Alta in April

[Redlegger]

Well when I first checked back I only had 2 replies, So I hadn't gotten back on till today. Let me first say I'm terribly jealous of you guys (Admin.,Tony C.,Socal, and others). I remember one of my early trips out there with my Powderhounds Guide back in the early 90's. Wish I had known you all back then. Thanks for all the insight. After an OATS(bone graph) procedure on my left knee in 2000 I'm limited to non-hiking skiing, which I hate for my son. Turned 50 last year and felt it. I never really got to know Snowbird as I'd start at Alta and never go anywhere else. Out of 60 or so days in Utah only the early trips had days at Snowbird,Brighton, and Solitude. I just fell for Alta. But as I said , all trips were in February.

Maybe I can buy you guys a beer at Watson's if we get there in April.

Thanks.

Eric

 

[Marc_C]

Maybe I can buy you guys a beer at Watson's if we get there in April.

We're always all for that!
Oh, and just to be clear - Tony and Socal are tourists, not locals. :twisted:

 

[Admin]

I'm skiing Snowbird today with Crocker. A little bird has suggested that I give him a tour of all the traverses and hikes there. :twisted:

:lol:

O

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I'm skiing Snowbird today with Crocker.

Please have your helmet-cam ready for the inevitable fist fight on the lift.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Given the OP's comments about his knee injury, he may find Alta less to his liking than before, especailly in late season. By the end of this week I'll be over 1.4 million vertical lifetime at Snowbird and about 450K on Alta.

Oh, and just to be clear - Tony and Socal are tourists, not locals.

Which is why our experience might be more applicable to visitors such as the OP.

Even if Alta has a similar percentage of winter snow (which is still less on an absolute scale since Snowbird is a bigger area) the more difficult accessibility means most people will spend less of their day skiing it.

 

[Admin]

By the end of this week I'll be over 1.4 million vertical lifetime at Snowbird and about 450K on Alta.

And what in the hell does that have to do with anything? In other words, who the hell cares?

Even if Alta has a similar percentage of winter snow (which is still less on an absolute scale since Snowbird is a bigger area) the more difficult accessibility means most people will spend less of their day skiing it.

](*,)

You have no clue. We present you with fact, but you choose to ignore it. I need to find an emoticon for throwing up my hands in disgust.

 

[Marc_C]

Given the OP's comments about his knee injury, he may find Alta less to his liking than before, especailly in late season. By the end of this week I'll be over 1.4 million vertical lifetime at Snowbird and about 450K on Alta.

Thus confirming your cluelessness regarding Alta.

 

[Marc_C]

Even if Alta has a similar percentage of winter snow (which is still less on an absolute scale since Snowbird is a bigger area) the more difficult accessibility means most people will spend less of their day skiing it.

You've been conclusively proven wrong on this assertion numerous times over the course of several seasons, yet you persist in promulgating this myth. I'm beginning to think there's a serious psychological abnormality presenting at this point.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Skrad agreed with "my psychological abnormality" earlier in this post, and I suspect he's not the only one. As noted in the vertical thread a lot of one's ski day is consumed not skiing, notably riding lifts. Alta-type traverses also consume time. This is often a virtue seeking out day old powder but not necessarily so for spring skiing. You may want to run repeated laps in the areas with the best snow. Not too many people can do that on Highboy or the Baldy Chutes.

 

[Admin]

Alta-type traverses also consume time.

That's Alta/Snowbird-type traverses.

This is often a virtue seeking out day old powder but not necessarily so for spring skiing.

Please explain to me how traversing to get to the right aspect for dry powder is any different than traversing to the right aspect for properly ripened corn.

Not too many people can do that on Highboy or the Baldy Chutes.

High Boy is a traverse. Baldy Chutes are a hike. Apples and oranges. Traverses are not physically demanding, hikes are.

 

[rfarren]

High Boy is a traverse. Baldy Chutes are a hike. Apples and oranges. Traverses are not physically demanding, hikes are.

