ok, let me rephrase the whistler question

if these are the factors:

cost - five months skiing and lodging at whistler, $3800.

proximity - condo ski in/ski out, no commute of any kind to mountain.

village - whistler village is surely full of life and ammenities, from
what i've read it is completely self sustaining so you never have to leave.

terrain - whistler has more lift serviced terrain than any other resort
in north america. it also appears to be the ultimate big mountain resort
with more alpine terrain than anything else on this side of the atlantic.
i've never heard a single person criticize the quality of whistlers terrain
so im assuming it isn't a matter of quantity over quality.

snow quantity - whistler averages 360 inches a year


so far so good.


snow quality: so far all anyone has said is that it rains a lot at the
base, and that the snow is wetter than snow in the interior. my question,
for the tenth time, is the snow above the tree line so wet and heavy that
it is unenjoyable for a skier, or is it still nice snow just not AS nice
as certain other parts of the country?

weather: whistler doesn't appear to be the sunshine capital of the world,
but then again, snow doesn't fall from the sun and it doesn't seem to
get bone chillingly cold very often either. i know weather is an issue
for people going for a week or two but is it really an issue for someone
living there the entire winter? is this a non issue?

crowds: whistler gets a lot of skiers but it also has a lot of terrain
to spread everyone out and it seems that its not very hard to get away
from the crowds once you get to know the place. non issue?

lift lines: how bad are the lift lines during the week? are they only
bad on weekends or at the base in the morning before everyone spreads
out to the different areas?


there is only one potential whistler killer for me and thats the snow
quality, i don't need the driest fluff in the world, but i don't want
to ski in heavy wet sludge thats not enjoyable.. it doesn't have to be
perfect, it just has to be good. there's no one resort that gives that
excels at all the factors i listed above, the idea is to go to the one
that excels the most overall without failing at any of the important
ones. for example staying in banff for the winter would require a
30 to 45 minute commute everday, that fact alone takes banff out of
the running for me. the snow at tremblant is nice and dry but that
doesn't mean its a better place to spend the winter than whistler.
it wouldn't cost any more, you can live right next to the gondola,
there aren't any crowds during the week.. BUT you'd need to commute
into town anytime you needed something, it has very little interesting
terrain, it rarely snows (avg 150"), its usually freezing cold, windy
and icey (not a little ice, 90% ice). see how that works? you have to
look at every factor, not just one or two. so if you have any suggestions,
please feel free..

kevin wrote:

snow quality: so far all anyone has said is that it rains a lot at the
base, and that the snow is wetter than snow in the interior. my question,
for the tenth time, is the snow above the tree line so wet and heavy that
it is unenjoyable for a skier, or is it still nice snow just not AS nice
as certain other parts of the country?

Snow above treeline is usually powdery, just not as powdery as Utah.

weather: whistler doesn't appear to be the sunshine capital of the world,
but then again, snow doesn't fall from the sun and it doesn't seem to
get bone chillingly cold very often either. i know weather is an issue
for people going for a week or two but is it really an issue for someone
living there the entire winter? is this a non issue?

Big problem in Whistler is fog. It doesn't get bone-chillingly cold
like the East.

The downsides of Whistler are crowds, cost, and fog. It's not foggy
every day, however. And if you're there a whole season, you will be
there for the low-crowd times as well as the high-crowd times. That
leaves cost as the big issue, IMHO.

If you didn't like Silver Star, maybe you should stay away from other of
the smaller interior BC places mentioned, and just hit the big Kahuna
like you seem to want to. That way, you'll have done it and it will be
out of the way .

Dave

snow quality: so far all anyone has said is that it rains a lot at the
base, and that the snow is wetter than snow in the interior. my question,
for the tenth time, is the snow above the tree line so wet and heavy that
it is unenjoyable for a skier, or is it still nice snow just not AS nice
as certain other parts of the country?
Snow above treeline is usually powdery, just not as powdery as Utah.

perfect.

The downsides of Whistler are crowds, cost, and fog. It's not foggy
every day, however. And if you're there a whole season, you will be
there for the low-crowd times as well as the high-crowd times. That
leaves cost as the big issue, IMHO.

cost isn't an issue, as i stated we have lodging for $600 a month each
in a nice place, and thats cheaper rent than i pay now and $900 for a
midweek season pass is a great deal as far as i'm concerned.

If you didn't like Silver Star, maybe you should stay away from other of
the smaller interior BC places mentioned, and just hit the big Kahuna
like you seem to want to. That way, you'll have done it and it will be
out of the way .

exactly don't get me wrong, silver star is the best skiing i've
ever had in my entire life, but its not so radically different from
what we have out east.. its a fantastic place to visit, but i wouldn't
want to live there. eventually when i have more money i'd like to spend
the winter touring some of the better mountains in bc/alberta,
i'd like to go to utah, i'd like to ski in the alps, i'd like to
spend a week heli-skiing.. but all of that costs SO much more than
it will cost us to live five minutes from a gondola in whistler
for five months.

