Is this old news? What do u all think of this
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/0 ... en-slopes/
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/0 ... en-slopes/
SNOWBOARDS @ ALTA?
- Thread starter reefuss12
- Start date
reefuss12":1brzbn13 said:
Yes: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2014/0 ... board-ban/
Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk
jamesdeluxe
Administrator
Admin gets e-mail updates from the janitors when they change the brand of hand soap in the bathrooms.
Philadendron
New member
Hard to comment since I'm a boarder and I've never ridden Alta. To be honest, you'd probably see a decent amount of undercut traverses, where boarders establish a traverse that is lower on the hill than the skiers' traverses. We don't do this to mess with you, but it's simply impossible for us to (without poles) access traverses that gain altitude. I see a lot of these types of traverses (Bookends @ Snowbird, Milly Bowl @ Brighton, Honeycomb @ Solitude come to mind as traverses I struggle to stay on). Do you get those now, even without boarders? I don't know, I'd be interested to find out.
A lot of terrain in the further reaches would probably still go untouched by boarders, like the far reaches of Honeycomb do. Few boarders lack the ability/desire to access those areas. I'm always willing to bootpack, but I hesitate when it looks as though I'd be postholing all over an established traverse. And I'm a minority, anyways.
Will you get rude, obnoxious boarders? Yeah, but aren't there rude, obnoxious skiers, too? There's no park at Alta AFAIK, so that wouldn't draw many boarders.
Overall, initially you may get a flux because of the novelty of boarding at Alta. After that short while, you'd probably get a higher percentage of high skill boarders than most other places, and not too many other types of boarders. At that point, I feel there's very little difference between a high skill skier and a high skill boarder.
If it ever happens, I will be there to try it out. The High T strikes me as a Cirque-type place, so that'd probably be on my short list.
A lot of terrain in the further reaches would probably still go untouched by boarders, like the far reaches of Honeycomb do. Few boarders lack the ability/desire to access those areas. I'm always willing to bootpack, but I hesitate when it looks as though I'd be postholing all over an established traverse. And I'm a minority, anyways.
Will you get rude, obnoxious boarders? Yeah, but aren't there rude, obnoxious skiers, too? There's no park at Alta AFAIK, so that wouldn't draw many boarders.
Overall, initially you may get a flux because of the novelty of boarding at Alta. After that short while, you'd probably get a higher percentage of high skill boarders than most other places, and not too many other types of boarders. At that point, I feel there's very little difference between a high skill skier and a high skill boarder.
If it ever happens, I will be there to try it out. The High T strikes me as a Cirque-type place, so that'd probably be on my short list.
Marc_C
Active member
The T has flat sections and it can have uphill sections. It is also often only the width of two skis in some key spots, which frequently have significant dips and their companion uphill exits. A big hunk of it is also best treated as a horizontal bump run.Philadendron":26j7hh88 said:
In many respects it is quite different from a "Cirque-type place". I find the two very different.
I'd like to see Alta stay the way it is (of course I said the same thing when Alta had all fixed-grip lifts and skiers had to ride Collins and Germania to get to the top).
More than once, however, I've seen monoskis (remember those?) navigate the High T all the way to the pass without difficulty. Of course, back when monoskis were around, there weren't very many of them.
OT, sometimes I kinda like the High T. If visibility is OK and its not too bumped up, it can be an interesting exercise in edge finesse - a little high-speed slide slip here, a little carving there, and you can almost sort of slalom past the bumps and ruts.
More than once, however, I've seen monoskis (remember those?) navigate the High T all the way to the pass without difficulty. Of course, back when monoskis were around, there weren't very many of them.
OT, sometimes I kinda like the High T. If visibility is OK and its not too bumped up, it can be an interesting exercise in edge finesse - a little high-speed slide slip here, a little carving there, and you can almost sort of slalom past the bumps and ruts.
Philadendron
New member
Marc_C":lmvzto71 said:
Definitely get what you're saying about the "horizontal bump run". Reminds me of parts of Rendezvous Ridge at the Canyons.
I compare it to the Cirque because it looks to be a dramatic ridge separating two distinct parts of the resort, with steep runs flowing off either side of it (based on Google Earth snooping and trail map inspection). If there are significant uphill sections then I would need to deal with those on an individual basis. Sometimes I can get enough speed to conquer those, sometimes it's appropriate to bootpack, and sometimes I just have to bail and drop in. If I see those sideslip climbing marks you guys make, I usually know it's either a bootpack or it's not gonna happen.
Anyways, it's all speculation since it'll probably never happen. There's plenty of terrain, it just makes my goal of riding every Utah resort harder. After all, when would be a good day to "waste" and put skis on to ride the bunny slopes at Alta? Maybe a warm spring day at the end of the season. And who knows, maybe I'll be a natural and tear it up on my first day :wink:
Those spots on the T that you'd have to bootpack would be dangerous to do so on, as they're often the width of two skis, hard as a rock and on a 42-degree side hill. You'd never catch me there without metal edges, and sometimes I'm even moderately uncomfortable with them.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk
Philadendron
New member
Yeah, that type of terrain I'd probably bail on. There is etiquette out there and I absolutely follow it. If I can pass without moderately or severely hindering others, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'll bail.
