New Whiteface Terrain

highpeaksdrifter said:
I don't know Skimore, he may be a WF regular, but if not I don't know how he could give some of the authoritative answers he has. For instance, I don’t know anyone who has gone over to the other side of Lookout where the glades will be that can answer the density question for sure. Like I said, I don’t know him maybe he has.
Click to expand...

Not a WF regular but have 40 days or so on skis in the area. 90% of my skiing is done in the trees. Have been in the trees off the highway and never found anything worthwhile. Which is also what I've experienced anywhere on the mountain. Unless they have done something there is very little tree skiing to be had. You state "where the glades will be" which implies cutting trees
 
rfarren":9vvr4h0k said:
However, Gore, gets a lot of posting time about trees, and gets less snow than whiteface. Their trees in places are a bit more widely spaced, but for the most part are pretty much similar to Whiteface's.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that as Gore has many more areas that are deciduous.....the area they just expanded to was great tree skiing as it was. WF had nothing to compare to it.

It may get less snow, but not by much and doesn't get blown off the place as bad
 
skimore":2c2nk5xq said:
Not a WF regular but have 40 days or so on skis in the area. 90% of my skiing is done in the trees. Have been in the trees off the highway and never found anything worthwhile. Which is also what I've experienced anywhere on the mountain. Unless they have done something there is very little tree skiing to be had. You state "where the glades will be" which implies cutting trees
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be a wise guy, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. If 90% of your skiing is done in trees and you’ve never found anything worthwhile at Whiteface, why have you skied there 40 times?

They may have to cut some trees, as I stated before I don’t know, but if they do so what?
 
J.Spin":c5dxeffn said:
[The terminology can certainly be blurred however, as in some of the examples you mentioned, or another type that I don't think you covered: Off the map, in-bounds runs, with official "improvements". Along with their various "named glades", Bolton Valley has several large areas that are thinned so extensively that they are obviously maintained by the resort in some capacity, but they are not listed at all on the trail map. It's a pretty neat feature of Bolton Valley, although there are probably other resorts that do this sort of thing and we don't hear much about it because the areas just aren't on the map. I'm not sure exactly how these types of areas fit into my usual nomenclature, but apparently I consider them glades because that's what I seem to call them in the captions on my pictures.
Click to expand...
Great post J.

Gore has another "strategy" all together. There is no budget for clearing or maintaining glades. It's done by locals, in the summer, for free. To my knowledge, it has always been this way. As glades get more established, management puts them on the map and pays for a sign. The mountain really has doubled in usable terrain because of all of that free work. The guys who do the work seem to be a little sad when something leaves their domain and gets put on the map. Last year a new one they were working on was called the "unknown zone." One thing is for sure...it's funner than hell to ski with 'em.

With regard to J's earlier post about what is legal to ski in NY...it really seems to be inconsistent at Gore. Last year there was a "crackdown" after some folks headed out of bounds towards a parked car at lower elevation. They got lost or confused and had to be found. (Sharon knows this story better than I do.) But in any case, later in the season there was an incident where the tree master what hassled for skiing some of his work that was still unofficial. So Gore is marketing it's great tree skiing, not paying for the development of it, and threatening to pull the pass of the guy who did a lot of the work. It's a fine line for the mountain because you need rules and they have to appear to be consistent. One thing to remember at Gore...stay in bounds on the weekends and you'll probably be ok.
 
I asked the ski patrol about the woods at Belleayre, and they say that trees without signage are officially off-limits. That said, in eight years of going there, I've never been reprimanded for skiing them. The only time I was warned was after a run at Highmount, I turned right at the bottom and skated back to Belleayre through the trees, coming out right in front of the Tomahawk lift. They took exception to that, and explained that, for legal reasons, you have to ski to the bottom of Highmount and walk or drive back on the roads.
 
highpeaksdrifter":cdfriytb said:
skimore":cdfriytb said:
Not a WF regular but have 40 days or so on skis in the area. 90% of my skiing is done in the trees. Have been in the trees off the highway and never found anything worthwhile. Which is also what I've experienced anywhere on the mountain. Unless they have done something there is very little tree skiing to be had. You state "where the glades will be" which implies cutting trees
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be a wise guy, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. If 90% of your skiing is done in trees and you’ve never found anything worthwhile at Whiteface, why have you skied there 40 times?

They may have to cut some trees, as I stated before I don’t know, but if they do so what?
Click to expand...

That is over a 15 year period. Only go maybe once a year now and thats only if I can catch a dump. The anything worthwhile statement was only in reference to the tree skiing
 
Patrick's comments are also in line with skimore. From their comments Whiteface is well regarded for terrain, but trees/glades are not its strong suit.
 
jasoncapecod":31yh3lik said:
When Whiteface is in good condition and groomed it is a fantastic ski experience.
Click to expand...

In all my skiing there (granted none in the last 10 years), WF was always either an awesome place to ski or a horrific experience. It never had 'decent', 'OK' or etc conditions like at so many other places back east with good enough grooming after a thaw cycle, etc.. Always great snow or nearly unskiable. Has that changed with all the new $$ that's been thrown at the place?
 
EMSC":3jakcfe5 said:
jasoncapecod":3jakcfe5 said:
When Whiteface is in good condition and groomed it is a fantastic ski experience.
Click to expand...

