What is the Ideal Amount of Snow?

sudsnbumps wrote

Right now a heavy frost will do

We had our first frost in Virgil last night ---- WOOT....party is almost on bitches   

Ground in the vegi patch was a little crunchy this AM. Glad I put a blanket over everything otherwise it would be done.

For me, it's about ski width. On the 90mm I'd been on for several seasons it seemed like 8-16 was about the most I could handle. On my 100s it's definitely more. Would love to try something 110 or 120 on a super deep day. How these guys do it I'll never know.

Those are real men..no helmet, no goretex,no boot warmers and i bet no condoms..
skiing the deep stuff on 60mm skis..

Okay, I got it, the ideal amount of snow needs to be qualitative rather than quantitative, so here it is.... any depth required to prevent base damage from bottoming out on rocks and downfall. Anything more than that is just gravy and is not truly required for great turns.

My first trip to Alta was in the early 80s, although I had plastic boots, the skis were 200s and skinny. My first "fat" skis were Salomon X-Mountains in 1997. I think I have some old VHS training videos on how to ski deep powder on skinny skis, things like weighting and unweighting, the jet turn and a few other techniques. I doubt I could ski this skis anymore but I do recall skiing days like that in them. I think what was harder on them was crud and kitty litter days.

the big questions begs to be asked, why did it take so long for fat skis to come along. the obvious answer was under our noses and we ignored it. any kid who floated down hill on a saucer experienced float. the same kid knew that a sled with two skinny rails would sink in fresh snow. my theory is that the conformity of the 50's was so strong that it retarded improvisation. remember how rigid skiing was decades ago. it was all modeled after racing. ski patrol would stop and frisk if you appeared to have jumped off a mogul for fun or skied to far into the woods from the trail's edge. it wasn't until the hotdog generation started to loosen things up. any other thoughts on this?

snoloco wrote

At Mountain Creek, they make their own snow for the most part, so their need for natural snow is mostly obsolete for them.  If it is enough to close school, it is good enough for me.  I say that there is too much snow when it causes me to loose momentum in the flat spots and I have to walk through it.  However, Mountain Creek usually grooms out most of the powder, so the flat spots are usually groomed.  You can only ski powder on the rare occasion that there is any on a couple trails because they can be counted on to groom out the remaining 90% of the powder.

As a demonstration of their need for natural snow, this is the amount on snow on their trails.


Look at these three pictures and try to say that Mountain Creek needs any natural snow to open and provide a great ski experience.

I don't need to look at pictures. lol. Natural snow and fake crap blown from a gun are a completely different thing.

2 Things

1) Man made snow is NOTHING like real snow even when they've both been groomed. You're a classic east coast skier. Man made snow is closer to grapule/sleet than actual snowflakes. You can't replicate what falls from the sky. It's a different size flake with a completely different consistency. It's like saying sleet and snow are the same thing since they're both frozen water. There's an incredibly complicated process that goes on in nature making a snow flake. Man made snow quickly hardens up and turns into hardpack after being groomed the majority of the time. With Man made snow you get scratching sounds on every turn the majority of time. It's a different product. Period. Totally necessary in many ski areas due to lack of snow. It's base building material. It's garbage to ski on.

SOFT GOOD PACKED POWDER VS CRAP BLOWN FROM A GUN THAT ICES UP IN TWO SECONDS. No comparison! I usually only hit up a EC ski area after it's snowed. This is coming from a season pass holder. I hate the the hard groomer that people over here call "packed powder" after a night of blowing that crap. They wouldn't know good packed pow if it hit them in the face

2)There's nothing like skiing ungroomed untracked powder. It's a surfy feeling. If you've got the gear and the skills, nothing compares. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. Get a pair of wide ski's(115+) if you're sinking.
 
Most skiers do NOT prefer groomers over powder when you head out west. Visit alta or jh sometime or pacific nw East coast, other than the tug hill gets very little snow. Even the northern VT resorts are WAY too wind exposed to really hold proper powder. That's why you see video's in the trees all the time skiing through a drift.

3) The fact that you say you prefer "west coast" powder shows me how little you know. Moisture content on tug hill/lake effect area is as dry as Utah. Northeast gets ALL SNOW TYPES. Dry, wet. Everything.

As far as OP's question. There's no such thing as too much powder. Only to a ec skier with no skills would possibly complain about too much snow. I prefer natural snow whether groomed or ungroomed. That machine made snow is total garbage.

Long time lurker. That absurd post by Snoloco made me sign up an account. lol

frk wrote

the big questions begs to be asked, why did it take so long for fat skis to come along. the obvious answer was under our noses and we ignored it. any kid who floated down hill on a saucer experienced float. the same kid knew that a sled with two skinny rails would sink in fresh snow. my theory is that the conformity of the 50's was so strong that it retarded improvisation. remember how rigid skiing was decades ago. it was all modeled after racing. ski patrol would stop and frisk if you appeared to have jumped off a mogul for fun or skied to far into the woods from the trail's edge. it wasn't until the hotdog generation started to loosen things up. any other thoughts on this?

