http://www.alyeskaresort.com/snow-report.aspx
I have to get up there some day!!!
I have to get up there some day!!!
WOW
- Thread starter kingslug
- Start date
The 787 is measured from the top. I'll get the more representative mid-mountian number in May. I would expect it to be in the 550-600 range vs. long term average of 516. It will be close race among Alyeska, Whistler and Mt. Baker for most snow this season IMHO. Whistler is currently at 566.
schubwa
New member
Tony Crocker":2o4j6a72 said:
Somehow I'm not that "wowed". Except to wonder how a maritime ski area can get those kind of seasonal snowfall figures and only have 54" at the base. Sounds kinda damp to me, even from a fellow PNW'er. For comparison purposes, it took us 428" to yield 152" mid-mountain (same as theirs), arguably in a much more interior location than the sea-hugging Alyeska.
What gives?
rfarren
New member
I've often wondered how the skiing was there. I imagine that altitude is more of a factor in the base than anything else. If you look at the 54 inch base it's on the lowest part of the mountain. I know for a fact that the low part of the mountain gets a fraction of what the top gets. If you look carefully the top has a 208 inch base. Remember, Alyeska's base is close to sea level. I know from a visit in the summer that the top part of the mountain retains its snow.schubwa":3tpev57l said:
Been there three times, most recently during Thanksgiving 2008 (really dark out). Small area/ great steeps on North Face but the rest of the mountain is less inspiring . The snow can be quite wet given the proximity to the Turnagain Arm/ lower mountain rain is a real possibility at any time of the winter. 10 miles inland (CPG Heli) much drier continental type airmass/ the snow is a lot better but also a lot pricier.
rfarren
New member
I think Skirad makes a good point. If you go around dec. 21 it can be very dark. You're probably better off waiting till march so the sun gets a little higher in the sky. Like I said, I visited in the middle of summer (It was light until 12:00 at night) and there was snow on the top of the mountain, so I wouldn't worry about cover in March.
Skirad makes another good point about the terrain. Perhaps, it's best to treat Alyeska as a warm up to heli-trip.
Skirad makes another good point about the terrain. Perhaps, it's best to treat Alyeska as a warm up to heli-trip.
Or more relevantly as an excellent backup on bad weather days: viewtopic.php?t=3031rfarren":8joiuoza said:
Feature article on that week here: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/index. ... y&sid=3120
Correct. Supposedly around 200 inch snowfall at the base, which contributes to my insistence upon using mid vs. upper snowfall numbers. With regard to surface conditions I'm sure it can be sloppy or refrozen down low. I didn't see that because the whole month before my visit was unseasonably cold and it started dumping about 2 days before I arrived.rfarren":8joiuoza said:
Mt. Bachelor has the highest ratio of average max base depth to season snowfall (40%) of anyplace I have that data. This is due to a combination of high density coastal snow combined with excellent snow preservation. No surprise Mammoth is next at 39%. Snow water content matters a lot for this. At Alta/Snowbird that ratio is 25% even though snow preservation is very good.schubwa":8joiuoza said:
Next year's NASJA annual meeting is at Alyeska March 2-6, timed to hit the opening weekend of the Iditarod. Needless to say I'm working on getting some time with Chugach Powder Guides on that trip. Even at full price it will be well worth it if anything close to the day with them in 2007.
SoCal Rider
New member
So where are those Aleska pics?
tseeb
Well-known member
How does Kirkwood get such high percentage of Base to Snowfall? They claim Mid Mountain Base of 182-256" from Season Total Snowfall of 412-524". That is 44% to almost 49% Base to Snowfall. While they do have good snow preservation and heavier snow than Utah, it seems like they may be they stretching at least their their Base numbers. See http://www.kirkwood.com/pages/themounta ... report.asp
snowboard247
New member
Squaw is worse, right now they are claiming
6200 ft 157" base ---> 332" season snow fall
8200 ft 181" base --> 489" season snow fall
YEAH RIGHT!
Mammoth on the other hand is claiming a 10.5-15 foot base (126-180" base) with 516 inches of snow so far this season.
6200 ft 157" base ---> 332" season snow fall
8200 ft 181" base --> 489" season snow fall
YEAH RIGHT!
Mammoth on the other hand is claiming a 10.5-15 foot base (126-180" base) with 516 inches of snow so far this season.
snowboard247
New member
kingslug":18icoy6c said:
Doubt it. Don't see how they can claim a 157" base at 6200ft, its just not even close to being true.
SoCal Rider
New member
I'm sure you can confirm with your own eyes and measuring pole ruler thingie?
.... Nah, does seem pretty hard to believe. Lots of snowmaking maybe?
.... Nah, does seem pretty hard to believe. Lots of snowmaking maybe?
snowboard247
New member
SoCal Rider":1p40rzl0 said:
Well when I was there about 5 weeks ago, they didn't seem to have anywhere near as much snow as mammoth, yet are now claiming a larger base at a lower elevation, when mammoth has gotten more snow this season.
Base depth measurements are clearly suspect at many areas. And even if no outright fudging, base depths and snowfall may not be measured at the same place. Most of my base/snowfall comparisons are from Westwide Network data 1979-1995, where base and snowfall presumably are from the same location, done for avalanche research not marketing.