Locked anything in for 10-11 yet?
- Thread starter EMSC
- Start date
longshanks
New member
Booked WestJet seat sale from London to Calgary @ $139++ departing last week of January - will likely hit Castle AB for 2/3 days and then on into the BC Southern Interior (FAR, Red, RMR) for a week or so. Return date is curently open ended. Hope also to go East to either Whiteface, Trembant or Jay sometime this winter - likely a mid-week thing if the dumps come...
Wife doesn't know yet, but I found a deal from Buffalo to Denver for Feb 20th - Feb 25th that I couldn't resist. So, in addition to Tahoe/Mammoth third week in April, we're now also heading to Steamboat for those dates in February. Why Steamboat? Well, first, I've never been there. Second, I like that it's a little off the beaten path for a holiday week (Presidents Day). Next, the reputed laid back Western town feel of Steamboat Springs appeals to me. And lastly, for my wife who is a strong intermediate, there appears to be a good selection of groomed terrain that we can both enjoy.
Geoff
New member
EMSC":34c985dy said:
I'm totally entertained there. The numbered chutes at the very top are short but have some good pitch to them. Rolex is a nice steep bump run. There's plenty of pitch on the lower half of Shadows to keep me happy. On a powder day, I think they have the 2nd best tree skiing in the US. (Deer Valet is the best since their customer base doesn't ski trees.) Shadows and Closet in bottomless untracked is one of my lifetime good ski memories.
This is exactly why I decided to go here. My wife is going into her third year of skiing and is a strong intermediate, so this mountain should be perfect for her to continue learning and provide a rewarding experience as she'll be able to challenge most of the mountain. Plus, when we want to fall back to something more familiar, it looks like there's plenty of easy groomers for her as well.rfarren":1ynuvxox said:
Geoff
New member
rfarren":2yyfuq74 said:
You do that back side lift exactly once and then abandon it to the Texans and Californians. I haven't been there in a decade but the two high speed quad bubble chairs up the front face are plenty long enough. I don't care about sustained vertical. I care about interesting terrain and a good skiing surface. Steamboat has too much uphill capacity to have an uber-reliable good skiing surface but if you catch it during a good snow cycle, it's worthy.
I guess it's good news that the rfarren's of the world won't go to some of my favorite little ski areas because they don't have 3000 feet of sustained kick-ass vertical.
Geoff
New member
AndreB":ra2uswwm said:
I think Deer Valley and Snowmass are somewhat better options for a mixed-ability couple. There are a lot more options where there are intermediate-friendly groomers next to interesting ungroomed terrain. The trees between pretty much all the (perfectly groomed) cut trails at Deer Valley are skiable. The power line up on the Burn at Snowmass is like that, too. She can venture in and out of the ungroomed as a confidence builder.
Edited:
I also hate to burst your bubble but Steamboat is not "off the beaten track". It is a major destination resort. It's been 10 years but I was there twice over the MLK holiday period and it was quite busy. I can only imagine what it's like during Presidents Week when the "I won't ski in January when it's cold" crowd is there.
EMSC
Well-known member
I guess I'm confused on how just under or just over 2000' of vert is
Is a drastic understatement.
Steamboat is definitely not off the beaten path. It's only ~2.5 hrs from Denver and gets roughly 1Million skier visits per year. But much of that time is 2 lane instead of interstate so it feels more off the path than it really is.
It would go further down my list than #2, but still much better than average tree skiing. Esp shadows & closet as mentioned.
. None of it double diamond of course but solidly diamond pitched for 3/4 of it at least. Althoughrfarren":2eobi1ld said:
.rfarren":2eobi1ld said:
Is a drastic understatement.
Steamboat is definitely not off the beaten path. It's only ~2.5 hrs from Denver and gets roughly 1Million skier visits per year. But much of that time is 2 lane instead of interstate so it feels more off the path than it really is.
Geoff":2eobi1ld said:
It would go further down my list than #2, but still much better than average tree skiing. Esp shadows & closet as mentioned.
rfarren
New member
Sorry to respond to this so late after the fact, but I just got back from Morocco last night.
You may feel that way, but I certainly disagree with you on that one.
I dealt with that in the vert thread.
I felt it lacked in vert because A)
It was advertised as 3,000 ft of vert. So I expected more.
B) I found the terrain somewhat tame. Long stretches of terrain although diamonds weren't particularly interesting, especially compared to the areas I hit prior (copper, Vail, Beaver creek, snowbird, Alta) on my trip last year.
I guess my bigger complaint was not the vert but the lack of really interesting terrain. The chutes were fun, but they are too much work for such little reward, especially when you consider the crazy flat terrain just at the bottom.... and if you make a wrong turn there you might as well take your skis off and start walking. The rest of the mountain seemed no better than Stratton. Some mountains ski big, and some ski small. For all the acreage that steamboat boast, I think it skis small.
BTW, the trail map for steamboat really doesn't represent very well how the mountain is laid out. IMO it makes it seem much more extensive than it truly is.
Geoff":1i1p313q said:
You may feel that way, but I certainly disagree with you on that one.
Geoff":1i1p313q said:
I dealt with that in the vert thread.
EMSC":1i1p313q said:
I felt it lacked in vert because A)
It was advertised as 3,000 ft of vert. So I expected more.
B) I found the terrain somewhat tame. Long stretches of terrain although diamonds weren't particularly interesting, especially compared to the areas I hit prior (copper, Vail, Beaver creek, snowbird, Alta) on my trip last year.
I guess my bigger complaint was not the vert but the lack of really interesting terrain. The chutes were fun, but they are too much work for such little reward, especially when you consider the crazy flat terrain just at the bottom.... and if you make a wrong turn there you might as well take your skis off and start walking. The rest of the mountain seemed no better than Stratton. Some mountains ski big, and some ski small. For all the acreage that steamboat boast, I think it skis small.
BTW, the trail map for steamboat really doesn't represent very well how the mountain is laid out. IMO it makes it seem much more extensive than it truly is.
I think Steamboat is not an unreasonable choice for AndreB and his wife. Steeps are not everything, and the fall lines are consistent enough for powder skiing. Steamboat does get the second most lift-served snow (Wolf Creek is #1) in Colorado. AndreB will be quite happy if that fresh snow materializes during his trip, and the La Nina raises his odds a bit there. That said, Steamboat is what I consider a "powder dependent" mountain. The exposure is not great, and without new snow rfarren's critiques become more relevant to advanced skiers.
Geoff
New member
rfarren":207acq70 said:
Ooooooo. I made that mistake once following what turned out to be pinnah tracks. If you miss the traverse, it's an ugly slog back. Fortunately, I had only a modest amount of uphill to deal with and I was following skin tracks.
If you're not into tree skiing, I don't think Steamboat is all that interesting. You can say the same thing about Deer Valley. I'm totally entertained in medium-pitch trees.
That's the sunny exposure. Go in January like Jackson Hole.Chris":qajgc9af said: