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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 07:53 AM |
Near fatal ski incident | Me | Nordic Skiing | 22 | February 27th 04 01:47 PM |
Where to go in North America (non-skier) ? | icicle | North American Ski Resorts | 12 | September 22nd 03 07:32 AM |