News Roundup: Endless Winter

9 thoughts on “News Roundup: Endless Winter

  1. Upper Dynamo August 28, 2020 / 6:09 am

    In 16 years of ownership of Telluride, owner Chuck Horning has done less for the resort than any previous owner, while the value of his investment has likely tripled. One short fixed grip quad, some snowmaking expansion and maintenance that had been deferred for years, and a few pop up type restaurants in underperforming commercial space at the base. That’s it. He’s not a skier and has very little respect in the community. Long time industry leader Bill Jensen couldn’t take it any more and recently left. Master plan updates and talk of new lifts is now considered comedy in Telluride.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Somebody August 28, 2020 / 12:46 pm

      It’s not even like they need to do a ton to improve the lift system a lot.

      – New gondola for Sunshine

      – New HSQ for plunge

      – Move current sunshine to coonskin

      – Move current plunge to Oak Street

      – Use leftover parts from sunshine/plunge and new parts to build Palmyra Basin FGQ chair

      – New Gold Hill surface lift as already planned

      The above alone would do wonders to improve the lift system at telluride. Here’s the pipe dream section (if they wanted to do more):

      – Bear Creek return lift ending near plunge

      – Expansion into above treeline bowls in upper bear creek

      Here’d be my dream expansion into bear creek (yellow are existing plunge/revelation. Most new red lifts would be surface lifts.)

      Like

    • Ryan August 28, 2020 / 3:31 pm

      Sunshine Express is aging out is due to be replaced, I could see this being a new 6 person, but other than that, what else needs to be replaced? It’s not like Coon and Oak get a ton of traffic.. Maybe upgrade Plunge to a HSQ, but is this one really all that backed up?

      Like

      • Somebody August 28, 2020 / 6:45 pm

        Sunshine is planned to be replaced with a 10 person gondola due to its length. Plunge is long due for replacement as it sometimes gets long lines (only 1,200 pph) and has a 13 minute ride time. Coonskin doesn’t get any traffic because it’s a fixed grip paralleling a gondola. If it went detachable you’d see a lot more people lapping it. And Oak would get more traffic after a plunge upgrade because it’d be a much faster route from town to the summit area.

        Another problem with Coonskin and Oak street is that they are getting to the age where they might start being a liability soon.

        Like

  2. Somebody August 28, 2020 / 11:36 am

    I’ve been thinking about a drone system to get skiers up a hill for the last few years.. And of course amazon beat me to making it real.

    Like

  3. R Thompson August 28, 2020 / 6:59 pm

    You might want to correct the 4th item. Heavenly is the largest ski resort in California by acreage and vertical drop which is usually how ski resorts are measured. Until Squaw and Alpine are connected and are considered one resort, Squaw comes in 2nd.

    Like

    • Mr Incredible August 28, 2020 / 9:25 pm

      How much of that acreage is forest vs prepared runs? In that regard I think mammoth has them both beat

      Like

      • skyfree928 August 29, 2020 / 10:16 am

        I’ve been skiing there for decades and the 4,800 acres is more skiable as a percentage than most places. The reason is that the trees are widely spaced. Squaw and Mammoth are pretty much the same so I think acreage is a fair comparison for the top 3 California resorts.

        I think the mistake here is that someone googled “largest ski resort in California” and Squaw popped up at the top.

        In reality, I would say that a lot of Squaw’s acreage is unskiable due to steepness which would put them behind Mammoth, but then someone will point out that probably every cliff there has been dropped by the pros that ski there. So not skiable for me, but skiable.

        Mammoth probably has more acreage that is skiable on average than both of them as far as snow cover and quality due the higher elevation. The 4,800 acres at Heavenly is probably only skiable 25% of the time due to freeze/thaw cycles and the amount of snow required to cover the huge boulders. Squaw is even lower in elevation.

        Like

        • Somebody August 29, 2020 / 3:12 pm

          Squaw-Alpine definitely struck me as huge ski area/s. Rather than having a few defined areas where you could ski, it had a few defined areas where you couldn’t ski.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s