Aspen 3.26

[Marc_C]

I don't look at the skiing experience as the only factor for a trip.

Something that is severely misunderstood by many on many different ski (and climbing for that matter) discussion boards.

 

[EMSC]

I don't look at the skiing experience as the only factor for a trip.

Something that is severely misunderstood by many on many different ski (and climbing for that matter) discussion boards.

True, but more from a US (maybe North American) centric viewpoint. Europeans for example tend to mostly ignore the shopping or off-hill stuff and focus more on the skiing and maybe the quality of the food/party when choosing.

 

[Tony Crocker]

is it overprice for what you're getting?

If so, there are a lot of places in the Northeast that are way more overpriced. :stir:

Relative to Utah it's different discussion.

I don't look at the skiing experience as the only factor for a trip.

Something that is severely misunderstood by many on many different ski (and climbing for that matter) discussion boards.

This is the reason Colorado continues to blow away Utah in skier visit numbers. Park City is the only resort town, and most visitors would not put it in a class with Aspen or Vail. I think Park City and Breckenridge are a close analogy in terms of both skiing and resort ambience. In addition Colorado has more isolated places like Telluride and Crested Butte, which appeal to those who want a more relaxed, less urbanized resort.

rfarren's comments reflect Aspen's nearly unique combination of large scale resort without much sense of crowding. I'm less fond of the mountains per se than he is. I prefer an "all things to all people" type area like Vail or Mammoth to the stratified skiing at the Aspen areas. While Ajax and Highlands are challenging, they are much smaller in acreage/terrain variety and get much less snow than Jackson, Squaw and Snowbird. rfarren was wise to ski Aspen in March because many years the steep stuff isn't adequately covered until mid-season with 250 inches average of very low water content snow. I would also remind rfarren that with that 250 inch average 60% of advance booked ski weeks will see essentially no fresh powder.

Many of us on these message boards share Patrick's priority of challenge, terrain, snow. It's hard to argue for anyplace other than LCC at the top of a list based upon those criteria. I consider myself lucky that the Iron Blosam week is also my most enjoyable apres-ski experience of the ski season.

Europeans for example tend to mostly ignore the shopping or off-hill stuff and focus more on the skiing and maybe the quality of the food/party when choosing.

I have to disagree. North Americans are much more ski-centric. The Euros are famous for late staying out at night, late getting on the hill in the morning, and taking time for 2+ hour gourmet lunches during the middle of the ski day as well.

 

[Patrick]

Careful, I might shock a few regular here...but ... i ... agree ... with ... Tony on a few of the following statements

is it overprice for what you're getting?

If so, there are a lot of places in the Northeast that are way more overpriced. :stir:

Agree

Relative to Utah it's different discussion.

I don't look at the skiing experience as the only factor for a trip.

Something that is severely misunderstood by many on many different ski (and climbing for that matter) discussion boards.

This is the reason Colorado continues to blow away Utah in skier visit numbers. (...)which appeal to those who want a more relaxed, less urbanized resort.

Yes, but it might also be independent of cost. Some places are genuine, some are Disneyfied, some are minimal and other have no soul. I do for genuine and real instead of artificial or/and no soul.

Europeans for example tend to mostly ignore the shopping or off-hill stuff and focus more on the skiing and maybe the quality of the food/party when choosing.

I have to disagree. North Americans are much more ski-centric. The Euros are famous for late staying out at night, late getting on the hill in the morning, and taking time for 2+ hour gourmet lunches during the middle of the ski day as well.

I agree once more with Tony. Skiing in the Alps is more than just skiing, it's a 2 hour lunch on a terrace or back to the apartment with a few bottle of wine...it drive me crazy when I'm skiing with French host/friends. I want to ski then we can enjoy après-ski. Definitely no one count runs or vertical in the Alps.

That being said, I prefer skiing some small less commercial places (see Lucky Luke Western choices) versus the high end resort...this would also explain my South American choices. Las Lenas might have the crazy terrain, but you remove Marte and it's overpriced and overly commercialize. Portillo is also great, but again...SA is more than these two places and the ones above Santiago.

 

[egieszl]

Most people who visit Aspen/Snowmass come for longer than one day and don't pay the single-day price. Also, if you purchase multi-day tickets more than 7 days in advance you get an additional 10% discount.

I like our high price. The slopes are uncrowded and there are few if any lift lines. When it's a powder day on Snowmass like today you'll get fresh, untracked snow ALL DAY long. My first and last runs were in knee deep, untracked powder.

