Comparable Ski Area Size

[Philpug]

I'd be more interested in talking about places that ski "bigger" or "smaller" than their stated acreage.
Bigger... Crested Butte
Smaller... Monarch

When I skied the western NY area's like Holiday Valley, I felt they skied larger than their adversized verticals.

 

[skibob]

Random thoughts:
Park City - there are many private lots in the Colony. That is not a small development. I'd bet that's where your difference comes from.
Powder Mtn - cat ski/ tour areas vs lift served area.
Beaver Creek - see Park City. Lots of intermingled private land near Bachelor Gulch and the main base.
Copper - some permanently closed terrain, or terrain that never has enough snow coverage is included, particularly on Tucker Mtn and Copper Peak.
Winter Park - see notes on Copper. Most of the Cirque drainage is in the ropes, but permanently closed.

I'd be more interested in talking about places that ski "bigger" or "smaller" than their stated acreage.
Bigger... Crested Butte
Smaller... Monarch

What exactly do you mean by "ski bigger" or "smaller"?

The reason I ask is that I always have thought that Alpine Meadows skis smaller . . . but not because it doesn't seem like its big. It feels like its 2400 acres in terms of diverse and unique terrain. But so much of it is so easily accessible. At least when all the lifts are running. It just never feels like it takes much to get to an entirely different part of the mountain.

OTOH, I have alwys though Squaw feels even larger than the 4,000 stated acres. There is a central area that is actually pretty well connected and centralized. But then you have all of these other areas that are mostly accessed from entirely different points. Heavenly is like this too. It feels like two or three totally different resorts to a certain extent and where you access it from really matters.

And then you have Northstar. It feels smaller than it really is when you stand at the top and look down. But this is due to its unique location in the blown out caldera of an extinct volcano. The majority of the terrain is arranged in a circle and flows to one point. But then you try to get someplace else. You can see it. Its just over there. But due to some strange layout of lifts (and a few that almost never turn), it actually takes a long time and effort to get there. It also makes it feel more crowded than it is because sometimes you just can't leave w/o skiing through the teaming masses.

 

[StuckonI70]

What exactly do you mean by "ski bigger" or "smaller"?

The reason I ask is that I always have thought that Alpine Meadows skis smaller . . . but not because it doesn't seem like its big. It feels like its 2400 acres in terms of diverse and unique terrain. But so much of it is so easily accessible. At least when all the lifts are running. It just never feels like it takes much to get to an entirely different part of the mountain.

OTOH, I have alwys though Squaw feels even larger than the 4,000 stated acres. There is a central area that is actually pretty well connected and centralized. But then you have all of these other areas that are mostly accessed from entirely different points. Heavenly is like this too. It feels like two or three totally different resorts to a certain extent and where you access it from really matters.

And then you have Northstar. It feels smaller than it really is when you stand at the top and look down. But this is due to its unique location in the blown out caldera of an extinct volcano. The majority of the terrain is arranged in a circle and flows to one point. But then you try to get someplace else. You can see it. Its just over there. But due to some strange layout of lifts (and a few that almost never turn), it actually takes a long time and effort to get there. It also makes it feel more crowded than it is because sometimes you just can't leave w/o skiing through the teaming masses.

I mean exactly what you're describing. Acreage just doesn't correlate well to a complex, three dimensional mountain. Ridges, draws, canyons, bowls and skiable trees (not bushwhacking through brush) all can greatly effect the skiing experience and how you view the size of a hill.

Some mountains have lots of "nooks and crannies", like Crested Butte at 1500 acres. I think it skis much bigger, as it takes quite a few days to check off all the terrain in the extremes. Sure, on paper, the North Face area isn't that big, but try to ski all of it sometime and you'd see what I mean. I listed Monarch as small, because in my eyes, it all funnels back to a small base with short vertical and limited exploring opportunities. Eldora is 600 acres and I feel that Monarch skis smaller than that.

 

[Nathanvg]

There are many subjective assessments such as “skis bigger,” best, etc. These assessments likely vary person to person based on what each person values. They are valid metrics but also likely to lead to long debates (see ski mag thread).

My primary goal is to have a size metric that is calculated based upon a unified methodology. I choose patrolled ski area since it is widely applicable and usually well defined. Other stats include part of the back country, permitted areas, ground occupied by houses or roads, golf courses, etc. Unless the metric states that it includes these non-patrolled areas, it is very confusing.

I have found my objective metric to be helpful when planning ski trips and hope other do to.

 

[scott43]

I would suggest that areas of difficulty level be broken out. For instance, large parts of Snowbird are inaccessible to much of the ski population. I suppose you could use the trail map percentages as an estimate but again, what methodology did they use to get those numbers?

 

[KingGrump]

For instance, large parts of Snowbird are inaccessible to much of the ski population.

Wow, that one star marketing campaign is really working. It got you believing in it too?

Snowbird ★☆☆☆☆ campaign.

 

[TonyC]

There are many subjective assessments such as “skis bigger,” best, etc. These assessments likely vary person to person based on what each person values. They are valid metrics but also likely to lead to long debates (see ski mag thread).

