Why Go Out West?

Why go through the hassle, cost, and waste of going out west, when the east has diverse terrain in and out of bounds, significant snow, lower costs, all within a drive (an relatively close to each other)?

I love nothing more than trying new places, but what pushes people to make the heavy trip over the unknown of the east (capitalize on business travel, are the mountains bigger, live far away from east hills anyway)?

Smuggs has 313" of snow as of 3/1

WoolyBugger wrote

Why go through the hassle, cost, and waste of going out west, when the east has diverse terrain in and out of bounds, significant snow, lower costs, all within a drive (an relatively close to each other)?

I love nothing more than trying new places, but what pushes people to make the heavy trip over the unknown of the east (capitalize on business travel, are the mountains bigger, live far away from east hills anyway)?

I'm a retiree who lives 3-4 hours from the nearest ski hills that are under 100 acres and no more than 1000 ft vertical.  Have skied the northeast enough in recent years to have a feel for typical conditions at Whiteface, Belleayre, Plattekill, Stowe, Sunday River, Wachusett.  Tend to avoid the worst conditions after a rain/freeze cycle.  Have skied on powder days now and then.  Advanced but not aggressive, not interested in backcountry uphill travel but will hike in-bounds for good snow.

Just got back from a trip that included ski days at Grand Targhee, Bridger, and Big Sky.  Powder days with 15+ inches of fresh fluffy snow with no crowds mixed in with blue sky days with great views of big mountains.  Yes, the mountains are bigger in the Rockies than in the northeast.  A day ticket at Bridger is $63 at the window . . . for 2000 acres.  I'm not up for hiking and skiing the Ridge, but that still leaves over 1000 acres of varied terrain from cruisers to bumps or trees or bowl skiing.  Never waited more than a minute in line, even on a powder day (10-20 inches of Cold Smoke).  In a week at Big Sky, there was still a lot of terrain I never had time to explore.

I learned to ski in the Adirondacks as a teen for two seasons.  Not sure I would've had in mind to get back on the slopes as an adult had I not skied a few days at Alta back then, including a powder day.  Didn't ski the powder much since I was an intermediate, but the sensation of those few powder turns (boot deep) stuck in my memory very clearly.  What stuck in my memory skiing Whiteface and Stowe was how cold it could be.  And the image of my friend sliding head first on a groomer towards a gondola lift tower at Stowe.  She was an advanced skier who learned starting around age 3.

I grew up in NYC but moved to NC in high school.  If I lived in NYC or New England, I might not fly out west quite as often but I certainly wouldn't confine my skiing to the northeast.

Totally. And killington has by far superior terrain not to mention hot Italian Jersey babes.

I lived in the east for 35 years (17 years in RI, and 18 years in PA) before moving to WA state in  2010.  Throughout my 35 years in East, I traveled to ski in Wyoming, Colorado and California.  Until, I lived out here, I often asked myself the same question.  

To be perfectly honest, I agree.  I always found traveling West to ski to be a bit of a pain in the ass.  I would much rather put the gear in my car than prep it for air travel.  It goes without saying, both zones have a lot to offer.  Good snow is good snow... it doesn't matter if it falls in the East or the West.Obviously, the experience is dependent on a lot of different variables.

Having now experienced extensively what both coasts have to offer, I would say that I prefer Western skiing.  The scenery is worth at least some of the cost/hassle associated with travelling.  That said, I'm not totally sold on the idea it's worth the cost/hassle to travel here.  Especially if you add drive time versus fly time to the debate.  I really don't like flying.  I would much rather drive 5 hours than fly 5 hours.  5 hours of driving from NY/NJ/PA gets you to some pretty sweet terrain.  It's a great topic.  Interesting to think about it from the other side... recently, I was discussing bringing a few regulars for the PNW back East for a ski safari.  It's a tough sell that would require impeccable timing.  Lots of natives out here won't even consider going East to ski.  It's a shame.  

raisingarizona wrote

Totally. And killington has by far superior terrain not to mention hot Italian Jersey babes.

Beautiful

Inspired by TGR poster, Greg from AlpineZone.

I think trips to the western US are definitely best for those that book ahead and cannot cherry pick the best eastern days. My persistent fear of booking flights to the Rockies and beyond is I'll get skunked for new snow while NoVT gets hammered.

