The Canyons Snow Blitz

mbaydala

mbaydala

New member
While the Cottonwood Canyons were picking up 150 inches of snow the Park City ridge line didn't fare too badly either. I believe we picked up close to 110 inches at the 9000 foot level over a 12 day period.

Here are some photos of the days skiing and shooting over at the Canyons. Sorry had to post through face book, it would have taken me way to long to reduce the size of each photo in order to post them.

More snow on the way tonight!!!!

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=22629&id=1231002422&l=9187467ab4

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2 ... 9187467ab4
 
I agree with the above statement. I was in Telluride and watched the NW flow give Park City resorts get hammered in the daily updates.

If you read Tony/Admin/etc. thoughts & analysis - you would think the outside of the LCC/BCC micro-climate there is no where worthwhile $-wise to ski between SLC and Denver. Not quite.

Most people cannot handle much more than 8-12" of new snow. And new equipment tries to let everyone 'float' on the top 6" or so of new snow. It's work being 18" down. One could argue BCC/LCC gets a lot of 'wasted snow' where it does not enhance the powder experience past the 12" mark.

Nic pics,
 
ChrisC":vsb95lpj said:
Most people cannot handle much more than 8-12" of new snow. And new equipment tries to let everyone 'float' on the top 6" or so of new snow. It's work being 18" down. One could argue BCC/LCC gets a lot of 'wasted snow' where it does not enhance the powder experience past the 12" mark.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take on it. I can understand seeing it that way too. However, I must say I can really tell the difference when it gets a bit deeper.
I've been wanting to buy powder skis but just never got around to it. Meanwhile, I've had a bunch of powder days and my technique has really gotten better (my skis are 78 under foot but 123 at tip so do float a bit). I'm not sure if I need powder skis now. Generally I'm in pretty good shape, but I'll still get some burn on deep powder days 12"+. Of course, the burn gets worse the higher the altitude until I acclimate. Yet, I would say I'm not the average skier. For my father powder skis were the difference between him having fun and sitting in the lodge drinking hot chocolate.
 
If you read Tony/Admin/etc. thoughts & analysis - you would think the outside of the LCC/BCC micro-climate there is no where worthwhile $-wise to ski between SLC and Denver. Not quite.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I've expressed my opinion here several times that I would ski LCC when it got much more new snow than the other places (such as April 4-5) but would look elsewhere for less competition if snow totals were more evenly distributed (such as March 28-29). The reason I would rarely go to any of the Park City group on the latter days is that Snowbasin blows them all away in terrain quality and probably has even fewer people. Just ask BobbyD.

Generally I'm in pretty good shape, but I'll still get some burn on deep powder days 12"+. Of course, the burn gets worse the higher the altitude until I acclimate.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. The burn comes from the snow being inconsistent, heavy or wind-affected. There have been many powder days I was much more tired than after the 28K of waist deep perfection with Chugach Powder Guides.

Meanwhile, I've had a bunch of powder days and my technique has really gotten better (my skis are 78 under foot but 123 at tip so do float a bit). I'm not sure if I need powder skis now.
Click to expand...
That's quite a radical sidecut. You won't like that in variable or wind-affected new snow. Sidecut is a negative for powder skiing. Read Shane McConkey's analysis in the tribute thread: http://unofficialsquaw.com/words/2009/0 ... mber-skis/ He's dead-on IMHO.

Yet, I would say I'm not the average skier.
Click to expand...
Considering that rfarren has skied Little Chute, which I have yet to do with all the time I've spent in LCC, I'll certainly agree!
 
I strongly disagree. The burn comes from the snow being inconsistent, heavy or wind-affected. There have been many powder days I was much more tired than after the 28K of waist deep perfection with Chugach Powder Guides.
[/quote]

When I think about it thats true. The burn never comes from when I get perfect untracked. It always comes when it gets a bit skied off and I'm putzing around going from powder to crud to moguls. When it's deep it is a fairly consistent technique and even with my skis is really fun. I don't love being in tight trees with my skis but on an open powder field they're great.

I think however, altitude is what gets my thighs burning more than anything. Generally the first 5 to 10 days I get pretty bad burn. When I go out west I really feel the altitude the first 2 or 3 days. In years when I make multiple trip out west I build up huge stamina. It's amazing when I come back east skiing under 4,000 feet. I can go on forever, hitting bump run after bump run without even thinking.
 
I think however, altitude is what gets my thighs burning more than anything.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about this. The obvious effect on me of the first day or two at altitude is having to stop to catch my breath more often. This may happen before the thighs start burning, last Friday afternoon at Mammoth being the most recent example.

