13 11:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of rip offs the report itself costs some 99 Euros !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| D G Orf wrote: |
| Speaking of rip offs the report itself costs some 99 Euros ! |
yes, but the conclusions are all over the internet easy to be found
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Onnem wrote: |
We can reward the honest ones (and punish the liars) by voting with our feet (or ski's).
The price tag charged is proportional with claimed ski area size, not actual size.
|
This is insane logic -I look forward to paying more for my 2l bottle if value cider than my 75cl of fine champagne if size is the only metric on which products should be priced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, you're obviously of the "never mind the length, feel the girth" persuasion then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
If I was a ski resort that seriously wanted to inflate my seats I could just plough many kms of shitty cattracks around the mountains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
This is insane logic -I look forward to paying more for my 2l bottle if value cider than my 75cl of fine champagne if size is the only metric on which products should be priced.
|
Not sure where your logic is in this. The article claims that you are buying a 2l bottle of cider, but when you get it home and measure the contents it is only 850ml.
However, it is quite easy to double the piste length, simply follow Soldeu's lead and put a fence down the middle of a piste and call it two separate pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnE, The lack of logic is that pricing is or should be directly correlated with piste kms, real or fabricated.
False advertising is one thing but anyone who makes a ski resort choice on claimed kms where there is so much more important information available (snowfall, aspect of runs, variety, underlying terrain, popularity etc etc) is probably hopelessly naive and as you identify in your Soldeu example twice the length doesn't mean anything (in ski resort terms).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| If I was a ski resort that seriously wanted to inflate my stats I could just plough many kms of shitty cattracks around the mountains. |
True. There is a cost to piste length in that they have to be pisted regularly, although resorts could easily cut this cost by making the pistes narrower.
But in my experience while some resorts are 20km and others are 200km the lift ticket does not become that much more pricey.
In the end, as with piste grading stats, you have to ask around and make your own judgement.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Sun 17-02-13 14:21; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
fatbob, You are looking at it from the lift operators point of view not the punters point of view. For the punter, the lift operator provides a service consisting of a number of lifts, and the amount of pistes that have to be prepared, (running costs) and the capital costs of installing the equipment. a rough measure of this is the size of resort and this is what the punter thinks they should pay for a lift pass. It s based upon their perceived costs to the service provider The lift operator sees it differently. They think what will the punter pay for this service, and as you say if they are blessed with good terrain and snow fall then then will try to charge more.
What we object to is the operators saying they are providing more than they actually are. False claims are cheating. The argument is not about how good a resort is; it is about what the operators say about how good it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
i hope that no one would decide on their resort based solely on kms of piste but it's certainly an important factor.
having just returned from villard-de-lans (TR to follow), it has a claimed 120kms. that's fine for a family holiday, which this was. but in 2 weeks i'm off to 3V with friends and we tend to ski long hours with only a moderate lunch break, so want somewhere where there's going to be enough skiing and enough variety of piste to keep us entertained. admittedly, even if you halved 3V's 600kms, you'd have EK's 300kms!
when you get down to stubai's situation, 129kms vs 48kms is a big difference. we used to ski stubai as an early or late-season day trip from munich. however, claim that it has 129kms of piste and that sounds like enough to entertain for a few days and a whole week on a family holiday. however, 48 is a different matter. i'd probably ski most of that on the first day and then find maybe half of that that i enjoyed skiing. that's down to 24kms to entertain me for a week. hmmm, not impressive.
i don't care if it's high altitude skiing, there are alternative resorts with access to high altitude who have a genuine 129kms+.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
johnE, I understand the false advertising but I'll never get the mentality that suggests small isn't good enough. Take Fernie quoted above - many a European piste commuter would be bored in well under a day (limited piste kms, few on hill restaurants to visiit etc) while someone with a more adventurous spirit might take a whole season and still not be bored. My opinion is if you get bored, get better rather than look for somewhere bigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
fatbob, the point of my opening post was that certain ski areas deliberately cheat with their figures
of course there's more to a ski area than the sheer number of piste km
for me, I like espace killy better than the 3 vallees just because of the variety and quality of the slopes, plus because it has more of a "sport-and-mountain-lovers" atmosphere
but I think you first select an area based on the approximate size, and then read what others have to say about the quality of terrain
I don't want to buy a bottle of beer, only to find it 2/3 empty after opening it
I don't want to go for a beach holiday, only to find after arrival that the temperature is 12 degrees maximum
who wants a sportscar, that maxes out at 125 kmh
For your first rough selection, ski area size by km of slopes is the best you can get
Whoever tampers with that, should be crucified 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I agree Onnem has a good point. It's like paying for beef and finding someone has substituted horse meat. Of course, nobody would ever get away with that, would they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
What is a 'cheater' as opposed to a 'cheat'? - No pictures of big spotted cats please  Is it just another cheesy Americanism or is there a difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| What is a 'cheater' as opposed to a 'cheat'? |
It's the result of the brave attempt by a non-native speaker trying to write english 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont really get this thread, been reading it again and IMO its not about km's of piste, rather the quality and speed of lifts, lack of queues, access to top quality freeride terrain and quality of off-piste, plus lift owned mountain eateries. I'd much prefer access to a greater area with smaller km of piste rather than EK/ PDS/ 3V type of approach where there are endless amounts of blue/ red motorways, and green cattracks and this limits the amount of off-piste opportunity.