 

[rfarren]

I like our high price. The slopes are uncrowded and there are few if any lift lines. When it's a powder day on Snowmass like today you'll get fresh, untracked snow ALL DAY long. My first and last runs were in knee deep, untracked powder.

I agree, except I don't think it's the high price that's keeping people away. Vail's tix are more expensive and there is a lot of competition for the powder there. I believe the location is the main reason that there isn't that much competition. I would say that Snowmass is my least favorite of the places out there. The bottom 2/3s of the mountain would be a pain in knee deep considering the lack of grade, and the best terrain is at least a little bit of hike and no less than two lifts to access.

That being said, I prefer skiing some small less commercial places (see Lucky Luke Western choices) versus the high end resort...this would also explain my South American choices. Las Lenas might have the crazy terrain, but you remove Marte and it's overpriced and overly commercialize. Portillo is also great, but again...SA is more than these two places and the ones above Santiago.

Aspen for a high end resort seemed pretty down to earth, especially the ski mountains, even if the price doesn't seem so. I disagree with Tony about Vail's terrain over Aspen Highlands or Ajax. I think Ajax and AH offer true steeps a plenty, and the same can't be said with Vail. I would also lump Aspen Highlands and Ajax together, a 15 minute bus ride links the two as easily as the peak to peak express at Whistler.

Some places are genuine, some are Disneyfied, some are minimal and other have no soul. I do for genuine and real instead of artificial or/and no soul..

I happen to believe it doesn't matter when a town was built, or for what reason, but rather how a town functions. By that virtue Grindelwald, Chamonix, Whistler, Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge, should all more or less be lumped together. Whether a town has soul or not is completely subjective. I know what I liked about Aspen over Breck, but both are authentic old towns. Vail and Whistler may be purpose built towns but do they truly function any differently than Garmisch or Kitzbuehel? That being said I liked Aspen because it seemed to be a town with ski mountains as opposed to a ski mountain with a town.

 

[Marc_C]

I would say that Snowmass is my least favorite of the places out there. The bottom 2/3s of the mountain would be a pain in knee deep considering the lack of grade,...

Frankly, you could say this about quite a number of the areas within Alta and Snowbird if it weren't for the groomed exits from said areas.

Some places are genuine, some are Disneyfied, some are minimal and other have no soul. I do for genuine and real instead of artificial or/and no soul..

I happen to believe it doesn't matter when a town was built, or for what reason, but rather how a town functions. By that virtue Grindelwald, Chamonix, Whistler, Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge, should all more or less be lumped together. Whether a town has soul or not is completely subjective.

I'm completely in Robs camp on this one. I've asked multiple times over the years for someone to adequately define and explain, unambiguously, what the hell a "soulful" and "authentic" ski area is, and no one has ever been able to do so. Instead I get comparisons to <some specific ski area> where the terrain is great (but the skiing usually sucks unless your luck gives you great conditions, like *cough*MRG*cough*, as but one of many examples), the regulars take pride in the duct tape on their 12 year old jackets that haven't been cleaned, ever (and smell it), the lodging is a shared room in a freakin' hostile with 5 of your now-closest brahs, local food is where Denny's would be considered fine dining and a 7 course meal is a Big Mac with a 6-pack, and lunch is a frozen power bar on the lift. That's not soul - that's wasted money on a painful, depressing ski vacation.

 

[SoCal Rider]

Easy. Repeat after me: Aspen real, Vail phony.

 

[rfarren]

Easy. Repeat after me: Aspen real, Vail phony.

Why?
Age:
Lame idea: Aspen is real because it's older than Vail.
Age doesn't work for me, that would mean that NYC was fake and London was real, or actually London is fake and Rome is real...or well Rome is fake and Cairo is real.

Purpose:
Lame idea: Aspen was a mining town first so people lived there before the mountain. Vail was created to specifically serve the mountain.
Again, I think that doesn't work for me as nowadays they are both resort towns. You can't judge a place based upon what it once was. That's like saying NYC is real because it was once a beaver trading post.

Architectural integretity:
Lame idea:Aspen is full of buildings that capture anolder time and have architectural integrity to their time period
Almost all american architecture is built following European models, even such "american" styles as federal style are beholden to older European designs. Who cares if Vail wants to create buildings that look like European villages? What the heck do you think the White House is?

People actually live in town:
This one I will actually concede, with the caveat that we are solely talking about the town. I'm sure there are many people who live around Vail full time, the same way there are many people who live in suburbs around cities and just because people don't live in high density situations in a downtown area doesn't negate a city (see LA). Besides, I would make an educated guess that the vast majority of the populations in both towns are equally transient.

I'm sure there are other reasons to negate what you said, but it's getting late.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I agree with all of rfarren's above post.