If you gotta book in advanced AND you live quite a distance from the mountains, it definitely makes sense to play the better odds (a significant number of western areas have better snow more often than eastern areas). Some NoVT areas do rival western areas for total snow with +300"/year averages. But total snow does not equal overall quality. Most of the biggest storms this year were immediately followed by rain/freeze events. Right now, natural snow is wind buffed and hard pack from last week's wind event.

My one trip west was to JHMR and I got damn lucky with 8" of fresh 4/5 days. But I went with the mindset that I was going for the terrain, not the snow. I think that is a good mindset to go with, especially if you are able to cherry pick eastern days. People flying west just to rip groomers makes no sense to me. But for wild and natural terrain, it does offer a lot more than eastern areas (even counting all of the off map options).

It's a different sport, man.

In the east, we ski on graybird 5 degree days on rock hard ice, in hopes that the next storm drops 6-8" of snow and we might be able to ski soft conditions before it all gets shut down by rain 2 days later.

In the west, they either have storm skiing days with 1-2 feet of soft snow, a week or two of awesome leftovers, or tolerable temperatures and possible sunshine for relaxed groomer days.

Colorado gets over 300 days of sunshine per year. Vermont gets 58. That's a big difference.

Also, I find that there are more women at resorts out west (even though those NYC cougars at Hunter & Killington have increased in number lately).

Also also, the options outside of resorts are much better out west. Backcountry & sidecountry features awesome open bowls instead of tight glades. There are a couple of areas to get that stuff in the east (Whites, Chic Chocs), but it's the exception rather than the rule.

Finally, if I lived on Long Island or in DC, the hassle of getting to a decent eastern ski area would be just about equal to the hassle of flying out west.

riverc0il wrote

I think trips to the western US are definitely best for those that book ahead and cannot cherry pick the best eastern days. My persistent fear of booking flights to the Rockies and beyond is I'll get skunked for new snow while NoVT gets hammered.

If you gotta book in advanced AND you live quite a distance from the mountains, it definitely makes sense to play the better odds (a significant number of western areas have better snow more often than eastern areas). Some NoVT areas do rival western areas for total snow with +300"/year averages. But total snow does not equal overall quality. Most of the biggest storms this year were immediately followed by rain/freeze events. Right now, natural snow is wind buffed and hard pack from last week's wind event.

My one trip west was to JHMR and I got damn lucky with 8" of fresh 4/5 days. But I went with the mindset that I was going for the terrain, not the snow. I think that is a good mindset to go with, especially if you are able to cherry pick eastern days. People flying west just to rip groomers makes no sense to me. But for wild and natural terrain, it does offer a lot more than eastern areas (even counting all of the off map options).

Having flown out west for a ski vacation every few years as a working adult when I was sticking to blue groomers, I get why intermediates in the northeast may prefer a 1-week ski vacation out west over driving for a 1-week ski vacation in New England.  The odds of having really nice conditions on groomers are much higher in the Rockies at destination resorts, or even the second tier places like Brian Head or Mt. Rose or Winter Park.  More importantly, the odds of having rain are pretty much nil in Jan-Mar.

For skiing groomers, the ratio of time spent on lifts to time spent skiing makes a difference.  In the mid-Atlantic and southeast, a 7-min lift ride meant a 4-min ski run for me as an intermediate.  In some places, it was a 10-min lift ride for 3-4 min of skiing, followed by a 5-10 min wait to load the lift again.  Meaning making turns and not just straightlining as fast as possible.  Out west, lift rides are also around 7-8 min but the runs take longer for an intermediate.  Much longer if the lift is a high-speed detachable that runs for over 6000 ft with 1200 ft vertical (Big Sky Southern Comfort).  Cruising for 10, 15, 20 min with great views on a green or blue and no worries about a lift line or some speeding skier/boarder who thinks they are better then they really are . . . no comparison to skiing in the northeast.  For an intermediate who is out of shape who is stopping while cruising, can be an even longer time between lift rides.  The other advantage is that green and blue groomers out west are much wider.  For cautious intermediates, that can make a huge difference.

Note that I don't consider someone who can carve at high speed but avoids ungroomed terrain anything but an intermediate.  Although they may think of themselves as an "expert" because they race Nastar.  Anyone who complains when it snows 5+ inches after the lifts closed that there aren't enough groomed runs . . . isn't an advanced skier.