If thats classed as cheating so be it, I'd rather be in Stubai.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it doesn't matter *to you*, but the resort clearly thinks that *it does matter* to most of their customers, which is why they bother to lie about it. What makes you think this place has "top quality" anything anyway?
I think false advertising is a dirty trick and I'm glad they've been outed.
Legendary: yes, I've been there when it's been nothing but that, although the rain does keep the streets clean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Markymark29, I agree small areas can provide better quality skiing than large ones, but that's not the point here. If the resort description said there was plenty of off piste skiing, or tree skiing, then you went there and found there was not, you might be peeved. Whatever the description, it should be accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
If Stubai are claiming more km of slopes than they have, obviously that sucks balls. You seem to have your facts wrong though, as they claim 110km of slopes, not 130km. 20km of these are also unpisted ski routes, I wonder if your mate actually counted those, or only the groomers? Not to mention the new offpiste routes (different to marked ski routes) they have 'created' (mapped) this season - the lifts serve a pretty large amount of terrain. FWIW I have no idea how much pisted terrain they actually have, they might well be lying, but tbh I couldn't care much less how much they have (on my season pass so I don't have to pay day tickets though).
By the way I can't think of many Austrian resorts where
| Quote: |
| they try to plaster as many runs on one single hill as possible |
, but while I've skied many resorts here I certainly haven't skied all of them. This is literally exactly the opposite of most of the resorts around Innsbruck though, which have more unpisted terrain than they do pistes.
By the way, amount of pisted kilometres is literally THE LAST thing I would check when looking for a ski resort, and tbh am more likely to be put off by a resort with a gazzillion kms of pistes - all that means is that they've ruined more of the mountain. Much more important is snowfall and terrain. +1 for fatbob:
| Quote: |
| I understand the false advertising but I'll never get the mentality that suggests small isn't good enough. Take Fernie quoted above - many a European piste commuter would be bored in well under a day (limited piste kms, few on hill restaurants to visiit etc) while someone with a more adventurous spirit might take a whole season and still not be bored. My opinion is if you get bored, get better rather than look for somewhere bigger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Markymark29, clarky999, The point of this thread is simple: some resorts lie about what they offer. Plain and simple. They tell fibs to attract punters. All the other stuff about quality of routes etc. s irrelevant. Now can you trust anything else they say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnE, I trust little any resort (or magazine, manufacturer, etc) says, they're all biased. When was the last time you saw a resort stating snow conditions were bad? Never, it's always 'packed powder,' whatever that's supposed to mean. As I said, IF Stubai really are lying (that badly) about the amount of slopes they offer, then it's clearly 'a bad thing,' and Stubai need to do something about it. But the OP also is not stating the correct facts (130 vs 110 km), and judging by the rest of his piste bias, I would not be surprised if he/his mate did not take into account the ungroomed slopes that Stubai probably count as the slopes they are offering punters.
As it is, I actually likely the way Stubai the Stubai management operate, they're making a real effort to expand/publicise the ungroomed terrain, hosting freeride comps, installing transciever check points, opening a transciever practise park, running lots of avi training courses, and overnight winter camping courses. Good on them for getting away from the 'groom everything for wannabe racers' mentality.
Also, the OTHER point the OP is making (since when were threads on SH's limited to only the one starting topic?) that the amount (not quality) of pisted kilometres is the best way to judge a resort/decide where to go, is frankly idiotic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@clarky, of course you cannot select your ski resort based on the number of piste km alone. That is NOT my point.
My point is that then # of piste km is the ONLY indicator for ski area size that can be objectively measured.
So if size of pisted terrain is important for you, it's the first criterium to filter out areas that are too small for you liking.
Of course there's other factors to determine your choice. For me as well.
Point is; this is the ONLY criterium that can objectively be measured.
There's no NEED to cheat about piste km. It's a conscious CHOICE by the ski area, because it fits them better.
Of course we all know they lie a bit. No problem as long as they all apply about the same cheating factor.
According to the article, the median cheating factor is 20-25 percent.
The point of the article was, there's a -relatively small- portion of resorts that fall outside that bracket. Not just a bit.
On average you get 75% of what you pay for. At Stubai you get 30%.
Maybe a nice idea to split off the discussion, and start a separate thread about how to determine what ski area is best for you.
Focus on the ski area bit; there's already enough people who base their resort choice on reputation of apres-ski alone.
For me factors are: ski area size, height difference, variation of terrain (exposition; slope degree; multiple valleys; woodland and open) uplift speed (height meters per minute), slope emptiness (lift capacity versus pistes km), snow quality (historic snowfall, height, sun exposed or not), quality of grooming; authenticity; and offpiste possibilities.
Offpiste is not unimportant to me, but imo chances of good offpiste conditions are too small, to base your resort choice upon. Except when you go to Alyeska or Niseko etc, but that's outside my wallet's range.
