icelanticskier
New member
salida":3e7jgoyj said:
ah yes! i should known....
rog
foofyland pics...a few 4/22-4/29
- Thread starter icelanticskier
- Start date
ah yes! i should known....
rog
Hey, I saw Craig yesterday at the corner of 23rd and Lexington. Great guy.
You're just jealous because I knew Craig during his formative years.salida":2r5khptg said:
I served with Craig: I knew Craig; Craig was a friend of mine. Salida, you're no Craig.
icelanticskier
New member
nj? where the heck is that? craig once told me he was from nj. i thought he was just kiddin. :mrgreen:
rog
rog
Marc_C
Active member
It was their 8th wedding anniversary. It's the pic-of-the-day on the Bird site:Bobby Danger":3g8tzvsf said:
http://www.snowbird.com/ski_board/photo.php?photo=1283
Bobby Danger
New member
ok a two piece suit ! they walked past while i was sitting on the pharm bench having lunch. nice pic
Yes, admin needs to find a new smiley for that.
They have different rulers in utah and california. lets just say that when skiing at alta/snowbird it is very easy to think the last snowfall report underestimated what you find on the ground, whereas at kirkwood the overestimation of snowfall is well known and so exaggerated that the snow report is a joke . the locals know that it is simply marketing to try to increase visitor visits.
There's a simple explanation for hayduke's impression. Sierra snow averages ~13% water content vs. ~8% at Alta. Your skis don't sink into the powder as much, or sometimes even at all if there's a lot of wind. Alta is remarkably well sheltered for an area that is that wide open. Mammoth, Squaw and Alpine Meadows usually have huge winds with their storms. Kirkwood has less wind but still more than Alta plus the 13% snow.
My best personal observation of a prodigious Sierra dump not translating into much powder was this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1573&p=8599&hilit=bishop#p8599. The marketing estimate of 95 inches from that storm turned out to be "only" 70 inches at the ski patrol plot near the Main Lodge. With usual wind deposition the upper mountain probably got at least 95 inches.
Sometimes the denser Sierra snow is an advantage. After a moderate storm of a foot or so your skis (particularly fats) will float in the new snow where you would be skiing mostly on the old subsurface if the new snow were low water content. But overall Alta/Snowbird deserve their reputation for the most consistent powder. A recent study of Alta's storms showed that they often tend to start out higher in water content, gradually decreasing as the storm continues. The result is a pleasantly fluffy surface with often enough dense snow below to prevent bottoming out on the old subsurface.
My best personal observation of a prodigious Sierra dump not translating into much powder was this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1573&p=8599&hilit=bishop#p8599. The marketing estimate of 95 inches from that storm turned out to be "only" 70 inches at the ski patrol plot near the Main Lodge. With usual wind deposition the upper mountain probably got at least 95 inches.
Sometimes the denser Sierra snow is an advantage. After a moderate storm of a foot or so your skis (particularly fats) will float in the new snow where you would be skiing mostly on the old subsurface if the new snow were low water content. But overall Alta/Snowbird deserve their reputation for the most consistent powder. A recent study of Alta's storms showed that they often tend to start out higher in water content, gradually decreasing as the storm continues. The result is a pleasantly fluffy surface with often enough dense snow below to prevent bottoming out on the old subsurface.