A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to Whistler. How about Fernie or Kirkwood?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 26th 03, 07:26 PM
Markus Hornkvist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to Whistler. How about Fernie or Kirkwood?

It's been years since I last read rec.skiing.alpine, but I guess this
is the place for those tricky questions.

I am planning a skiing trip for Christmas and New Years. We are 5
people. 4 are coming from Europe and 1 from the US, but the person
from the US has the shortest holiday (surprise!), so because of that,
it would make ski in North America.

This is my reasoning so far:

I really like Whistler for the almost-constant snow fall and the
decent fall height, but I hate the lift lines they have these days,
and I can imagine what they are like at Christmas, so Whistler is out
of the question. Besides, Whistler does not seem to have that much
snow at Christmas anyway.

Snowbird and Alta are good resorts, but I guess they do not have much
snow at Christmas either.

Same with Colorado, I presume, and somehow I am not that much of a
Colorado fan after visiting Breckenridge a few years ago.

I have always wanted to ski Jackson Hole, but I remember someone
telling me that Jackson Hole gets its snow really late.

Kirkwood seems to get lots and lots of snow and should be good because
of that, but the fall height is really paltry. I cannot think of a
mountain I have been to with that low fall height?

In addition, I can get a really good deal on a package trip to Fernie,
but does Fernie usually have good snow that early in the season?

I appreciate all ideas and thoughts. Please note that this will be a
group of good skiers that will ski from when the lifts open to when
they close and who care more about good skiing conditions than sun
tans.
Ads
  #2  
Old September 26th 03, 08:42 PM
geissing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go toWhistler. How about Fernie or Kirkwood?

Markus,

You want to ski at Christmas & New Year's, you're looking for
good snow and not too crowded.
That is a very difficult order to fill.

I've skied almost all the resorts in Colorado, a couple each in
WY, OR, and WA, another 6+ in Calif., another 5 in Utah, and one
trip to Whistler/Blackcomb, and all this over many years,
and to guess in October what any of their snowpacks will be
in late December....? It would be exactly that: a guess, and a
wild guess at that.

You could hit just right at almost any of the Western resorts and
have very good conditions for that time of year.
Then again, almost any of them could have a dry spell.
The odds are though, you will have mediocre skiing conditions
unless you do strictly Green and Blue runs.
Again, these are gross generalities, and anything is possible
when Mother Nature dishes out the snow.

I would venture that most Western resorts will be almost fully open,
(except for double-black areas) by New Years, but that does NOT mean
there will not be exposed rock (& some hidden rocks) on many runs!
In fact, I would bet that almost all single black runs will be
hazardous to p-tex come Christmas time. Even Blue runs at most
resorts in the Rockies can have rocks just under the surface ready
to do a number on your p-tex. You almost have to be a local to know
the very safest parts of runs to ski until mid-January, assuming the
resort(s) don't get an un-naturally large amount of snow during
December; it can happen, but not that often.

In general, and everyone has their own opinion, I'd say these are
the snow base depths (in inches)you need to see to be pretty much safe
from rocks) on all Blue Runs, in these states:

Colorado: 50"+ (inches), best at 60" & over
Utah: 40"+, best at 50" & over
Calif.: 40"+, best at 50" or over
B.C.: 40"+, best at over 55". Whistler/Blackcomb are tall enough
to experience entirely different weather systems and snow from
top to bottom. In fact, expect three seriously different types of
snow if you ski Whistler from top to bottom, and that is generally
true for the whole dang ski season! To some extent this true of
some resorts in Calif. and Colorado too, depending on where you are skiing.

Avoiding crowds at Christmas and New Years? I really don't think
that is possible unless maybe you ski very early on Christmas Day
and New Year's Day. Otherwise expect large crowds every day
and probably all day, period!
Christmas & New Years is hands down the busiest time of ski season,
no getting around it.

I have stopped skiing altogether at Christmas or New Years,
except night skiing on New Years, and early New Year's Day skiing.
IMO, skiing in big crowds is dangerous to your longevity as a skier.
There are ALWAYS a few yahoos out there when there are crowds,
and they may not be able to avoid you, and you may not be able to
avoid them, i.e. CRASH!
If you are going ski around any Holiday season, you better have
eyes in the back of your head or being skiing very fast and probably
hazardously yourself.
Personally, I try to be faster, quicker and more agile than the
yahoos out there during crowded times, but often it is exhausting,
frustratingand still dangerous for everybody. I hope you can do
hockey stops from the left or right, sometimes it's your only option,
Better to spray someone with snow than run over them.
Never had any bad accidents myself, but lots of close calls and I've seen
(as have many other I'm sure), some terrifically nasty collisions
between skiers on the slopes, and often only because it was too crowded
and to many mixed skiing abilities in tight group.