In article , kevin says...

Once again:

snow quality: so far all anyone has said is that it rains a lot at the
base, and that the snow is wetter than snow in the interior. my question,
for the tenth time, is the snow above the tree line so wet and heavy that
it is unenjoyable for a skier, or is it still nice snow just not AS nice
as certain other parts of the country?


As I said before, the snow sucks. Wet and damp. Have you heard anyone here
praise it? The best anyone can come up with is 'its OK'. Code words for it
sucks.

weather: whistler doesn't appear to be the sunshine capital of the world,
but then again, snow doesn't fall from the sun and it doesn't seem to
get bone chillingly cold very often either. i know weather is an issue
for people going for a week or two but is it really an issue for someone
living there the entire winter? is this a non issue?


Do you like rust? Never seeing the sun for weeks on end? Trust, me I know.

crowds: whistler gets a lot of skiers but it also has a lot of terrain
to spread everyone out and it seems that its not very hard to get away
from the crowds once you get to know the place. non issue?


Spreading out is not the issue. Waiting in long lines for ride up is. Better
become a freeheeler and skin up.

lift lines: how bad are the lift lines during the week? are they only
bad on weekends or at the base in the morning before everyone spreads
out to the different areas?

Long. Very long.

there is only one potential whistler killer for me and thats the snow
quality, i don't need the driest fluff in the world, but i don't want
to ski in heavy wet sludge thats not enjoyable.. it doesn't have to be
perfect, it just has to be good. there's no one resort that gives that
excels at all the factors i listed above, the idea is to go to the one
that excels the most overall without failing at any of the important
ones. for example staying in banff for the winter would require a
30 to 45 minute commute everday, that fact alone takes banff out of
the running for me. the snow at tremblant is nice and dry but that
doesn't mean its a better place to spend the winter than whistler.
it wouldn't cost any more, you can live right next to the gondola,
there aren't any crowds during the week.. BUT you'd need to commute
into town anytime you needed something, it has very little interesting
terrain, it rarely snows (avg 150"), its usually freezing cold, windy
and icey (not a little ice, 90% ice). see how that works? you have to
look at every factor, not just one or two. so if you have any suggestions,
please feel free..


Go somewhere else. If you have but one season to be a bum, find a resort with
the highest quality snow you can get (I would choose the northern Rockies). You
will never forget that season. Everyone deserves al least one epic season and
the Rockies offer the best chance. I just don't think you will an unforgetable
experience at a coastal range resort.


BoftheW

kevin wrote:

snow quantity - whistler averages 360 inches a year

Bummer. I wouldn't make it through the season.

-klaus

Just a few comments on a few points...

kevin wrote:
: terrain - whistler has more lift serviced terrain than any other resort
: in north america. it also appears to be the ultimate big mountain resort
: with more alpine terrain than anything else on this side of the atlantic.
: i've never heard a single person criticize the quality of whistlers terrain
: so im assuming it isn't a matter of quantity over quality.

Whistler/Blackcomb does have some very expansive terrain, bowls that
would encompass whole ski areas. It's got some very challenging
terrain. The terrain is great. BTW, Vail+Breck total claim is 7332
acres, Whistler/BC claims 7071. In my opinion, however, quantity is far
from the top measure. What kind of terrain is it? What type do you
want to ski - trees? alpine? How much beginner/intermediate/expert
terrain is there?

: snow quantity - whistler averages 360 inches a year

Vail claims 346 inches per year - pretty close. Steamboat gets ~360.
SLC west areas ~500. Jackson ~450. All much, much better snow in
general.

: snow quality: so far all anyone has said is that it rains a lot at the
: base, and that the snow is wetter than snow in the interior. my question,
: for the tenth time, is the snow above the tree line so wet and heavy that
: it is unenjoyable for a skier, or is it still nice snow just not AS nice
: as certain other parts of the country?

I've never had heavier, wetter, more impossible snow than at Whistler,
above treeline ("in the alpine"). You simply would never get that kind
of snow in the Rockies, or even in CA in my (limited) experience. It
was RAINING on the lower ~3K feet. In *January*. Ok, I didn't have fat
skis - they would've helped in that glop. Otherwise it was pretty much
unskiable (unless groomed) - tips dove to China unless you were
forcefully leaning back. On the other hand - the snow can be good too.
It's just that the bell curve is a lot flatter - a lot more variation is
possible. It don't rain in Utah or Colorado in January.

I can't address the party or convenience features of the more interior
resorts of Canada or the US (and those appear to be very important to
you), but I'd much rather be in Jackson or in Sandy UT or near Kicking
Horse than a winter at Whistler. But plenty of people do it and love
it. It's a great place to visit, but... If you're really enamored of
the bigness of it all, then no place will match it. I found most of
Blackcomb to be kinda Vail-like, myself - but certainly not all of it.
Whistler seemed to be quite a bit more interesting overall. I'd
take Jackson over either of them in an instant.