I generally agree with this. The proportion of boarders who can handle that kind of terrain is much smaller than the proportion of skiers, but I'm not inclined to exclude them.Philodendron":ihu14uo0 said:
In mid-to-late season of big years most of the ugliness on the T gets buried and I suspect the high skill boarders could handle it. But the way it was 2 weeks ago, I don't think so. We were stepping gingerly through some gravelly sections. I don't see how you could do that on a board and I agree with admin that it would be unsafe to take the board off with that exposure.Admin":ihu14uo0 said:
The best solution is to go on one of admin's spring tours when Snowbird is open and Alta is not. You may get only one run at Alta, but it may be memorable.Philodendron":ihu14uo0 said:
Tony Crocker":2aaclwff said:
More utter nonsense from the Californian. A deep base doesn't widen the T at all, especially in the tight sections of the final 300 yards approaching Piss Pass (where you're constricted by a rock wall on the right and snow fencing on the left); it doesn't lessen the pitch of the side hill one iota; and mid to late season is precisely when the west facing High Traverse gets baked and refrozen into concrete almost nightly, and often takes most of the afternoon to soften.
Folks, this is all moot anyway for this lawsuit is a non-starter. How I feel about the issue personally matters not. The fact of the matter is that being a snowboarder is not a protected class under the law. I can't believe that they belittled their cause by even trying that angle, likening being a snowboarder to race/religion/gender/sexual orientation/etc., classes of people (not activities) that are protected by the 19th Amendment. Besides, even if snowboarders were a protected class (which of course they're not), snowboarders aren't banned at Alta, the act of snowboarding is what's prohibited. Snowboarders are welcome to ski at Alta anytime, and Alta can legitimately show business and safety reasons for prohibiting snowboarding. As a private lease holder they have every right to enact policies as they see fit, whether or not the Forest Service is the landlord.
I'm a skateboarder, and I want to skateboard and rail slide on the handrails of a food concession in Yellowstone, but the concessionaire says that I can't skateboard there because it's to much of a risk to the safety of both me and other patrons of the restaurant. I'm suing! That concessionaire has animus and deep-seated hatred against skateboarders, people are allowed to ride their mountain bikes into and out of the concessionaire' s lease hold (discrimination!), and as a US citizen I'm an owner of that federal land! I demand equal access to skateboard wherever I want to!
Ridiculous? Yep, just as ridiculous as the Alta lawsuit. This waste of our judicial resources will be tossed out on summary judgment.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk
Philadendron
New member
I don't agree with the lawsuit. It's a waste of time and resources. However, I also don't agree with the ban on snowboarding. It's antiquated and if it ever changes under the right circumstances, I will be happy and say it's about time. One board? Two? Who cares.
This may all be a moot point, but it's a fun discussion about terrain that interests me as a snow sport enthusiast.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This may all be a moot point, but it's a fun discussion about terrain that interests me as a snow sport enthusiast.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Interesting that admin says Alta has some snow quality issues in the spring. :stir: A lot of Alta's primo north facing terrain is out at the end of the High T. What north facing runs are you skiing until the High Tadmin":3mxvp7uo said:
Answer: Some of the terrain next door with your combined pass!admin":3mxvp7uo said:
At any rate admin and I agree on much about the suitability of the High T for snowboarders. While I believe that some snowboarders would be OK in some conditions, screening for the right people and the right time would be highly impractical.
Tony Crocker":2gjv1ciq said:
Once again, when someone points out your blatant misinformation you simply change the subject in a feeble attempt to divert attention.
But that's OK, I'll play along anyway. How about trying a little imagination in spring instead of using your one-track North-facing mind? Start with Yellow Trail or skiers right side of Chartreuse Nose, both of which are already softening first thing in the morning as they face Southeast, then move to East-facing Backside, and after lunch spend the afternoon getting a goggle tan on glorious sun-drenched West Rustler. Some of us actually enjoy snow softened by the spring sun that North-facing steeps never see.
And what's this North-facing terrain of which you speak? Oh yeah, it's the entirety of the Wildcat face, all of Ballroom, Baldy Shoulder, Baldy Chutes, Fred's Trees, Devil's Castle, and most of Catherine's Area - none of which is "out at the end of the High T."
I've said it a million times before but it's nevertheless worth repeating here: if you think that the west resort has a monopoly on good terrain, then go ski it. Please. I'm not trying to stop you. Quite the contrary, actually, for that just means more for me. The last thing that I'll do is stand in your way. In fact, that goes for everyone. Crocker is right, Alta's terrain is vastly inferior. If you know what's good for you you'll go somewhere else. Mammoth anyone? I hear that their snowpack is truly "rocking" this season.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk
Marc_C
Active member
An opinion piece appeared today on KSL:
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28598310
None of the author's ideas in the piece are particularly new or novel IMO.
I particularly disagree with the author's assertion about the safety issues of snowboarders having a blind spot and that skiers don't (he refers to the better peripheral vision since they're not standing partially sideways on their gear like boarders) and trots out the anecdotal "I've been hit twice by boarders..." argument. For me this has always been a bit of self-justifying BS. Skiers have blind spots just like boarders, but it's the size, shape, and location of the blind spots that are different. This is what skiers who have been hit by boarders fail to recognize; if you're going to share the mountainside with people on a different descent device, it is part of your responsibility to learn where the blind spots on the other device are located and to stay out of them. It's not unlike cars and 18-wheelers on the same interstate.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28598310
None of the author's ideas in the piece are particularly new or novel IMO.
I particularly disagree with the author's assertion about the safety issues of snowboarders having a blind spot and that skiers don't (he refers to the better peripheral vision since they're not standing partially sideways on their gear like boarders) and trots out the anecdotal "I've been hit twice by boarders..." argument. For me this has always been a bit of self-justifying BS. Skiers have blind spots just like boarders, but it's the size, shape, and location of the blind spots that are different. This is what skiers who have been hit by boarders fail to recognize; if you're going to share the mountainside with people on a different descent device, it is part of your responsibility to learn where the blind spots on the other device are located and to stay out of them. It's not unlike cars and 18-wheelers on the same interstate.