Most specifically:

Lame idea: Aspen was a mining town first so people lived there before the mountain. Vail was created to specifically serve the mountain.

When the town is chosen to serve the mountain, it's often because someone like Pete Siebert, Dick Bass or Dave McCoy first chose the mountain for its outstanding terrain and snow. Whistler falls into this category too. And "soulful" Patrick says terrain and snow are most important IIRC.

I would say that Snowmass is my least favorite of the places out there. The bottom 2/3s of the mountain would be a pain in knee deep considering the lack of grade,...

Frankly, you could say this about quite a number of the areas within Alta and Snowbird if it weren't for the groomed exits from said areas.

I'm with Rob here too. Nearly any ski mountain will have terrain traps that need exit groomers. But in general few areas match LCC for having interesting terrain over the majority of vertical skied. Virtually any expert terrain at Snowmass drains into a long low intermediate terrain pod, requiring multiple lift rides to get back to the good stuff. Rob is lucky he wasn't there before high speed lifts. In 1980 some of those lift rides were pushing 20 minutes.

I think Ajax and AH offer true steeps a plenty, and the same can't be said with Vail.

As most people know, lack of 35+ degree steeps is Vail's Achilles heel. But unlike Snowmass its intermediate pitches are steep enough for powder. And the snowfall difference (350 vs. 250) means you'll actually be skiing powder on a lot of new snow days at Vail when you'll be bottoming out on every turn at Aspen. This is one reason it makes sense for places like Aspen Highlands and Taos to have the hike-to terrain. It cuts down traffic enough that typical small accumulations will add up to some real powder skiing.

Powder isn't everything either. In March/April I think skiing at Aspen is better than Vail most of the time. Aspen's mostly north facing steeps are at max coverage and Vail's Back Bowls are more sun sensitive. Only on the biggest powder days would Vail be better in spring.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Virtually any expert terrain at Snowmass drains into a long low intermediate terrain pod, requiring multiple lift rides to get back to the good stuff.

So when you're at popular ski areas, you don't like the ones where the good terrain gets tracked out quickly, but you also don't like when there are impediments to accessing that terrain (multiple lift rides like Snowmass, traverses/"grunt work" like Alta).

You can't have it both ways.

 

[rfarren]

Virtually any expert terrain at Snowmass drains into a long low intermediate terrain pod, requiring multiple lift rides to get back to the good stuff.

So when you're at popular ski areas, you don't like the ones where the good terrain gets tracked out quickly, but you also don't like when there are impediments to accessing that terrain (multiple lift rides like Snowmass, traverses/"grunt work" like Alta).

You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can, Aspen Highlands I would argue fulfills both requirements. There was hardly any competition there, and the best lines are all easily accessible. Snowbasin as well could also be counted as a place where the powder competition isn't that bad, but the terrain is quality all the way to the bottom.

 

[rfarren]

I think Ajax and AH offer true steeps a plenty, and the same can't be said with Vail.

As most people know, lack of 35+ degree steeps is Vail's Achilles heel. But unlike Snowmass its intermediate pitches are steep enough for powder. And the snowfall difference (350 vs. 250) means you'll actually be skiing powder on a lot of new snow days at Vail when you'll be bottoming out on every turn at Aspen. This is one reason it makes sense for places like Aspen Highlands and Taos to have the hike-to terrain. It cuts down traffic enough that typical small accumulations will add up to some real powder skiing.

Powder isn't everything either. In March/April I think skiing at Aspen is better than Vail most of the time. Aspen's mostly north facing steeps are at max coverage and Vail's Back Bowls are more sun sensitive. Only on the biggest powder days would Vail be better in spring.

IMHO the best terrain at Vail/Beaver Creek is all in the back-country/side-country. According to my friend, even in January the Back Bowls get sun baked (they are due south facing and the majority of the terrain isn't that steep). That means you need a storm of at least 10-12 (depending how dry 14-16") inches to make sure you aren't scratching bottom there, accordingly he spends most of his time in Blue Sky Basin, and hiking to easily accessible side country.

Again, my preference for the Ajax-AH over Vail had as much to do with the terrain (real steeps) as it did with the lack of crowds and laid back vibe on the mountains.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

So when you're at popular ski areas, you don't like the ones where the good terrain gets tracked out quickly, but you also don't like when there are impediments to accessing that terrain (multiple lift rides like Snowmass, traverses/"grunt work" like Alta).

Yes you can, Aspen Highlands I would argue fulfills both requirements. There was hardly any competition there, and the best lines are all easily accessible. Snowbasin as well could also be counted as a place where the powder competition isn't that bad, but the terrain is quality all the way to the bottom.

I was talking about *popular* ski areas, not the "second banana" ones (in the public's mind).

 

[Tony Crocker]

Virtually any expert terrain at Snowmass drains into a long low intermediate terrain pod, requiring multiple lift rides to get back to the good stuff.

So when you're at popular ski areas, you don't like the ones where the good terrain gets tracked out quickly, but you also don't like when there are impediments to accessing that terrain (multiple lift rides like Snowmass, traverses/"grunt work" like Alta).
You can't have it both ways.

Sometimes. As admin demonstrated on one of my visits, Snowbird has its fair share of long traverses to less accessible places (High Baldy, Bookends, Tigertail/Thunder Bowl, lots of stuff far out off the Ho Chi Minh Trail). I prefer an area to have a good balance between direct and less accessible skiing. Mt. Baldy is another good example on a smaller scale.

While Alta does not have as much direct quality skiing as Snowbird, I think the reward to grunt ratio from most of those traverses (Backside, High T, etc.) is well worth it. I only question a few of them, like Catherine's/Patsy Marley, which I would save for when everything else is tracked out.

I also agree that the inefficient lift/terrain topography at places like Solitude and Snowmass is a virtue on powder days. But that's typically 10-15% of days; the rest of the time I find that type of layout annoying and would usually choose to ski elsewhere.

Aspen Highlands I would argue fulfills both requirements.....the best lines are all easily accessible.

????? The "best line" is presumably Highlands Bowl, a once a day experience if you're not a superfit local, and probably inaccessible to most sea level based tourists until they have been in Colorado several days. Highlands is laid out on a north-facing spine. Most of the steeps drop east (Steeplechase) or partly west (Olympic) from the spine. rfarren would have seen a lot of sun effect there in late March if he had not been lucky with the fresh snow.

Snowbasin as well could also be counted as a place where the powder competition isn't that bad, but the terrain is quality all the way to the bottom.

Agree, but that combination is quite rare, a key reason I'm so enamored of Castle Mt.

According to my friend, even in January the Back Bowls get sun baked...

2 of my 3 Vail trips in December/January temps stayed under 20F and there was no melt/freeze in the Back Bowls, a big reason I recommend that time frame (Christmas zoo week excluded) for Vail.

...and the majority of the terrain isn't that steep

For south facing, steep is more sensitive to sun, not less. That's one reason why it's a much bigger issue at Jackson than Vail, the other being that for the overall ski area Vail is still ~40% north facing vs. 10% at Jackson. This means in spring you can ski the back bowls during the likely short window of optimal conditions and still have good skiing elsewhere at Vail during the rest of the day. I will hopefully get my first experience with that on the upcoming trip.

 

[EMSC]

EMSC wrote:Europeans for example tend to mostly ignore the shopping or off-hill stuff and focus more on the skiing and maybe the quality of the food/party when choosing.


I have to disagree. North Americans are much more ski-centric. The Euros are famous for late staying out at night, late getting on the hill in the morning, and taking time for 2+ hour gourmet lunches during the middle of the ski day as well.

To clarify my comment, I never said Euro's were bell to bell skiers. I'm implying that they don't book ski vacations based on planning to take entire days off to buy trinkets in town or to go dog sledding the way many ski weeker's do from the US or Canada.

 

[Admin]

While Alta does not have as much direct quality skiing as Snowbird, I think the reward to grunt ratio from most of those traverses (Backside, High T, etc.) is well worth it.

:-s Both of those that you mention are entirely downhill via gravity. Hell, on the T you can hit 25-30 mph if you want. How is that "grunt work"?

 

[EMSC]

According to my friend, even in January the Back Bowls get sun baked...
2 of my 3 Vail trips in December/January temps stayed under 20F and there was no melt/freeze in the Back Bowls, a big reason I recommend that time frame (Christmas zoo week excluded) for Vail.

While it can get baked in January it's not common either. Most seasons you don't have to start worrying about it until at least mid to late Feb... March 1 and beyond is a crap shoot every year based on the storm cycles...

 

[Tony Crocker]

downhill via gravity. Hell, on the T you can hit 25-30 mph if you want.

It may be downhill, but the leg burn on the High T is usually worse than from the actual skiing at Alta, given the usually excellent conditions.

 

[Admin]

It may be downhill, but the leg burn on the High T is usually worse than from the actual skiing at Alta, given the usually excellent conditions.

That to me hardly qualifies as "grunt work." Just like anything else, skiing the High T efficiently to avoid the "leg burn" requires a certain efficient technique.