East Coast Ski Trip Outside of NY

[riverc0il]

If you had a share of MRG you wouldn't think it was a lame rule. Betsy was awesome and did allow boards and only restricted them from the single when they were losing a lot of ski time because the boarders would pull the cable off the top pully when getting off. You did not want to piss her off though and that now famous confrontation was the end of boards at MRG. As long as skiers own the mountain, I don't see that as changing. It does make for perfect bumps and MRG has a lot of them.

I am a shareholder. I am for changing the ban. I would vote to do it.

I am for skiers and boarders coming to MRG together. Camp is a perfect case in point. I am for mixed plank friends and families coming to MRG together. MRG is a family mountain, the ban is not family friendly. I am also for the long term sustainability of the Coop. I think the potential for growing revenue with boards exceeds the potential loss of anyone that would write the mountain off for changing it.

I love the mountain, but it does not have perfect bumps. The terrain is too variable for "perfect" bumps to form. Perfect bumps require a level slope. MRG has lots of great lines, but the terrain constantly breaks up the bump rhythm. I like that as part of the nature and character of the mountain. But perfect bumps MRG is not. And bad skiers do just as much as bad boarders to snow conditions and bump lines.

 

[Campgottagopee]

I am a shareholder. I am for changing the ban. I would vote to do it.

Riv, you bring up a good point. I'd be surprised if this isn't the thought of the majority of share holders? Has it been brought up? Talked about? Voted on, recently?

 

[G.ski]

I'm guessing that MRG shareholders who support allowing snowboarders are treated similarly to the unvaccinated.

 

[Campgottagopee]

I'm guessing that MRG shareholders who support allowing snowboarders are treated similarly to the unvaccinated.

Wait, what?

 

[Low Angle Life]

The single was updated summer of 2007 and this is not an issue anymore.

From my understanding based on what I mentioned in my previous post, the upgrade to the single chair '07 did not actually address the issue of the mechanics and physics that caused boarders to create lift problems. Maybe a coop member here has a better understanding of that but, from the story I was told (by a seeming reputable source) the vote to keep the single chair single was essentially the final nail in the coffin for snowboard access because the design of the new lift was no different than the old one. The single passes in between two metal i-beam like post after the offload ramp, a snowboarder off loading is more likely to swing the lift in a way that it would hit one of these i-beams wreaking all kinds of havoc with the cable chair connection. Anyone who knows better feel free to correct me but that was the more in depth explanation I got years ago.

The two stories existing side by side certainly muddies the waters a bit, personally you will never hear me gripe about measures taken to limit uphill capacity. My own feeling is it's all just a bunch prejudice against snowboarders hidden and excused by technical issues and folk lore. I'm holding strong on my opinion that short of vibe theres nothing you can get at MRG that you can't get at Sugarbush.

 

[G.ski]

Wait, what?

shunned

 

[raisingarizona]

From my understanding based on what I mentioned in my previous post, the upgrade to the single chair '07 did not actually address the issue of the mechanics and physics that caused boarders to create lift problems. Maybe a coop member here has a better understanding of that but, from the story I was told (by a seeming reputable source) the vote to keep the single chair single was essentially the final nail in the coffin for snowboard access because the design of the new lift was no different than the old one. The single passes in between two metal i-beam like post after the offload ramp, a snowboarder off loading is more likely to swing the lift in a way that it would hit one of these i-beams wreaking all kinds of havoc with the cable chair connection. Anyone who knows better feel free to correct me but that was the more in depth explanation I got years ago.

The two stories existing side by side certainly muddies the waters a bit, personally you will never hear me gripe about measures taken to limit uphill capacity. My own feeling is it's all just a bunch prejudice against snowboarders hidden and excused by technical issues and folk lore. I'm holding strong on my opinion that short of vibe theres nothing you can get at MRG that you can't get at Sugarbush.

You can’t get that consistent pitch with 2k of vertical and that terrain at sugarbush. Sugarbush has pockets of that but it’s not quite MRG, or I never thought so. People will claim castlerock compares but castlerocks lower half is kind of flat.

It’s been a very long time but that what I remember of the two areas.

 

[Tjf1967]

shunned

I don't shun them as long as they are respectful.

 

[Tjf1967]

You can’t get that consistent pitch with 2k of vertical and that terrain at sugarbush. Sugarbush has pockets of that but it’s not quite MRG, or I never thought so. People will claim castlerock compares but castlerocks lower half is kind of flat.

It’s been a very long time but that what I remember of the two areas.

I love castle rock. It was great practice with with craggy terrain without the pitch. It's where I learned to ski bumps.

 

[Low Angle Life]

You can’t get that consistent pitch with 2k of vertical and that terrain at sugarbush. Sugarbush has pockets of that but it’s not quite MRG, or I never thought so. People will claim castlerock compares but castlerocks lower half is kind of flat.

It’s been a very long time but that what I remember of the two areas.

Ellen has sleeper terrain though some of the run outs can suck, FIS to Lower FIS comes pretty close on the pitch and vert front, Exterminator woods are fkn steep too but you only get about 1k of that pitch.