The hardest thing I did the last time I was out in Utah was the hike to the baldy chutes with the Admin. It did more to me than the previous 3 days of skiing. Personally, I've had better experience finding soft snow at Alta rather than Snowbird during the weeks where I experienced high pressure systems. Granted I've only been out there a total of 5 times (4 times in late march). Besides, the traverses and hikes are part of what I like about Alta. For those of us whom the backcountry is alluring but yet unattainable, Alta provides a little of that feel.

I'll test out Crocker's theory when I head out next week. It appears it could very well be a high pressure system the whole time I'm there.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Traverses are not physically demanding, hikes are.

Hikes are much more demanding, but the physical demands of traverses are not zero, especially when they are like the High T. Recall the posts from those whose recovering injuries were aggravated by traverses. Given a choice I'd rather exhaust my ski legs moving vertically than horizontally. FTO is often an echo chamber. Many of our Iron Blosam group have been to Alta in the past and have little desire to revisit, and the excessive traversing is often mentioned as a reason. I consider this opinion extreme, but it illustrates the point that there are many fine skiers who have the opposite opinion from admin.

For the OP and any others considering a visit to LCC, in spring or otherwise, both preferences have been advocated in exhaustive detail, so presumably they can make a more informed decision.

 

[Marc_C]

Hikes are much more demanding, but the physical demands of traverses are not zero, especially when they are like the High T. Recall the posts from those whose recovering injuries were aggravated by traverses.

For the 28-thousandth time, treat the traverses as a run unto themselves - essentially a bump run - they're not merely a commuter route.

Given a choice I'd rather exhaust my ski legs moving vertically than horizontally.

Usually one of the many excuses visitors use.

Many of our Iron Blosam group have been to Alta in the past and have little desire to revisit, and the excessive traversing is often mentioned as a reason.

In that case, then many of your group are either horrifically misinformed or severely myopic, and ignore and never ski a huge amount of Snowbird's premiere terrain that is accessed by equally long or longer and often far more technical traverses.

Their preference may well be for Snowbird for a myriad of reasons, and that's absolutely fine, but to support that with blatantly false information asserted year after year, after repeatedly being proven wrong, every freakin' year, and offering that as advice to other visitors, is beyond damned annoying. That's what get's our ire up.

 

[Admin]

Traverses are not physically demanding, hikes are.

Hikes are much more demanding, but the physical demands of traverses are not zero, especially when they are like the High T. Recall the posts from those whose recovering injuries were aggravated by traverses. Given a choice I'd rather exhaust my ski legs moving vertically than horizontally. FTO is often an echo chamber. Many of our Iron Blosam group have been to Alta in the past and have little desire to revisit, and the excessive traversing is often mentioned as a reason. I consider this opinion extreme, but it illustrates the point that there are many fine skiers who have the opposite opinion from admin.

Then I presume that you and the members of your group to whom you refer never ski at Snowbird on:

1. The Middle Cirque (the Mid-Cirque Traverse is far more demanding than the High T will ever be)
2. The Lower Cirque
3. South Chute
4. Wilbere Bowl
5. Mach Schnell
6. Mark Malou Fork
7. High Baldy
8. Mid-Baldy
9. Livin' the Dream
10. Chamonix Chutes
11. Gad Chutes
12. Powder Paradise
13. Sunday Cliffs
14. Bookends
15. Sugar Cliffs
16. Tiger Tail
17. Blackjack
18. Tower 3 Chutes
19. Dalton's
20. Black Forest
21. Paranoia
22. Little Cloud Bowl (Regulator Johnson, etc.) from the Little Cloud chair
23. Toad Hill

All require a traverse (or a hike, or a hike followed by a long traverse) at Snowbird. And that list is anything but exhaustive. Y'all must be skiing nothing but Chip's, Lupine Loop, Big Emma and Bassackwards all week. Remember last year at Deer Valley during Sundance, when the runs under the lift were packed while the next run 25 yards over was deserted? You're practicing, or defending, that mentality by ignoring the stuff on that list above and advocating ignoring it as an inherent advantage.