I plan my trips out west well in advance.  Lately at least one mid-season trip and then late season in Utah.  Have only had one major disappointment in the last ten years.  It was my daughter's spring break when we flew to SLC the second week of March.  There was great snow the week before, and two weeks after when a series of cold powder storms dumped.  But her week it was in the 50s by mid-morning almost every day.  Even finding good snow at Alta after about 2:00 was hard.  It was way too warm the two days we skied at Powder Mountain.  But it was the first chance she had to ski out west in four years because of school.  A week in Vermont or Maine wouldn't have been the same and certainly could've been worse if it had rained and then froze.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

It's a different sport, man.

In the east, we ski on graybird 5 degree days on rock hard ice, in hopes that the next storm drops 6-8" of snow and we might be able to ski soft conditions before it all gets shut down by rain 2 days later.

i agree 100%
Apples and Oranges...

MC2 5678F589 wrote

It's a different sport, man.

In the east, we ski on graybird 5 degree days on rock hard ice, in hopes that the next storm drops 6-8" of snow and we might be able to ski soft conditions before it all gets shut down by rain 2 days later.

In the west, they either have storm skiing days with 1-2 feet of soft snow, a week or two of awesome leftovers, or tolerable temperatures and possible sunshine for relaxed groomer days.

Colorado gets over 300 days of sunshine per year. Vermont gets 58. That's a big difference.

. . .

Finally, if I lived on Long Island or in DC, the hassle of getting to a decent eastern ski area would be just about equal to the hassle of flying out west.

Well said.

The average size of ski areas/resorts is a lot bigger in the west.  Killington has 1500 acres, Whiteface has 300 acres, Gore has 430 acres.  Jackson Hole has 2500 acres, Bridger in MT has 2000 acres, Discovery (also in MT) has 2400 acres and is 55% advanced/expert terrain, and they are small compared to Big Sky, which has almost 6000 acres of in-bounds terrain.  (Can you tell I just got back from Montana? :-) )  There is a reason even hard chargers from the northeast who are eager for First Chair can be hard pressed to ski until last chair at 4:00pm.  The base lifts are pretty empty after 3:00, which is when upper mountain lifts usually close at big mountains in the Rockies.  It can take 20-30 min to return to the main base, and by then the travelers are ready to go find the bar instead of hopping on the lift for a couple more runs even though there is often steep bumps or challenging trees with soft snow right near the base.

You can get skunked on a western ski trip but it's pretty rare. I have been times were everything was hard packed and frozen over and skiing off trail was ill advised.

However, I love our trips out west, skunked or not.

Yeah....why bother? You’re just trading Massholes for Texans.

Kidding of course.  As an eastern skier it’s about taking a trip somewhere more vast, expansive, (expensive!), challenging, different, maybe aspirational.

I hadn’t been skiing out west in 20 years, but just returned from a family ski trip that had a lot for everyone. My kids really had their eyes opened, got to explore bowls, chutes, traverses, western widely spaced glades (compared to Cannon or Gore).  My wife got sunshine and wide groomed cruisers for miles that got cut up and skied off eventually,  but not scraped down to boilerplate.  We all got awesome scenery, good food, a nice visit with an old friend of the family, a little dehydration, chapped lips.

I’m not about to pack up and move, but it was fucking great.  

raisingarizona wrote

Inspired by TGR poster, Greg from AlpineZone.

Greg hasnt posted in a while. I suspect he made a trip to Vail, got stuck, and shall never return, spending his life as a stoner liftie on the side of I70.

Just do it. Then you'll understand.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

It's a different sport, man.

I don’t agree with MC often, but when I do......it’s about Western skiing.  It’s a whole different ball game.

I’m with biker!  While I do believe you absolutely must take a red pill, fortunately....

Ok, I can do better, for those that can tolerate my many words.  It’s a good question, so I’ll give it a complete answer.

The size, the scope, the variety of terrain.  The views, the geology of the mountains, the alpine environments.  The snow, the snow, the snow.  It’s all just bigger out west.  Not only that, but it’s arguable all better.  The terrain, the scenery, the snow quality.  Not always, but just about.  And given how much good stuff there is to ski in the east, I love the east, that’s saying a lot.