My primary goal is to have a size metric that is calculated based upon a unified methodology. I choose patrolled ski area since it is widely applicable and usually well defined. Other stats include part of the back country, permitted areas, ground occupied by houses or roads, golf courses, etc. Unless the metric states that it includes these non-patrolled areas, it is very confusing.

I have found my objective metric to be helpful when planning ski trips and hope other do too.

It may look objective but it doesn't pass the smell test of what "skis bigger" in reality. The obvious reason is that it's a flat measurement and skiing is vertical sport. If all ski areas were pitched similarly they would all be subject to the same distortion and the relative numbers would be reasonable. But they aren't, so ski area size for places like Jackson and Snowbird are massively understated by this metric.

The harder part is excluding acreage that is unskiable cliffs, flats and terrain traps. This is the reason Heavenly skis smaller than Mammoth or Squaw. You have a bunch of terrain pods with flats and terrain traps in between them. Gated backcountry is another subjective issue. I have lifetime 20 days at Heavenly and have not been fortunate enough to ski those backcountry gates down to the casinos. By contrast, the Rock Springs gates at Jackson have been accessible on 3 of my trips there.

I would suggest that areas of difficulty level be broken out. For instance, large parts of Snowbird are inaccessible to much of the ski population. I suppose you could use the trail map percentages as an estimate but again, what methodology did they use to get those numbers?

Yes and large parts of other places are not of interest to the more experienced ski population. And because those areas are flat, they are overstated in an acreage-based metric.

We should all know by now that trail map percentages of terrain by ability level are useless because they are all caveated as being "relative to other runs in THIS ski area." Thus the marketing directors like to define them close to a 25-50-25 basis, regardless of the topography of the actual ski area. The recent ad campaign by Snowbird is refreshing in that regard, as opposed to whoever in Snowbird Marketing told esumsea that he would be fine there after 3 days on skis.

 

[Nathanvg]

Despite comments to the contrary, I don't think anyone is arguing that the metrics I created are not objective. Rather, several people have correctly stated that an acre measurement doesn't answer all questions and needs to be supplemented with other data to draw deeper conclusions. I typically use several data points when researching ski areas:

• Ski area size as listed in this thread
• Snowfall based primarily on Tony's site.
• Terrain steepness, aspect and other characteristics based on a combination of the trail map (summary level), Google Earth (summary level) and Caltopo (detailed). Caltopo has great programmatic options to get very detailed.

The last bullet is very hard to summarize with accurate objective measures. For example, it's fairly easy to shade terrain over 32 degree on a map (objective) but much harder to quantify the size and how much of that size is skiable. The below link shows that shading, which is maybe 15% of the ski area, so roughly 330 acres (2200 acres*.15). That's pretty rough. Is that more or less than Jackson? I couldn't say with any confidence or accuracy.

Would the sizes change a lot if we recalculated at 35 degrees? Should N facing terrain be given more value? Should longer sustained steeps be given more value? This can go on and on so I typically suggest using CalTopo and drawing your own conclusions.

http://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=40.5...name":"","alias":"sc_s32-90cFF0000","id":0}]}

 

[TahoeCharlie]

This page on Northstar's website says "Gate-Accessed Advanced Terrain: 347 acres (Sawtooth Ridge, White Rabbit)*"
The page does not explain what the asterisk means. I skied two laps into Sawtooth Ridge one day in late March 2016. It was about a 10 minute boot pack and only about 5 people were out there ahead of us on our first lap. Since Backside chair had a bigger line than my friend and I liked on a weekday, I talked him into a second lap where we pushed a little farther and I found a long stretch of N-facing untracked trees that were better than our E-facing first lap.

I know a lot of people question Heavenly's claim to being the biggest area at Tahoe with 4800 acres, but my first measurement of it using tool on my tablet was over 6,000 acres. I did include a lot of the gated back country between the tram and the casinos as I skied some of it last winter as I have in previous good winters. There is also a lot of in-bounds at Heavenly that is ski-able, but not marked as a run. Unless the OP provides maps he used to get his acreages (which seems like a lot of work), it's hard to tell how accurate his numbers are.

* probably means "Weather and snow conditions permitting". I've skied both Sawtooth Ridge and White Rabbit over the years; latest was 2010 and 2016. These areas, especially White Rabbit (Southfacing), need a LOT of snow to be skiable. With the right snow conditions, Sawtooth is sometimes open for weeks at a time; Rabbit for only two or three days at a time. With an 8-foot base and 20+ inches of good powder, Rabbit is fantastic as it is not a "run" but an entire "slope" with trees and open areas.

At Heavenly, the area between the Gondola and the Casinos is called "Firebreak". It is several hundred acres (at least) of tree skiing, sometimes steep, with about a 2k vertical drop - and you just walk to the Gondola at the end and do it all over again. Again, an area that requires a heavy snow year to be open. BTW, also in a mega snow year, you can ski down the back-backside of Heavenly to the Carson Valley floor - a drop of about 5k feet - you come out at the junction of 207/206 (Kingsberry Grade) - leave a car there.

WARNING, ALL THREE OF THESE AREAS ARE UNPATROLLED! DO NOT SKI THEM ALONE! and take a gps unit or smartphone.