Finding out the qualitative information to base your resort choice upon is not too hard. There´s a number of reliable sources:
www.alpinforum.com for all german speaking countries
www.skipass.com for french speaking countries
www.skiforum.it for italy
and paste the url into translate.google.com if you can't read the local language
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Tue 19-02-13 9:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I agree quality more important than quality, but if you have never neen to a ski resort, then km of piste, altitude, and no of blue, red, and black runs is really all you have to go by. It seems impossible to find objective reviews of resorts which are not subtle advertisements. Even on snowheads there are die-hard fans loyal to every resort to the hilt who will be emphatic it is best place ever, and denigrating of places they have never been to. So it is important the objective information is accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Sometimes the piste map is very helpful - you can generally see when those long greens are actually roads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Onnem, but the point is that total length of available pistes is not the sole justification for lift pass prices. You aren't paying for numbers of lifts (generally).. Esp take somewhere like the Portes du Soleil, where I have probably skied something like 650 days or thereabouts based from Morzine and haven't skied everywhere. It's too big to easily exploit the whole thing.
Would I want to pay more if they added, say, Les Brasses onto the lift pass? Not a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
patricksh, I guess its what type of skiing that dictates the level of research you'd need to do. Personally if I was thinking about going to a new resort like say Solden/ Obergurgl where I've never been before, for off piste opportunity I'd be looking at forums, google earth, off piste guides, 1:25000 ski touring maps, webcams etc rather than relying on the local website of tour operators brochures/ websites which are clearly selling tools.
If I was looking for cruisy blues and an odd red I'd have enough knowledge to quickly establish which resort and when to go to get the best conditions. Its very much horses for courses IMO, but certainly in these days of internet accessibility I dont think there's any problem accessing decent quality information, right down to planning ski days/ lunch stops etc if you are that way inclined.......which I'm not btw!
I did quite a lot of research on Montafon last summer and early winter but backed off going yet beciase I concluded that to do it without a car, and being unable to get about to the best powder early enough in the day was a big issue, so I'll continue research in the summer and maybe hit it next winter when I know all the best offpiste, and entry points. This includes going walking there for a day or 2 in summer and buying the local maps whilst there, taking photos and building up a detailed plan. I know this may seem quite laborious to some, but thats how I aim to get the most out of my 22-24 days a year on snow!
When I first started skiing I used to go for the big motorway resorts, EK, 3V, PDS etc, these days I dont want crowded pistes, lift access freeride is our thing and we plan accordingly. My European shopping list includes Otz, Engelberg, Andermatt, Montafon, Silvretta, more in Cham valley etc............all areas I will research for hours on end over the summer months. I'd love to do some Utah/ BC/ Alaska/ Japan stuff one day but right now thats too expensive so will keep bashing in Europe as long as its as good as it is now no need to go further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Even on snowheads there are die-hard fans loyal to every resort to the hilt who will be emphatic it is best place ever, and denigrating of places they have never been to
|
that bit gets on my nerves. glad there's not been an Austria vs France war for a while now.
piste km can be completely pointless figure in some cases. Hochzillertal, as the OP mentioned, is such a case. In fact even then, in one half of the resort, and link over to Fügen piste km might make sense, but on the other half there are so many pistes all interlinked and cris-crossing, that piste acres or hectares as used in north America probably makes more sense, especially once a piste is more than 50 or 100m wide.
and that lift pass is not sold on piste km for Hochzillertal, but on 4 separate ski areas (Mayrhofen, Hintertux, and Zillertal Arena being the others).
Spose it depends where you go too. PdS, Dolomiti Superski and 3V etc. proabably all lie through their teeth, but with such a vast amount on the pass does it really matter if it's 400km, 600km or 1200km? You're never going to ski even half of what they claim in a week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Markymark29, I do a little off-piste, but just a little and am nervous doing it. Basically I only go with class or guide which is not always available or within budget. So when I book a ski hol I do so on basis I may well be spending vast bulk of my time on piste. So variety and extent of slopes is important, as it is difficult for me to get kick out of same slopes unless they are particularly good. If it turns out snow is bad and all runs are boring,t least if you know resort is big, you can do something different each day.
Forums IMO incl snowheads are subject to similar bias as commercial sites as there seem to be so many very vocal loyalists for any given resort, and many of these have very little experience of other resorts. They can provide guidance thought, but you must take everything with grain of salt. Of course if you know and trust your source that is different. Honestly I don't have expertise to understand terrain by looking at maps. Piste maps can be very confusing also until you have skied it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Another article
http://www.tt.com/%C3%9Cberblick/Wirtschaft/WirtschaftTirol/6161572-6/streit-um-pistenl%C3%A4nge-ruf-nach-reformen.csp
Apparently the publication triggered a lot of discussion in Tyrol.
Now even the Tyrol cableways association spokesman says that uniform measurement methods must be introduced.
Coincidence that the 2 worst offenders are part of the same - Schulze - company?
When asked, they are open about how they cheat:
1) actual length times 1.7
2) again multiplied by 2 or even 3, when the slope is wide
Their argument behind the 1.7 factor makes me laugh (or cry)
"we measure the length the skier travels over the snow, you never go in fall-line, so we take pi divided by 2". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