Perhaps a comparison for illustrative purposes, areas I skied the last two weekends.  Alpental, WA and Whiteface, NY.  Fitting, because in the Slides Whiteface has some of the most western-like skiing to be found on the east coast.  For now though we’ll just include in bounds terrain.  

Both mountains offer about 300 acres of in bounds terrain.  Whiteface lays claim to more total vertical (3,188), but Alpental (2,280) matches it with its truly sustained, expert down the fall line, top to bottom vertical.  So, all in all pretty close.  Now.....not that there is anything wrong with Whiteface, I love Whiteface and just spent the weekend there.....here is where the on paper comparisons fail.  Alpental’s 300 acres just skis bigger.  At Whiteface in bounds you are “limited” to some 83 marked trails, including a few nice gladed areas.  If you like to explore a bit you can find some off map places to play in the woods.  You can find steeps, trees, bumps, groomers, and it’s all very fun.  

So, how’s Alpental different?  Well, many western ski resorts are more boundary to boundary.  If you can see it, and you can figure out how to get to it, you can ski it (unless, of course, it’s a closed trail/area).  So, you have geologically bigger mountains, many of them rocky and craggy, with tons of snow, and the options become endless.  Yeah, steeps, trees, bumps and groomers if you want them.  However, there are also open bowls, rocky chutes, cliffs galore if that’s your thing, long couloirs....you name it.  So much more variety, and did I mention the snow?  

Whiteface averages 170 (?) inches a year, Alpental averages almost 450.  Also, most skiing out west is on natural surfaces that when bad aren’t as bad as east coast man made can get.  Don’t like my comparison?  Yes, the likes of Killington and Stowe have a lot more skiable acreage.....but for each of those there are numerous western resorts of similar size, and the same comparisons hold true.  Then, you can’t even find anything in the east to compare to the likes of Squaw, Breck, Whistler/Blackcomb and more, more.

Continuing the Alpy-WF comparison, let’s talk about the “side-country” skiing within the resort boundary.  At either area you can invest a 10 minute (give or take) traverse to some pretty cool, fun, and wild natural terrain.  At WF you get 35 acres which, if you were lucky enough to access after a storm, will get well skied in a day.  At Alpental for the same investment you get some 535 acres, where I skied fresh lines over three days.  I love me some Slides, with quite a variety of things to play on/in, but the Back Bowls at Alpy turns that volume up to 12, with scary stuff to satisfy even the most hardcore adrenaline junkie.  I’ve skied similar “side-country” and hike to terrain at Breck, A Basin, Crystal, Baker...so it’s not like Alpental is totally unique.

Then there’s the true side-country that lies outside the resort boundary.  Yes, you can find some legit side-country by hiking the Chin at Stowe, but out west at most resorts you slip through a gate and you have vast expanses to play in, provided you have the knowledge, the gear, and the skills.

Continuing my comparison to the backcountry that MC mentioned.....at Whiteface I drove a few minutes to a trail head, invested some time, and by 1:00 I’d had a decent skin, a nice hike up the Wilmington Slide, and a very fun 1,200 vertical foot run down the slide followed by a mellow ski out.  After investing a couple minutes to get to a trailhead a mile or so from Alpental....1:00 found me with 2,000 vert of untracked boot top pow laps, with another 2,000 vertical of untracked turns to come before the day was done.  Those were both fun experiences, but the western experience, as with the previous aspects of comparison, is just bigger.  And snowier.

But JTG....is it WORTH it, given the hassle of traveling out west?  Yes, it would be worth it, even if it was a total hassle to get to, which it isn’t, for me at least.  Yes, it comes at an added cost (airline and rental car), but otherwise, I don’t think an extra couple of hours is too much to sacrifice to have access to what western skiing offers, because it is that special.  Me, I can leave my office in Manhattan and be settled in my hotel at Alta in two hours more than it takes me to get home then drive to WF, or I can be settle in my Snoqualmie hotel in two hours more than it takes me to get home and drive to Stowe.  Me, I’d rather watch a movie on a plane than spend 4-6 hours behind the wheel.

So, bigger terrain, more variety, for a relatively small investment in added travel time/hassle.  Did I mention the snow?  That’s why.....

raisingarizona wrote

Inspired by TGR poster, Greg from AlpineZone.

That dude laughed all the way to the bank! I gotta give him credit for that.

Perfect