In all my skiing there (granted none in the last 10 years), WF was always either an awesome place to ski or a horrific experience. It never had 'decent', 'OK' or etc conditions like at so many other places back east with good enough grooming after a thaw cycle, etc.. Always great snow or nearly unskiable. Has that changed with all the new $$ that's been thrown at the place?
Click to expand...

That really isn't going to change with the lack of snow they get.......and who wants to being skiing groomers anyway
 
and who wants to being skiing groomers anyway
Click to expand...

I think Jason & Tony have covered one sentiment of that question quite well =D>

But my previous point was that after a big wind, big thaw cycle, etc... WF sucked beyond belief. After the typical eastern thaw that comes with no new snow I'm fairly certain 99.99% of anyone wants to be on a groomer the next (frozen) day. And WF sucked at proactive snowmaking/grooming, etc. to recover from those events making the skiing worse than bad.

So, has that aspect of WF changed with the huge State $$ influx recently.
 
Since WF got so little coverage on FTO until early April, you may want to check threads on Alpine Zone or Snowjournal.

From what I've read and heard, it sounds like they're doing a much better job. Plus, this season, WF ended up with 225 inches of natural snow, which is above average. Maybe Highpeaksdrifter can fill us in.
 
Whiteface has been my eastern destination mountain for years. I was brought up there (my father was a speed skater) almost every weekend as a teenager. I can honestly say, the trees there have always done the job for me, but is not where I spend most of my time . As for whether it's either amazing or terrible, I can tell you I've had a lot of mediocre experiences there. I also believe a lot of people who complain don't know where to ski. Often times you'll see people skidding around parrons, while on cloudspin it is fabulous. (all the snow from parrons having blown onto cloudspin)) The trails are very wide at whiteface, which is great after fresh, during a thaw, and on holiday weekends. However, when it gets hard sometimes your best bet is to ski along the edges of the trail for the windswept snow that piles up on the trees.

With the new money, I've noticed improvement on the snowmaking capability and grooming. However, some trails like Makenzie get very little attention, and have a propensity to grow massive ice bumps. I for one am really excited about the new terrain and glades. Those glades should be well protected from the wind on the top of the mountain, and seem very extensive. It's a shame they couldn't put in a few new greens to disperse the crowds that build up on the face lift on crowded days but hey, I'll take what I can get.

One last thing to remember... when you are coming from NYC it is often the only mountain within driving distance that is above the rain line that often settles in southern and central vermont. In other words, while it rains at killington it flurries and snows at whiteface. If it rains at whiteface, it normally is raining all the way up at jay. It may get fewer snow storms due to it being further from the atlantic, but that means it gets fewer rain storms as well. Besides, when the storms come from the west, as in an alberta clipper, it gets about the same quantity of snow as most northern vermont resorts.
 
Harvey44":3ietbqbt said:
Gore has another "strategy" all together. There is no budget for clearing or maintaining glades. It's done by locals, in the summer, for free. To my knowledge, it has always been this way. As glades get more established, management puts them on the map and pays for a sign. The mountain really has doubled in usable terrain because of all of that free work.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an interesting setup. It seems less formalized, but it reminds me a bit of the way Mad River Glen lets people assist in cutting lines during their mountain work days each fall. The process is coordinated by forester Jay Appleton, who is an authority on sustainable forest management for Eastern ski areas. Anyone who is interested in this activity but isn't very familiar with the nuances of how tree/glade skiing areas are cut and maintained around here should check out that link. I've never participated in these events, although the impression is that you don't just go up and cut whatever you want to, you assist Jay and other experienced people in their work. However, I do think some people are allowed to cut new lines/maintain favorites, as Mark Renson of SkiVT-L has mentioned in the past. He's a ski patroller there, and I would suspect that shareholders and other avid MRG skiers would be the ones most likely to have a bit more freedom. I've heard informally around Bolton Valley that the mountain is supportive of people going up and cutting their own lines, which may be true to some degree since the mountain is on private land. I haven't actually looked into whether that is the case, or if it's a "don't ask, don't tell" sort of setup, but I wonder if it is how some of their unnamed glades got their start.
 
Tony Crocker":2jvw1o28 said:
Those trees look very dense. How many of you could ski off-trail in an area like that?
Click to expand...

In general, the forests on Whiteface are VERY dense. The forests only get more dense with elevation and eventually become impenetrable as red spruce becomes the predominant species. There are some exceptions, however.

wfsat.jpg


As illustrated in the above photo, there are veins of hardwoods that wind their way up the mountain. The undeveloped vein to the north and east of the lower mountain is where the Lookout Glades are slated to go. As you can see, it is a large section of relatively open forest. Up until this point, it has been unaccessible from any pod.

The other exceptions are in the high elevation scrub around the top of the summit quad (and of course the summit proper). Here, blowing snow accumulates and buries the scrub leaving some pockets to play in. Latitude and higher elevations than neighboring ski areas combine to build some nice snowpack despite the mountain's modest snow totals-- a fact that is often overlooked.


As others have said, tree skiing is not one of the strengths of Whiteface, but it can only get better with the addition of the Lookout Glades.
 
For all the haters who said that you can't ski WF trees without a major cutting session... put your poles in one hand, a chainsaw in the other, and you're good to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top