New Whiteface Terrain

jamesdeluxe

jamesdeluxe

Administrator
Staff member
That's a good-sized glade area.

From the WF website:

newtrail.jpg


Known as Lookout Mountain, Whiteface will open an expert run and triple chair to the east of the Slides. In addition, snowmaking will be brought to this new area.

When completed beyond 2008-09, Lookout Mountain will have three expert runs, one long intermediate trail, snowmaking, triple chair, and more glades. It will drop 2,200 vertical feet, more than some resorts in the east.
 
I had heard they were going to open it while there in feb. However, I was told they were opening only one run next year, and then the rest of the terrain would open up for 2010. I am a bit upset that there are no green trails in the expansion... the crowds at the base will not be mitigated! However, the glade should be epic. I heard they were going to be more open than the ones that already exist. It should also open up a lot of new lines. Most likely, I will spend the majority of my time there in those glades once they open.
 
If that map is accurate, those will be some big glades. Anyone know how big it is? To me, from Google maps, it looks like it could be as much as 1500 feet of vert.
 
Good thing that glades don't count against WF's trail mileage cap (is it 35 or 45 miles?).

Gotta make sure that Bicknell's Thrush has plenty of living space.
:x
 
jamesdeluxe":54u304hf said:
Good thing that glades don't count against WF's trail mileage cap (is it 35 or 45 miles?).

Gotta make sure that Bicknell's Thrush has plenty of living space.
:x
Click to expand...

I ain't a tree hugger, but the best part about the daks is that they don't develop the land too much. It is more untouched IMHO than Yellowstone. If the Bicknell's thrush keeps the mountain a bit smaller so be it. At least there isn't any on mountain lodging. The added advantage of being a bit smaller is it keeps skier numbers down.
 
Looks interesting, the more I think about it should give WF another try. Spend a lot of time hiking/camping/road biking in the ADK’S mountains but haven’t been down in the ADK’S after October in years. Will check out the new trails this summer, hope they aren’t too wide.
 
rfarren":1ijpuvvi said:
I ain't a tree hugger, but the best part about the daks is that they don't develop the land too much. It is more untouched IMHO than Yellowstone. If the Bicknell's thrush keeps the mountain a bit smaller so be it. At least there isn't any on mountain lodging. The added advantage of being a bit smaller is it keeps skier numbers down.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Other than the tree hugger part (I am one)...I agree 100%.
 
Tony Crocker":25jp75rr said:
Those trees look very dense. How many of you could ski off-trail in an area like that?
Click to expand...

Appearances are deceiving, Tony. It's the Northeast, where deciduous forests look much denser in summer than they do in winter.
 
I'm not trying to bust any chops here. I'm asking a specific question about those trees. They certainly don't look like MRG or Stowe. Some of that may be seasonal. Some of it may be your "brush line" because Whiteface gets much less snow than northern Vermont. But I'm presuming there are some eastern tree aficionados who have ventured between the trails at Whiteface over the years. So I would expect answers in this range:
1) No, they are too tight (unlikely from FTO regulars who love those rabbit warrens).
2) The locals might make it work with some unofficial summer maintenance.
3) There's enough spacing for experts but cover will be good only once in a blue moon.
4) They are rarely skiable that low on the mountain but higher up there are trees with better spacing/more snowpack.
5) Worth skiing for the elite but too tough for most.
6) Should be good whenever we get a decent dump, as in Vermont.
 
Admin":3vc68px0 said:
Tony Crocker":3vc68px0 said:
Those trees look very dense. How many of you could ski off-trail in an area like that?
Click to expand...

Appearances are deceiving, Tony. It's the Northeast, where deciduous forests look much denser in summer than they do in winter.
Click to expand...


Tony could be accurate....... if they did not do any cutting off trail......almost all of the tree skiing up there needs to have work to be worthwhile.
 
Tony Crocker":3vky005f said:
Should be good whenever we get a decent dump, as in Vermont.
Click to expand...

I'm no tree skiing expert. I've skied trees twice at WF. The first time was the 10th Mtn glade after about 16 inches in March of 2007. It was primo, and I must say not that hard. The second time was this past year with Patrick and James. It was tougher. Coverage was sketchy and conditions were faster. I can't think of why these new glades would be any different, except that as the years go by, things do seem to get a bit "easier." They probably wouldn't call it a glade if they weren't going to do some work on it from the get go.

Heal up Tony and come out for a visit. Somebody'll show you around. 8)
 
Harvey44":11t3cb5e said:
Tony Crocker":11t3cb5e said:
Should be good whenever we get a decent dump, as in Vermont.
Click to expand...

I'm no tree skiing expert. I've skied trees twice at WF. The first time was the 10th Mtn glade after about 16 inches in March of 2007. It was primo, and I must say not that hard. The second time was this past year with Patrick and James. It was tougher. Coverage was sketchy and conditions were faster. I can't think of why these new glades would be any different, except that as the years go by, things do seem to get a bit "easier." They probably wouldn't call it a glade if they weren't going to do some work on it from the get go.

Heal up Tony and come out for a visit. Somebody'll show you around. 8)
Click to expand...


Bottom line is...if they did cut trees it aint tree skiing and you aren't skiing up there without help.....no one goes to Whiteface to ski trees
 
Tony Crocker":2m9wbd5k said:
I'm not trying to bust any chops here. I'm asking a specific question about those trees. They certainly don't look like MRG or Stowe. Some of that may be seasonal. Some of it may be your "brush line" because Whiteface gets much less snow than northern Vermont. But I'm presuming there are some eastern tree aficionados who have ventured between the trails at Whiteface over the years. So I would expect answers in this range:
1) No, they are too tight (unlikely from FTO regulars who love those rabbit warrens).
2) The locals might make it work with some unofficial summer maintenance.
3) There's enough spacing for experts but cover will be good only once in a blue moon.
4) They are rarely skiable that low on the mountain but higher up there are trees with better spacing/more snowpack.
5) Worth skiing for the elite but too tough for most.
6) Should be good whenever we get a decent dump, as in Vermont.
Click to expand...

1. Yes
2. Only if that was done
3. Not enough spacing and yes cover is only good once in a blue moon.....so who cares
4. Higher up is only worse
5. Not worth skiing for anyone unless you are talking about area's that have had work...so we are not talking tree skiing
6. No

How many tree skiing trail report's have been posted about Whiteface......there is a reason

Even the cut glades they currently have are not anything to get excited about.... the 10th Mountain glades have a fall line line for a couple hundred feet at best...the rest is worthless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top