One caveat, if it's really snowing cats and dogs out there, and you know
how to ski fresh snow, the poor visibility and maybe deep snow
will exhaust a lot of skiers quickly and could get in some good
skiing during Christmas just due to the attrition of frustrated
skiers during tougher weather to ski in....?
But as you know, poor visibility on the slopes is a hazard in itself.

In short, I don't recommend you ski at Christmas at all!
Unless that is the only time you really get to ski during the year.
Better to ski at dangerous times than not ski at all, but.....
if you have any choice in the matter, ski either the week before
Christmas week, or the week after New Years and your likely to have
a better overall experience.

Now that I've helped you not at all. You still have to decide.
And if you insist on Christmas skiing, you WILL have to reserve
your lodging early, because thousands and thousands of other skiers
will be reserving lodging at the exact same time.

Good Luck! -Tom G.
----------------------


Markus Hornkvist wrote:
It's been years since I last read rec.skiing.alpine, but I guess this
is the place for those tricky questions.

I am planning a skiing trip for Christmas and New Years. We are 5
people. 4 are coming from Europe and 1 from the US, but the person
from the US has the shortest holiday (surprise!), so because of that,
it would make ski in North America.

This is my reasoning so far:

I really like Whistler for the almost-constant snow fall and the
decent fall height, but I hate the lift lines they have these days,
and I can imagine what they are like at Christmas, so Whistler is out
of the question. Besides, Whistler does not seem to have that much
snow at Christmas anyway.

Snowbird and Alta are good resorts, but I guess they do not have much
snow at Christmas either.

Same with Colorado, I presume, and somehow I am not that much of a
Colorado fan after visiting Breckenridge a few years ago.

I have always wanted to ski Jackson Hole, but I remember someone
telling me that Jackson Hole gets its snow really late.

Kirkwood seems to get lots and lots of snow and should be good because
of that, but the fall height is really paltry. I cannot think of a
mountain I have been to with that low fall height?

In addition, I can get a really good deal on a package trip to Fernie,
but does Fernie usually have good snow that early in the season?

I appreciate all ideas and thoughts. Please note that this will be a
group of good skiers that will ski from when the lifts open to when
they close and who care more about good skiing conditions than sun
tans.


  #3  
Old October 4th 03, 07:59 AM
Mike Spector
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to Whistler. How about Fernie or Kirkwood?

Actually Line ups are quite short at Whistler untill the 27th.
Christmas day and boxing day are usually very quiet.


"Markus Hornkvist" wrote in message
om...
It's been years since I last read rec.skiing.alpine, but I guess this
is the place for those tricky questions.

I am planning a skiing trip for Christmas and New Years. We are 5
people. 4 are coming from Europe and 1 from the US, but the person
from the US has the shortest holiday (surprise!), so because of that,
it would make ski in North America.

This is my reasoning so far:

I really like Whistler for the almost-constant snow fall and the
decent fall height, but I hate the lift lines they have these days,
and I can imagine what they are like at Christmas, so Whistler is out
of the question. Besides, Whistler does not seem to have that much
snow at Christmas anyway.

Snowbird and Alta are good resorts, but I guess they do not have much
snow at Christmas either.

Same with Colorado, I presume, and somehow I am not that much of a
Colorado fan after visiting Breckenridge a few years ago.

I have always wanted to ski Jackson Hole, but I remember someone
telling me that Jackson Hole gets its snow really late.

Kirkwood seems to get lots and lots of snow and should be good because
of that, but the fall height is really paltry. I cannot think of a
mountain I have been to with that low fall height?

In addition, I can get a really good deal on a package trip to Fernie,
but does Fernie usually have good snow that early in the season?

I appreciate all ideas and thoughts. Please note that this will be a
group of good skiers that will ski from when the lifts open to when
they close and who care more about good skiing conditions than sun
tans.



  #4  
Old October 6th 03, 05:17 PM
BW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to

Colorado: 50"+ (inches), best at 60" & over
Utah: 40"+, best at 50" & over
Calif.: 40"+, best at 50" or over
B.C.: 40"+, best at over 55". Whistler/Blackcomb are tall enough


WHAT???? When has Colorado EVER had more snow than any of the other areas you
mentioned? Look at http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/ for details. You will find
that CO typically has 2/3rd as much snow as anywhere else in the West at any
given time.

BackoftheWasatch

  #5  
Old October 6th 03, 07:55 PM
bdubya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to

On 6 Oct 2003 10:17:41 -0700, BW wrote:

Colorado: 50"+ (inches), best at 60" & over
Utah: 40"+, best at 50" & over
Calif.: 40"+, best at 50" or over
B.C.: 40"+, best at over 55". Whistler/Blackcomb are tall enough


WHAT???? When has Colorado EVER had more snow than any of the other areas you
mentioned? Look at http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/ for details. You will find
that CO typically has 2/3rd as much snow as anywhere else in the West at any
given time.


I think you misunderstood that post. IIRC, those figures were
estimates of minimum and optimal base for the skiing to be worthwhile
(i.e. deep enough that one could ski blue runs without suffering
multiple core-shots); thus, 40" would be adequate in the Wasatch, but
not in Colorado. I'm not sure I follow the logic (I woulda thought
Utah would need more depth than Cali, f'rinstance), but anyhow, I
don't think those figs were supposed to be comparative snowfall or
snowpack or whatever....

bw
  #6  
Old October 6th 03, 08:32 PM
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to

bdubya wrote:

On 6 Oct 2003 10:17:41 -0700, BW wrote:


Colorado: 50"+ (inches), best at 60" & over
Utah: 40"+, best at 50" & over
Calif.: 40"+, best at 50" or over
B.C.: 40"+, best at over 55". Whistler/Blackcomb are tall enough


WHAT???? When has Colorado EVER had more snow than any of the other areas you
mentioned? Look at http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/ for details. You will find
that CO typically has 2/3rd as much snow as anywhere else in the West at any
given time.



I think you misunderstood that post. IIRC, those figures were
estimates of minimum and optimal base for the skiing to be worthwhile
(i.e. deep enough that one could ski blue runs without suffering
multiple core-shots); thus, 40" would be adequate in the Wasatch, but
not in Colorado. I'm not sure I follow the logic (I woulda thought
Utah would need more depth than Cali, f'rinstance), but anyhow, I
don't think those figs were supposed to be comparative snowfall or
snowpack or whatever....


Guy has maybe never seen our excellent California rocks? Big'uns. As one
would expect from modest protuberance research in Hollywood, California
specializes in protuberances.

Of course, one need merely hit the patches of snow between the rocks –
maybe that’s what he meant?


  #7  
Old October 6th 03, 08:48 PM
bdubya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:32:12 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote:

bdubya wrote:

On 6 Oct 2003 10:17:41 -0700, BW wrote:


Colorado: 50"+ (inches), best at 60" & over
Utah: 40"+, best at 50" & over
Calif.: 40"+, best at 50" or over
B.C.: 40"+, best at over 55". Whistler/Blackcomb are tall enough

WHAT???? When has Colorado EVER had more snow than any of the other areas you
mentioned? Look at http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/ for details. You will find
that CO typically has 2/3rd as much snow as anywhere else in the West at any
given time.



I think you misunderstood that post. IIRC, those figures were
estimates of minimum and optimal base for the skiing to be worthwhile
(i.e. deep enough that one could ski blue runs without suffering
multiple core-shots); thus, 40" would be adequate in the Wasatch, but
not in Colorado. I'm not sure I follow the logic (I woulda thought
Utah would need more depth than Cali, f'rinstance), but anyhow, I
don't think those figs were supposed to be comparative snowfall or
snowpack or whatever....


Guy has maybe never seen our excellent California rocks? Big'uns. As one
would expect from modest protuberance research in Hollywood, California
specializes in protuberances.

Of course, one need merely hit the patches of snow between the rocks –
maybe that’s what he meant?


I don't know what he meant, but I'd think that given the superior
density of the snow in the Sierras, a measurably thinner base would be
required to give adequate coverage, relative to that flimsy Wasatch
stuff, which is barely there at all. Seems like only a few inches of
good, honest Sierra snow would give more solid coverage than a couple
of feet of that deceptive stuff they get in the desert. But I'm just
guessing, here....

bw
  #8  
Old October 6th 03, 09:38 PM
BoftheW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to


I think you misunderstood that post. IIRC, those figures were
estimates of minimum and optimal base for the skiing to be worthwhile
(i.e. deep enough that one could ski blue runs without suffering
multiple core-shots); thus, 40" would be adequate in the Wasatch, but
not in Colorado. I'm not sure I follow the logic (I woulda thought
Utah would need more depth than Cali, f'rinstance), but anyhow, I
don't think those figs were supposed to be comparative snowfall or
snowpack or whatever....

bw


If that is what was meant, then it still does not make any sense. CO has the
most flat, grass covered terrain in the West. That should require the least
amount of snow. The other places mentioned are far more rocky and require more
snow than CO. Take one look at Alta or Squaw in the summer and you will know
what I mean. Some of those boulders in the runs are covered with P-Tex and metal
scrapes. So he is still WAY off now matter how you read his post.