One of the latest ski mags has a piece on the 10 best ski-and-live towns -
check it out for yet another view of this and a some more actual data.

Best of luck with whatever you decide for this winter!

-Paul C.

Paul Christofanelli wrote:

I've never had heavier, wetter, more impossible snow than at Whistler,
above treeline ("in the alpine"). You simply would never get that kind
of snow in the Rockies, or even in CA in my (limited) experience. [clip] Ok, I didn't have fat
skis - they would've helped in that glop. Otherwise it was pretty much
unskiable (unless groomed)


Heavy, wet, glop has it's good side - once you learn how to ski it
(skinny skis work just fine, if you have good technique. and wax.) you
will find that you have the mountain pretty much to yourself. No
waiting, no crossing tracks, no people, period. (Work on your technique
- and for gawds sake dump those fat skis somewhere where a beginner can
find them - everyone will be better off...)

However, I will agree that conditions are very much better uner certain
other conditions. For example I offer a raging -10deg blizzard with
60mph winds - fresh light snow and yet again "No waiting, no crossing
tracks, no people, period." (except for a like minded few, all of whom
you know, and meet for beer while cuddling up to the woodburner in the
warming hut every hour or so. The way skiing ought to be.

lal_truckee wrote:
: Paul Christofanelli wrote:
:
: I've never had heavier, wetter, more impossible snow than at Whistler,
: above treeline ("in the alpine"). You simply would never get that kind
: of snow in the Rockies, or even in CA in my (limited) experience. [clip] Ok,
: I didn't have fat skis - they would've helped in that glop. Otherwise
: it was pretty much unskiable (unless groomed)

: Heavy, wet, glop has it's good side - once you learn how to ski it
: (skinny skis work just fine, if you have good technique. and wax.) you
: will find that you have the mountain pretty much to yourself...
: waiting, no crossing tracks, no people, period. (Work on your technique
: - and for gawds sake dump those fat skis somewhere where a beginner can
: find them - everyone will be better off...)
: ...(snipped)

No doubt I can improve my technique, but let me explain...this snow was
*not skiable*, at least not what I call skiing. Sure, I "skied" it,
with the old Renntigers, which were usually good for crud (and were in
fact excellent for most other stuff on the mountain), but they were
stiff. On this particular off-the-beaten-path, slightly above average
'black' pitch run, unless I was *literally* leaning back as hard as I
could, the tips would dive down and get stuck immediately. Can't ski
that way, more like a series of traverses. My friends on more noodly
skis had a better, but still tough, time of it, but I don't care who you
are, you wouldn't have been having a good time. I've had good heavy
snow before, some in CA, plenty of good Jackson crud, and heli-skiing in
Canada (before fat skis), but this stuff was truly in a class by itself.
Yeah, we saw some people struggling and we, used to searching out
'off-piste' type stuff, thought they were just in over their heads.
Nope. 15 new inches of this almost-water stuff was brutal. The more
recently travelled runs were not nearly like that . Perhaps we were just
Rockies wimps and the Whistler toughs are used to this :-).

That particular day was kinda fun near the bottom, water-skiing through
the huge puddles trying to nail each other with the wake and then
crashing down into the 'lake' at the end.

This was actually somewhat before fat skis became common, but those, or
a snowboard, would probably have been much better. Or at least some of
those old Miller softs.

Regarding fat skis...the only ones I've skied that I didn't like were
those huge boat-like Big Stix that Silverton provided. Too fat and
heavy for me. I like the Volkl Explosiv. But I actually don't own a
pair, although I wouldn't mind having some around for occasional use.
They're fun in the right conditions, but I would very rarely use them in
CO - not generally enough snow per day, and if it does snow, it's pretty
light. Or for single-day skiing - for me, they make the most sense when
stringing together many ski days in deep snow - keeps the old legs
fresher, since I'm now more of a weekend warrior - but that's only going
to happen cat-skiing for me. YMMV.

-Paul C.

Paul Christofanelli wrote:

some of
those old Miller softs.

I am still shopping garage sells for a pair of old style Miller Softs.
I'd like to ski them at least once before I hang up my boots. Somehow
Yostmark Noodles, from the same mold and layup, won't quite satisfy the
craving. So I keep seeking.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:22:35 GMT, (kevin) wrote:

(snipt)

Personally, I think you'd have a very fine season there. It won't be
perfect, but anyplace would be a roll of the dice. The snow can
occasionally get pretty wet and heavy; you'll learn to ski it. The
lift lines can occasionally get long; you'll learn to dodge them.
It's easy to **** on the place because it's so hyped, but I don't
think you'll regret going.

But were I you, my first priority after settling in would be to
develop the skills (and compile the gear and the connections) to
access the backcountry. It'd be a shame to be there all season and be
limited to the lifts.

bw