A traverse is much less demanding than a gentle intermediate mogul run. If you exhaust your ski legs by skiing horizontally, as you've put it, then you have no clue how to properly ski a traverse. If physical maladies prevent you from skiing a traverse then you're skiing nothing but blue square groomers anyway and you can find them directly beneath a lift anywhere, including at both Snowbird and Alta.

You describe "fine skiers" in that Iron Blosam group, but I've seen precious few amongst the first generation, and the stronger ones who have tagged along with us at Snowbird in years past were skiing terrain that they'd never seen before in decades of visiting every year. I know that for a fact, for they flat out told me so. And they had fun exploring this new-to-them terrain, much like the 20-somethings from the second generation who were with us on Sunday. One in particular expressed gratitude for this past Sunday, saying that they never would've had a day like that with the regular group. I suspect that your Iron Blosam brethren who can't appreciate Alta for what it is wear those same blinders when skiing over there.

Let's get something straight here. You refer to my "opinion." My opinion, whatever it may be, has nothing to do with anything. Preference for Alta over Snowbird or vice versa because of vibe or any other intangible reason is an opinion. What we've been discussing all over this thread, on the other hand, is fact. In this argument, you've never let any facts get in the way of your opinion. You actually ignore the facts that have been presented to you over and over and over again. And I agree with Marc_C -- you do a disservice to our readers by misleading them by presenting your opinion as fact. There's nothing factual about your misstatements at all -- they're just plain wrong. I'd refer to them as "lies" instead of "misstatements," except that you actually appear to believe the crap that you've been spewing.

I had dinner tonight with a Vermonter friend who's out here visiting and who coincidentally prefers Snowbird. I mentioned your assertion that Alta is nothing but traversing and Snowbird is almost all fall-line direct from lift. He nearly busted a stitch laughing.

 

[Marc_C]

Then I presume that you and the members of your group to whom you refer never ski at Snowbird on:

1. The Middle Cirque (the Mid-Cirque Traverse is far more demanding than the High T will ever be)
2. The Lower Cirque
3. South Chute
4. Wilbere Bowl
5. Mach Schnell
6. Mark Malou Fork
7. High Baldy
8. Mid-Baldy
9. Livin' the Dream
10. Chamonix Chutes
11. Gad Chutes
12. Powder Paradise
13. Sunday Cliffs
14. Bookends
15. Sugar Cliffs
16. Tiger Tail
17. Blackjack
18. Tower 3 Chutes
19. Dalton's
20. Black Forest
21. Paranoia
22. Little Cloud Bowl (Regulator Johnson, etc.) from the Little Cloud chair
23. Toad Hill

If you go to Snowbird and don't ski any of that because of the traversing involved, you've wasted your money. The only thing dumber would be purchasing a week of time-share lodging.

 

[Tony Crocker]

The issue is not lack of traverse-dependent terrain at Snowbird, it's the relative scarcity of interesting direct access terrain at Alta. Not every day is a powder day, especially for visitors. If you want to maximize vertical of interesting terrain, you will consistently get more per day at Snowbird, usually about 25% more by my recent experience. Before the Collins lift upgrade it was more like 50%. I realize this is not important to admin, who usually cherry picks his hours and often does not ski full days, as evidenced by an average of 10,800 vert per day during the season he posted those numbers here. Most visitors do not have this luxury.

These issues of accessibility and amount of actual skiing done apply to the north facing terrain on warm spring days. I find it somewhat amusing that I as the supposed numbers geek am arguing on the basis of direct experience while admin is the one dragging out topo maps.

I asked Eddie several non-leading questions about his Monday at Alta this evening. Unsolicited he expressed the same above sentiments. He would like to ski Alta sometime on the first day or two after a big storm but is unlikely to return on a day without powder. He also commented that he had better leftover powder on Tigertail/Thunder Bowl on Tuesday than he did anywhere at Alta on Monday.

 

[Admin]

The issue is not lack of traverse-dependent terrain at Snowbird, it's the relative scarcity of interesting direct access terrain at Alta.

