Hectares vs. Km of Piste
 

The US resorts tend to use skiable area as a measure of the size of the
resort, making it difficult to compare with the length of runs used by
almost of all of the European resorts.

Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro resorts on
size ?

(Of course there are a host of other stats you can use as well but I am
curious)

Oh and a Happy New Year to the group.

All the best,

Edi

PS: We did have a white Xmas in Glasgow but its difficult to ski on 1cm ! Ok
for sledging on the hills with the kids.

Edi wrote:
Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro
resorts on size ?

Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done.

Marinus

--
http://cams.jeuring.com

Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro
resorts on size ?

Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done.


Lies, damn lies & ski resort statistics !

All the best,

Actually, take a wild guess about the average piste width, lets say 50
meters. Then the area in hectares (remember those US guys will probably use
acres) divided with 20 is the length of skiing slopes in km.
Best thing you can do actually without more data.

Kind regards,

Marinus

6-sigma Black Belt ;-))

"Marinus" wrote in message
...
Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro
resorts on size ?

Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done.


Lies, damn lies & ski resort statistics !

All the best,

Actually, take a wild guess about the average piste width, lets say 50
meters. Then the area in hectares (remember those US guys will probably
use
acres) divided with 20 is the length of skiing slopes in km.
Best thing you can do actually without more data.

Kind regards,

Marinus

6-sigma Black Belt ;-))


Well if you are a 6 Sigma Black Belt you will be used to fiddling statistics
and drawing dodgy conclusions !

My dodgy generalisation is that the US resorts probably have shorter runs,
lower vertical drops but at least do have more of the white stuff which is
always useful if you want to slide down it.

All the best,

Edi

Edi wrote:

The US resorts tend to use skiable area as a measure of the size of the
resort, making it difficult to compare with the length of runs used by
almost of all of the European resorts.

Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro resorts on
size ?


I think it is down to different ways of owning/managing ski resorts. In
the US you are typically allowed to ski anywhere within the boundary,
but not allowed outside the area (although this rule has changed a lot
in the last few years it certainly used to be the case). So, it makes
sense to advetise how much area the ski company owns or has access to.
In Europe there are usually no such restrictions and you can pretty much
go where you like. Hence in Europe a ski resort can't really "claim" a
certain area - if they did then Chamonix would have a skiable area of
thousands of square miles - afterall you can ski from Chamonix to
Zermatt (OK, 1/2 of it is uphill, but it's often done). So in Europe it
makes sense for resorts to compete on the number and length of marked runs.

It's really just something that has stuck and I doubt will change. If
you want to compare areas across the pond then I would look at other
figures such as the number of skiers per hour that the resort can
transport uphill, that gives you a rough idea of the extent and
efficiency of the lift network.

There are a lot of other factors to consider too, for example N America
does seem to have more frequent snow fall (I always seem to find more
powder in the US and Canade than I do in Europe). The exchange rates too
make N America very attractive to Brits in particular. The obvious
downside to a European is the distance to get there.

No good - the area includes the lifts, trees, rocks and all internal
unskiable or unpisted bits.
It has to or otherwise the only way they could calculate the area is by
doing the reverse of what you propose!

Edi was talking about skiable area...

Marinus

lower vertical drops but at least do have more of the white stuff which is
always useful if you want to slide down it.

:-)

Marinus

In message , Steve Haigh
writes

There are a lot of other factors to consider too, for example N America
does seem to have more frequent snow fall (I always seem to find more
powder in the US and Canade than I do in Europe). The exchange rates
too make N America very attractive to Brits in particular. The obvious
downside to a European is the distance to get there.

And the jetlag. And the horrible food.

--
Sue ]|(:)

Ski, eat, sleep - all essential

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:31:12 +0100, "Marinus"
wrote:

Edi wrote:
Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro
resorts on size ?

Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done.

Never go off piste, eh?
--
Champ

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:09:19 +0000, Champ wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:31:12 +0100, "Marinus"
wrote:

Edi wrote:
Why the difference and is there any way of comparing US and Euro
resorts on size ?

Divide the area by the average piste width and you're done.

Never go off piste, eh?

So, the off-piste is counted in a resort's quoted 'km of piste' is it?
FWIW I see some value in both descriptions, but like Edi I'm
frustrated by the lack of comparibility. Just means I have to ski them
all myself :-)


--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.