Do you avoid trails marked "Thin Cover"?

[Greg]

For me the "Thin Cover" sign might as well say "This Way". In fact, I'm more likely to ski a trail with thin natural cover than one right next to it with a 30" manmade base. I know many people are worried about base damage, but my feeling is skis are meant to be skied. You?

 

[MarkC]

You have it right on. I will be the first one to test out the thin cover. I will even duck a rope if something looks even close to ok, I am usually the first on to test the trees. I also go through ptex like it is my job.

 

[ski_industry_enthusiast]

I head straight for the thin cover. To mean, that means natural snow, and natural snow = better skiing, and better bumps!

Base damage? Who cares. A pair of skis only lasts me one season anyways, since I put over 100 days on them per year.

 

[millerm277]

I always head for "Thin Cover", especially when I do ski on weekends, I've found that they are some of the only signs that keep people unqualified to be on the trails off them.

I'll also duck ropes if I've examined a good portion of the trail beforehand, or if the closing is just for a lack of easy ways down. (Killington on Thursday, they closed GE, because in order to get to running lifts you had to take Launchpad to either Intermediate/Diamond/Double Diamond terrain.)

 

[riverc0il]

snow conditions being equal (i.e. powder), i will save the thin cover trails for last. snow conditions being unequal (only natural snow on the thin cover trails), those signs are generally a warm invitation to sample the best snow on the most challenging terrain the mountain has to offer. considering how often i buy new skis and my thought that every ski is a rock ski from day one, thin cover really does not bother me much.

 

[koreshot]

I never ski runs that are marked thin cover because I want my skis to look immaculate and like new as long as possible.

Sarcasm aside, "Thin Cover" seems to have this magnetism that attracts me to it. It is probably because in my experience trails with thin cover are more challenging, have more interesting natural features and have lower skier traffic. Sometimes trails with thin cover are the only places on the hill with soft snow remaining.

 

[andyzee]

We've hit a number of thin cover trails this weekend. They all seemed to have a lot of nice fresh powder on them.

 

[amf]

Another vote for the thin cover trail. I personally find them more challenging than bumps, physically easier on old knees yet demanding a lot more attention & focus. Kinda like high speed rock climbing. And isn't that why they invented rock skis?

 

[Birdman829]

Thin cover? Yes please. I could probably count on 1 hand the number of times I've gone down a trail with "Thin Cover" and it wasn't worth it.

 

[cbcbd]

Love the thin cover because of the reasons above:
-natural snow
-uncrowded
-gnarly terrain with natural features

it's really all just so much fun!!

 

[Rushski]

I head for it like many others on this forum do.

I am still trying to kill my Crossmax's so that I can get some new tools...

 

[aveski2000]

We didn't avoid them last Sunday at Saddleback.

 

[SKIQUATTRO]

Yes Yes and Yes...

 

[billski]

My skis naturally point to good conditions and can't read signs.
That said, I have to defer when I'm skiing with someone who can't be persuaded, which seems to happen about half the time.

 

[djspookman]

for me, Thin Cover means "less crowded with gapers!" gotta love it!

dave

 

[cbcbd]

I was funny being at Sugarbush this weekend and seeing what they called thin cover... after skiing earlier in the season at MRG.

Ah, how the standards change so fast - thin cover now is "ooh, I think I can see a tuft of grass poking through the powder"

 

[bvibert]

I used to shy away from thin cover areas, but that was because I didn't think I could handle the terrain. Now I'm a bit more confident...

 

[billski]

grass is fun to ski on (means freshies) as long as their are no rocks under...

 

[kcyanks1]

I'm with Greg too. I used to be more concerned with damaging my skis and not gravitate toward the thin cover signs. But now the natural snow is too tempting and the "thin cover" trails are often some of the trails I most want to ski. I'm still careful, but my skis can be fixed if I hit anything. No reason to avoid having fun.

 

[Birdman829]

I was funny being at Sugarbush this weekend and seeing what they called thin cover... after skiing earlier in the season at MRG.

Ah, how the standards change so fast - thin cover now is "ooh, I think I can see a tuft of grass poking through the powder"

I thought the same thing. I think they just never took any of the thin cover signs down after initially opening up 100%