NIght skiing at PICO

Highway Star · Post by **Highway Star** » Nov 21st, '07, 07:51

lostskier wrote:I've never ski'd at night but I hear that the light is very flat. If that's true I wouldn't go.

Actually, you get very good contrast because of the shadows. Just don't wear dark googles.

icedtea · Post by **icedtea** » Nov 21st, '07, 07:53

riding at night was always fun. i used to shoot up to mtn. creek after classes for some runs. it is really a cool experience. if any of you played competitive sports you know you get that adrenaline rush while playing under the lights.

i've been on the mtn during the day when it was -20 or whatever. it usually does not drop that much at nights on a normal day.

rubigirl · Post by **rubigirl** » Nov 21st, '07, 10:27

The carbon footprint could be minimized by the addition of a wind turbine on top of Pico which could also put energy back into the grid during the day. I know there are those among you who would argue against this idea too but the truth is that both ideas are timely and sensible alternative to closing the mountain on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The night skiing income could also offset the cost of shifting Pico to wind power for all its electrical needs.

millerm277 · Post by **millerm277** » Nov 21st, '07, 14:04

rubigirl wrote:The carbon footprint could be minimized by the addition of a wind turbine on top of Pico which could also put energy back into the grid during the day. I know there are those among you who would argue against this idea too but the truth is that both ideas are timely and sensible alternative to closing the mountain on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The night skiing income could also offset the cost of shifting Pico to wind power for all its electrical needs.

The carbon footprint has nothing to do with why Pico/Skyeship are closed, it's just a BS excuse that makes it sound like they're not just being cheap and closing them because they cost more money than they like spending to run.

skiingsnow · Post by **skiingsnow** » Nov 21st, '07, 14:18

millerm277 wrote:
rubigirl wrote:The carbon footprint could be minimized by the addition of a wind turbine on top of Pico which could also put energy back into the grid during the day. I know there are those among you who would argue against this idea too but the truth is that both ideas are timely and sensible alternative to closing the mountain on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The night skiing income could also offset the cost of shifting Pico to wind power for all its electrical needs.
The carbon footprint has nothing to do with why Pico/Skyeship are closed, it's just a BS excuse that makes it sound like they're not just being cheap and closing them because they cost more money than they like spending to run.

They have already said that Pico/Lower Skyeship are closed Tue/Wed because there use does not justify running it... Remember the whole "right sizing" thing? They are basically using the carbon footprint thing as a postive result to a negative doing, not as an excuse for doing it in the first place.

rubigirl · Post by **rubigirl** » Nov 26th, '07, 16:54

I think we are spending to much time discussing Killington's motivation for their behavior and as a result have have gotten slightly of the original topic which was how do you feel about the idea of night skiing at Pico.

Clearly the main motivating factor behind everything Killington does is profit. So, the way I see it the big question is how profitable would night skiing be for them. The answer to that question is based on one main factor which is the up front costs and future costs of operation. The way I see it th cost issue is offset by putting a wind turbine on the top of Pico as this could easily generate enough electricity to light the lower part of the mountain for night skiing and could also reduce daytime operating costs as well. The reduction in carbon footprint is an added bonus that could be used to help sell the idea to the opposition.

millerm277 · Post by **millerm277** » Nov 26th, '07, 17:24

There is about a 0.00001% chance that they could ever get a large wind turbine installed there....

shizzle · Post by **shizzle** » Nov 26th, '07, 17:25

even less of a chance of a thread staying on topic!

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Nov 26th, '07, 18:45

shizzle wrote:even less of a chance of a thread staying on topic!

Ha! you made me choke laughing.

"They have already said that Pico/Lower Skyeship are closed Tue/Wed because there use does not justify running it"

Well, their justification removes several high price rental properties from the slopeside ski in ski out listings because 2 days of the week people cannot ski to their properties along the skyship. It also means people with slopeside homes at PICO are screwed out of 2 days of slopeside services reducing their property values and their rental values. I am sure Killington would have some interest in their rentals.

Mtn Man · Post by **Mtn Man** » Nov 26th, '07, 19:01

If carbon footprint were the case, the Mahogany Ridge Bar and Basherhaus would be closed down due to all the Long Trail gas produced by Gsmashed and Phantom

Both places have a little Ozone hole over them, sorta like Charlie Brown....

As stated, night skiing is good for metro areas, but I'm not sure if you'll get the draw up at K. Then again, you have Snow King at Jackson Hole and they seem to fair well with the night skiing.

Mt Creek is known for it's park and pipe, therefore you would have to build an huge park area at Pico. Also, are any runs steep enough to race on off the Golden Express???? You'd prolly have to light up the Outpost if you're going to race.....

B)

Bart · Post by **Bart** » Nov 26th, '07, 19:50

rubi, is the primary motive here to increase utilization of Pico or increase revenue for K ?

If its the former , I assume you want to increase usage mid-week ?

Vinny Vincenzo · Post by **Vinny Vincenzo** » Nov 26th, '07, 19:52

Too bad Pico is owned by a real estate company and not a ski company. You see, the skiing part is irrellevent. If there's going to be lights, then there has to be a bank of condo's under each pole.

Then there's the Act 250 jaggernaut and the required impact study to the nocturnal species in the adjacent forest. Nothing like a good scoop for the next Selectboard Meeting though.

Tyler Durden · Post by **Tyler Durden** » Nov 26th, '07, 21:44

Vinny Vincenzo wrote:Too bad Pico is owned by a real estate company and not a ski company. You see, the skiing part is irrellevent. If there's going to be lights, then there has to be a bank of condo's under each pole.

Then there's the Act 250 jaggernaut and the required impact study to the nocturnal species in the adjacent forest. Nothing like a good scoop for the next Selectboard Meeting though.

ya beat me to it ACT 250 is the key to night skiing, its a catchall, for Vermont development and the selling off of the family farm. Night skiing is grandfathered at a few small ski areas in the area..but it will never fly again.... low yeild directional lights or not..

Pedro · Post by **Pedro** » Nov 26th, '07, 21:53

rubigirl wrote:Hey Spore,
Yes I do, because I know there are people out there skiing during the day when it is colder that 20 degrees and many times as a low pressure mass moves into the area the temps actually rise over night. If you don't believe me maybe you should be spending more time watching RSN weather:!:

^^^^Killington employee, who the f*** watches RSN weather?

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Nov 26th, '07, 23:16

Vinny Vincenzo wrote:Too bad Pico is owned by a real estate company and not a ski company. You see, the skiing part is irrellevent. If there's going to be lights, then there has to be a bank of condo's under each pole.

Then there's the Act 250 jaggernaut and the required impact study to the nocturnal species in the adjacent forest. Nothing like a good scoop for the next Selectboard Meeting though.

Um, per past posts and agreements, POWDR owns 80% of mountain ops, while SP owns developement. SP has already shown displeasure of the current ops positions, but since POWDR OWNS THE MOUNTAIN, SP has little say. Go figure.