It's amazing when I come back east skiing under 4,000 feet. I can go on forever, hitting bump run after bump run without even thinking.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that altitude acclimitization wears off gradually. A week after the Montana/Wyoming trip with Patrick in 2006 I was up at Mammoth and able to do nonstop runs on Chair 23, which I can rarely do on typical weekends. Both Adam and I have observed that if we ski every weekend we build up some altitude tolerance even if we're at home the rest of the week.
 
Generally, I have to stop not because my thighs burn, but because I have to catch my breath. I feel the burn typically after the day of skiing or towards the end. They might be a bit tight at the beginning of the day following a big ski day. Normally, my thighs only hurt in the beginning of the season. After about 5-10 ski days my legs are fine and I never have to worry about burn. I do think however, that altitude will make my muscles more fatigued, i.e. burn, because there is less oxygen getting to them.

This year was unusual in that I skied so few days due to my illness. When I went out to colorado I was still recovery from my surgery and subsequent complications. At the end of the ski day I was really in need of groomers as my legs were absolutely crushed. No doubt, this was because I went out of shape, and the altitude. I was really huffing and puffing, and it was a bit disconcerting. I'm not used to having to stop every 200-300 yards! After two days my muscles started to respond, and by the end I was pretty strong. Sadly the season is pretty much over now that I'm fit enough to run laps. Hopefully I can make it to tucks, but I don't have any friends who are takers, and I don't own a car.
 
I had to stop more often last May 31 at Mammoth after the 7 weeks recovery from the broken ribs. But I was at least doing the weekend dog walks in the local hills during that time. I have no doubt that rfarren's forced shutdown of exercise was more complete than mine. Given his age and likely better average physical conditioning, I do get the impression of more altitude sensitivity than say, Patrick or I have.
 
I read the article, and frankly I see why those skis would be great in powder. However, I don't think those skis were made for resort powder. At many resorts you would be s.o.l after lunch time. Clearly they would be great on a heli trip but again they aren't very versatile. Mconkey even admits that. Personally, I like being in the snow rather than simply on top of it. The up and down sensation of skiing in powder is one of the many reasons I like it. If a ski can make powder the same experience as freshly groomed thats great, I just don't want that experience. When I want to ski groomed I will.

I do get the point that side cut is a negative in powder skiing, so I might consider getting a more traditional powder ski next season if I have the money. But frankly I doubt I'll get a second pair, I would rather spend my money on a trip than a second pair of skis. Especially since I can manage fairly well with my skis, even if they aren't ideal.
 
McConkey wrote the article about the Spatula, which is truly a specialty ski. The Pontoon was McConkey's next design to be more manageable in resorts. There are now gradations in how much rocker these powder skis can have. The K2 Obsethed which I demoed at Alta March 10 (and Adam says next year's Volkl Gotama), has rocker just at tip and tail and is otherwise conventional, aside from being 105mm underfoot. No question that's just fine for resort powder days. In fact someone in Mammoth's gondola was still skiing Obsetheds on Sunday after the powder was gone and it was majority spring conditions. In between are skis like the highly regarded Armada JJ, Black Diamond Megawatt and Rossi S7. This is the direction I'm leaning for a new powder ski. Head (from whom I won a voucher for my NASJA Harold Hirsch award http://www.nasja.org) will be introducing a rockered powder ski for next season. I'll be eagerly awaiting the reviews of that.
 
If I lived in Utah maybe I would consider getting a ski like that, however, I just don't see the point in getting a powder specific ski. When I said I was thinking about getting a powder ski, I had something like 95 millimeters underfoot in mind. I would imagine that would be plenty wide for powder. I had interest in demoing out the k2 coomba this year, but never got around to it. My idea was that I would to get baron's along with a wider ski, and then therefore have a side-country ski.
 
fyi the spatula is banned at many resorts.
i have the line prophets which are 90 mm underfoot and they handled the heavy powder and crud at mammoth very well and they freaking carve ice like its a groomer.
 
The Coomba is similar design to the Gotama, which both Adam and BobbyD use as an everyday ski. The fact that the Gotama is going to get a rockered tip and tail next year is significant IMHO:
1) Rocker is going to be pervasive among skis used in powder very soon. The benefit is obvious and possibly as significant as the original move to fat skis in the 1990's.
2) The Gotama is a very popular ski among high end skiers, and Volkl must think they are enhancing its powder performance without detracting from its versatility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top