There is generally no avalanche danger in these areas as they are covered with mostly well spaced trees.

 

[TonyC]

Despite comments to the contrary, I don't think anyone is arguing that the metrics I created are not objective. Rather, several people have correctly stated that an acre measurement doesn't answer all questions and needs to be supplemented with other data to draw deeper conclusions. I typically use several data points when researching ski areas:

• Ski area size as listed in this thread
• Snowfall based primarily on Tony's site.
• Terrain steepness, aspect and other characteristics based on a combination of the trail map (summary level), Google Earth (summary level) and Caltopo (detailed). Caltopo has great programmatic options to get very detailed.

The last bullet is very hard to summarize with accurate objective measures. For example, it's fairly easy to shade terrain over 32 degree on a map (objective) but much harder to quantify the size and how much of that size is skiable. The below link shows that shading, which is maybe 15% of the ski area, so roughly 330 acres (2200 acres*.15). That's pretty rough. Is that more or less than Jackson? I couldn't say with any confidence or accuracy.

Would the sizes change a lot if we recalculated at 35 degrees? Should N facing terrain be given more value? Should longer sustained steeps be given more value? This can go on and on so I typically suggest using CalTopo and drawing your own conclusions.

http://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=40.56874,-111.65201&z=15&b=sat&o=t&n=0.35&a=sc_s32-90cFF0000&cl={"cfglayers":[{"name":"","alias":"sc_s32-90cFF0000","id":0}]}

Yes the devil is in the details in constructing an algorithm that makes sense even for factors that should be objective.

To start with my own area of most intense analysis, snowfall is an inadequate representation for what really concerns most skiers, snow conditions. See this from my counterpart in the Alps, Fraser Wilkin: https://www.weathertoski.co.uk/weather-snow/the-snow-quality-equation/
From a skier's perspective, snow conditions have at least 3 key components:
1) Adequate coverage of slopes
2) Frequency and quality of powder
3) Snow preservation, which has a rather weak correlation with snowfall as Fraser notes.

"Size" to a skier means variety of ski terrain, and Euro piste length measurements not withstanding, most skiers would view ski variety as something like vertical feet even if they don't actually measure that. So I use acreage as a starting point and make subjective adjustments, generally adding to the steeper areas (but not if there are a lot of unskiable cliffs) and subtracting from the flatter ones. Results should comport with "what skis bigger" and a panel of knowledgeable skiers would often come to a consensus in head-to-head comparison of whether Area X is bigger than Area Y. I'm not sure a detailed algorithm from Caltopo would do any better, but that would be a very ambitious algorithm to devise and program.

All terrain actually marked inbounds should be included regardless of aspect. If the exposure is poor, that markdown comes in the grade for snow preservation.

 

[Tony]

FWIW, I was surprised to see that Heavenly's permit area is over 10,000 acres according to pdf I found at fs.usda.gov

I've skied both Sawtooth Ridge and White Rabbit over the years; latest was 2010 and 2016.

You posted in Tahoe thread in April 2017 "White Rabbit was pretty cool on the few days it was open this year" so you may have skied it in 2017. I don't think I've been in White Rabbit since Spring 2011. I saw gate open in Jan. 2016 and thought about doing it, but I had to leave early and there was so much barely tracked N-facing in trees next to Stampede, N*'s steepest run and even in places on the run that I skipped it.

At Heavenly, the area between the Gondola and the Casinos is called "Firebreak". It is several hundred acres (at least) of tree skiing, sometimes steep, with about a 2k vertical drop - and you just walk to the Gondola at the end and do it all over again. Again, an area that requires a heavy snow year to be open. BTW, also in a mega snow year, you can ski down the back-backside of Heavenly to the Carson Valley floor - a drop of about 5k feet - you come out at the junction of 207/206 (Kingsberry Grade) - leave a car there.

WARNING, ALL THREE OF THESE AREAS ARE UNPATROLLED! DO NOT SKI THEM ALONE! and take a gps unit or smartphone.

There is generally no avalanche danger in these areas as they are covered with mostly well spaced trees.

Since you started the yelling, I have to add TREES DO NOT MEAN (generally or not) NO AVALANCHE DANGER! From https://thesummitregister.com/backcountry-basics-recognizing-assessing-avalanche-terrain/ "There is an old adage that forested, steep slopes are only safe if the trees are too close to ski (make turns) through."

I had four great powder laps last winter into the area you named at Heavenly and think vertical is closer to 3K from top of Olympic lift. My first lap last winter was in January on a day I skied powder in the morning at Northstar (my third day in a row of it there), then re-located to Heavenly for my lunch break. The other three laps were in almost mid-April (and only a couple of days before Kirkwood closed for season). Snow was very thin at the bottom and it seemed like I was poling over asphalt road that was only covered with 2" of new snow. On my first three laps last winter, I joined up with a single or pair before starting down. My last lap was solo which is not a good idea even though it was my third time down in two days and I've hiked and mountain biked in the (mostly lower) gondola area many times. I've never skied to bottom of Kingsbury, but have heard of people doing it accidentally.