Trying to change the argument again mid-stream, huh, Crocker? Oh, no you don't -- that won't work with me.

Not every day is a powder day, especially for visitors. If you want to maximize vertical of interesting terrain, you will consistenly get more at Snowbird, usually about 25% more by my recent experience. Before the Collins lift upgrade it was more like 50%.

Not everybody gives a $hit about racking up mindless vertical. Some of us prefer quality over quantity. Which is why you went back up and edited your post accordingly.

These issues of accessibility and amount of actual skiing done apply to the north facing terrain on warm spring days. I find it somewhat amusing that I as the supposed numbers geek am arguing on the basis of direct experience while admin is the one dragging out topo maps.

You're right, I'm not arguing from direct experience at all. I'm the one who lives 12 miles away as the crow flies, and you're hundreds of miles and two Western states away. Nope, I've got no LCC experience at all. :roll: I'm dragging out topo maps -- for the second year in a row with the same damned maps -- to irrefutably demonstrate that you have no freakin' idea what you're talking about. What's not at all amusing is that even when confronted with empirical evidence that clearly and unequivocally refutes your misinformation, you continue to relentlessly defend the indefensible. That's not amusing, it's a severe character flaw.

I asked Eddie several non-leading questions about his Monday at Alta this evening. Unsolicited he expressed the above sentiments. He would like to ski Alta on the first day or two after a big storm but is unlikely to return on a day without powder. He also commented that he had better leftover powder on Tigertail/Thunder Bowl on Tuesday than he did anywhere at Alta on Monday.

Of course he did -- you were his Alta guide. Talk about the blind leading the blind...

 

[Tony Crocker]

Not everybody gives a $hit about racking up mindless vertical. Some of us prefer quality over quantity.

Quality is the reason Snowbird is my favorite area. And the consistent challenge there is also the reason my vertical totals are lower than at less expert-weighted areas like Mammoth and Mt. Bachelor (the 2002 Olympic anomaly excepted). The reasons that Alta quantity is lower than Snowbird quantity have nothing whatsoever to do with quality IMHO.

 

[Admin]

Quality is the reason Snowbird is my favorite area. ...The reasons that Alta quantity is lower than Snowbird quantity have nothing whatsoever to do with quality IMHO.

You're the one who wrote:

If you want to maximize vertical of interesting terrain, you will consistently get more per day at Snowbird

and then you change your point of reference again? I'll repeat: Not everybody gives a $hit about racking up mindless vertical. I remember you getting all bent out of shape a couple of years ago when I stopped using the S6 on any kind of regular basis. I don't know how many vertical feet I've skied this season. I don't know how many vertical feet I skied on Sunday. You know why I don't know? Because I couldn't give a rat's ass, that's why. There are many days that I could go up there, take that one perfect run and go home completely satisfied. I'm not the one who logs how many vertical feet I skied at X resort on days between 28.5 and 28.7 degrees Fahrenheit when the wind was out of the west between 12 and 14 mph when I was wearing a red jacket and blue ski socks, and keep it in a separate spreadsheet from the days when it was between 28.8 and 29.2 degrees Fahrenheit when the wind was out of the northwest between 13 and 15 mph when I was wearing a blue jacket and black ski socks. :roll: For chrissakes, just look at your forum signature:

The record 2004-05 ski season: Oct. 30 - Sept. 9
12 months skied, 48 days, 965K vertical, 147K powder (4th out of 31 seasons, 195K in 2005-06)
2008-09 : 45 days (tie 2nd), 930K vertical (2nd), 125K powder (6th)

My God, man...just go out and ski and enjoy it!

 

[Tony Crocker]

No. Your "mindless vertical comment" strongly implies that I get more vertical at Snowbird than Alta because I'm bombing groomers or in some other way skiing less interesting terrain that we would at Alta. Which is total . Just ask BobbyD.

Do I track vertical in minute detail? Yes. Do I let the "tail wag the dog" in terms of what terrain I choose to ski? Absolutely not.