Now with regards to our fluff in the Wasatch, we still seem to get more than
enough to keep us happy from Thanksgiving on.

BackoftheWasatch

  #9  
Old October 6th 03, 11:03 PM
pigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to


"BoftheW" wrote in message
...

I think you misunderstood that post. IIRC, those figures were
estimates of minimum and optimal base for the skiing to be worthwhile
(i.e. deep enough that one could ski blue runs without suffering
multiple core-shots); thus, 40" would be adequate in the Wasatch,

but
not in Colorado. I'm not sure I follow the logic (I woulda thought
Utah would need more depth than Cali, f'rinstance), but anyhow, I
don't think those figs were supposed to be comparative snowfall or
snowpack or whatever....

bw


If that is what was meant, then it still does not make any sense. CO

has the
most flat, grass covered terrain in the West. That should require the

least
amount of snow. The other places mentioned are far more rocky and

require more
snow than CO. Take one look at Alta or Squaw in the summer and you

will know
what I mean. Some of those boulders in the runs are covered with P-Tex

and metal
scrapes. So he is still WAY off now matter how you read his post.


Not much flatter or grass covered than park ****ty. Alta is one thing,
park ****ty quite another. I've found that it takes about 100" for Alta
to have "pretty good" coverage. Meaning that you can get off of the runs
and begin to venture out to the rockier areas. But no matter how much
snow they get, I venture further and further "out". Areas that weren't
even a consideration with 200" are worth a look with 250". Then there
are still going to be some hidden edge rippers in those places. The main
difference between vain and park ****ty is that vain doesn't even have
the pitiful "steeps" that are jupiter. At least the flatish back bowls
of vain are long enough to link a few turns. It just better not get over
knee deep or you're going nowhere.

park ****ty is "skiable" with about 20". Nothing that I would pay for.
But for the tourist that comes on Thanksgiving? There's enough to slide
around on thanks to snowmaking and grass covered flats. The "bowls" need
80ish" but why bother for 5 boarder packed turns?

Now with regards to our fluff in the Wasatch, we still seem to get

more than
enough to keep us happy from Thanksgiving on.


You read too many brochures.
I talked to Sue B. the other day and she told me that there were some
major complaints last year about opening terrain with nothing but powder
(absolutely no base) at xmas. Some brand new, retail paid, gear was
trashed.

pigo


  #10  
Old October 6th 03, 11:43 PM
AstroPax
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Skiing in North America over Christmas - Do not want to go to

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:55:17 -0500, bdubya
wrote:

minimum and optimal base for the skiing to be worthwhile
(i.e. deep enough that one could ski blue runs without suffering
multiple core-shots);


Skiing blue runs, and only blue runs is not exactly what I would
consider worthwhile.

Regardless, Alta usually has what I would consider "worthwhile"
conditions by Christmas. Ummm, well, maybe "marginally worthwhile".

For example:

Lat year. Alta/Greely Bowl, December 22, 2002. Didn't hit any rocks.
Sure looks "worthwhile" to me:
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro...-22-02_002.htm

The year before last. Alta/BackSide, December 8th 2001 (Two weeks
*before* Christmas). Didn't hit any rocks. Sure looks "worthwhile"
to me:
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro...-08-01_004.htm

The year before the year before last. Alta/Glory Hole on Christmas
day, year 2000, with about a 50" base. Didn't hit any rocks. Sure
looks "worthwhile" to me:
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro...-25-00_002.htm

Yes, it's nice to have a good solid, deep base. But it sure pays to
know where the usual rocks are located...they tend to be in about the
same place every year.

-Astro

---
maximum exposure f/2.8
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/03-04/index.htm

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Summer skiing not in South America? Marco Cattaneo European Ski Resorts 3 May 12th 04 07:32 AM
Best places to snowboard in North America wxllx Snowboarding 4 April 9th 04 06:52 AM
Skiing in Europe over the Christmas break Jeffrey Golenbock European Ski Resorts 18 March 1st 04 08:53 AM
Near fatal ski incident Me Nordic Skiing 22 February 27th 04 02:47 PM
Where to go in North America (non-skier) ? icicle North American Ski Resorts 12 September 22nd 03 07:32 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.