You hit the nail on the head. Pompous conformity.

Another point, if everyone prefers skiing groomers, how come they make all these wide ski's!? The answer is the west coast, which is a vastly different type of skiing then out here. EC = mostly groomer oriented towards rich people who ski twice a year with the family and don't know how to ski powder and therefore complain to management if anything is left ungroomed. IE Okemo/jiminy peak. The closest thing to west coast skiing(except for the vertical obviously) out here would be snow ridge. Wide trails with real snow(as much as some CO resorts), not snow gun reliant. LOVE a wide open powder bowl and that's what the place reminds me of. Classic New england is known for narrow trails(great for smashing into trees if you fall...every year many people die) and ice/harpack and freezing cold temps with huge winds.

PowderAssassin wrote

> East coast, other than the tug hill gets very little snow. Even the northern VT resorts are WAY too wind exposed to really hold proper powder. That's why you see video's in the trees all the time skiing through a drift.

This is a bizarre statement. The NVT resorts get comparable amounts as most of the CO resorts. The part about being wind exposed is strange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts

Sure.....believe that if you want. Believe the northern greens get as much powder as ski areas like wolf creek in CO. Have at it!
Look up Alta, Look up Mt Baker as other examples of western ski areas. There are a ton!

Also, maybe VT ski areas are exaggerating a little? Just maybe? Or better yet look at the higher elevation NWS forecasts for both Northern VT and Alta and see for yourself over a winter. It's like comparing NJ to the tug hill.

Wind exposure is not strange. You have 4000 foot peaks at the heightest points of surrounding terrain. 4000 feet in VT is the equivalent of 14,000 feet at pikes peak in CO. Look at mt Washington's winds to understand the difference. It's VERY wind affected at these relatively high elevations in northern VT in relative comparison to surrounding terrain.

Listen, live in Salt Lake city sometime and then go live northern VT. The come back to me and post your wikipedia stuff :)

Oh and I'm not saying there's NO POWDER. You can have a powder day in the pocono's! Of course there's pow in Vermont. It's just a matter of how much and how often. Wind ruins many potential pow days in VT. Trust me.

 That's why ec skier's tend to be used to ice/machine made snow crap conditions compared to out west. Also, you have less thaws out there to. It's wind, thaws, and MUCH more natural snow. There's a reason VT ski areas invest MILLIONS in snow making equipment while out west they don't even need them at many areas and when they are used it's solely to extend season.

Vist cannon mtn  sometime if you want to see some crazy winds. All the snow gets blown into the woods. It doesn't stay on an open trail. That's why almost all the videos of pow skiing at jay peak are in the woods. I hate tree skiing personally for safety reasons and the fact that you can't open it up. That's just a personal preference of course.

PowderAssassin wrote

Sure.....believe that if you want. Believe the northern greens get as much powder as ski areas like wolf creek in CO. Have at it!
Look up Alta, Look up Mt Baker as other examples of western ski areas. There are a ton!

Also, maybe VT ski areas are exaggerating a little? Just maybe? Or better yet look at the higher elevation NWS forecasts for both Northern VT and Alta and see for yourself over a winter. It's like comparing NJ to the tug hill.

Wind exposure is not strange. You have 4000 foot peaks at the heightest points of surrounding terrain. 4000 feet in VT is the equivalent of 14,000 feet at pikes peak in CO. Look at mt Washington's winds to understand the difference. It's VERY wind affected at these relatively high elevations in northern VT in relative comparison to surrounding terrain.

Listen, live in Salt Lake city sometime and then go live northern VT. The come back to me and post your wikipedia stuff :)

 I made the comparison to NVT and most of the CO resorts. Now your twisting it to the UT resorts that get the most snow?

Ummm....I said WEST COAST. Last time I checked that's CO, UTAH, BC, ALASKA, ect.
Number 2....Wolf creek is in Colorado and averages 435 inches
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?co9181

Comparing northern vt to wolf creek for snow quality/amount of pow days is like comparing the tug hill to the poconos. But believe what you want.

You can find waist deep pow on the regular on actual trails at wolf creek. Not at northern vt resorts. Very rare. And if 3 feet does fall overnight then there will be a ton of wind on it.

PowderAssassin wrote

 That's why you see video's in the trees all the time skiing through a drift.

I don't recall any days skiing through drifts in the trees. You must have drifts mistaken with natural features

PowderAssassin wrote

Ummm....I said WEST COAST. Last time I checked that's CO, UTAH, BC, ALASKA, ect.

and I only made the comparison to most of the CO resorts

how hard is that to understand

Are those trails? Like I said, it gets blown into the woods.

Really, you want to go there?
On an actual open trail. Not Super tight trees where you can't go fast unless you enjoy smashing into a tree. . Just google pictures or go on youtube to see the difference. Grand targhee has a ton of snow too. Again you're comparing snow gun reliant hills to actual mountains.
Opening day at wolf creek

PowderAssassin wrote

Are those trails? Like I said, it gets blown into the woods.

and you stated the woods are drifted over