For those who ski out west...

[kingslug]

I'm multitasking, at work, on phone, typing..oh, I think there's room in the suitcase for the NY attitude..no prob, i'll pack it..see you end of March or begining of April..

 

[andyzee]

Killington claims 3,000 acres within its boundaries, of which ~1,000 acres is skiable (reports range from 750 acres to 1,200 acres, depending on whom you believe and who was writing the marketing literature that day -- remember that massive swath of land from Snowshed east toward US 4 and south to the gondola terminal at Bridgewater Corners, none of which is skiable). Alta is 2,200 acres by itself, or 4,700 acres if you include Snowbird, nearly all of which is skiable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not doubting the resorts out west are bigger, it's just that when you look at skiable acreage, it's deceiving and doesn't give a true indication as to how vast the layout of the resort is. Couple of things, Killington has some backcountry as well. Sugarbush, well, just look at Slidebrook area. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to compare these to Alta/Snowbird, it's like apples and oranges. I'm just saying, that skiable acreage can be deceiving in that it is not a true indication of actual land area a resort covers.

 

[abc]

I'm just saying, that skiable acreage can be deceiving in that it is not a true indication of actual land area a resort covers.

I beg to differ. As skiers, we only care about the skiable acreage!

This actually has some bearing to the OP's issue. With a huge skiable acreage as in Alta/Bird, there're a lot of different pockets and lines that are better in one condition than another. So mountains with a bigger skiable acreage have more of those pockets.

For a local, or a pseuo-local who visit often, they'll eventually pick up on those idiosyncrosy and able to find the best skiing in all conditions. But that requires paying attention as one skis. So if the OP isn't in the habit of picking up on those, he'll never get to know a big resort like Alta in his limited visits.

 

[andyzee]

I beg to differ. As skiers, we only care about the skiable acreage!

This actually has some bearing to the OP's issue. With a huge skiable acreage as in Alta/Bird, there're a lot of different pockets and lines that are better in one condition than another. So mountains with a bigger skiable acreage have more of those pockets.

For a local, or a pseuo-local who visit often, they'll eventually pick up on those idiosyncrosy and able to find the best skiing in all conditions. But that requires paying attention as one skis. So if the OP isn't in the habit of picking up on those, he'll never get to know a big resort like Alta in his limited visits.

I agree that as skiers all we care about is skiable acreage. I'm going by what slug said:

"How do you handle the huge areas which are so much vaster than ours"

Larger amount of skiable acreage can fit into a smaller area out west where things are more open. So as an example, does a Snowbird have more skiable area than Sugarbush, of course it does. Does it cover more area overall? Not so sure, take into consideration Mt. Lincoln, Mt Ellen, and Slidebrook, and whatever the difference is, it's not going to be as great % wise as the difference in skiable area.

 

[MadPatSki]

How do you handle the huge areas which are so much vaster than ours.

Alta is vast? Is the West vast? Killington? The question how many different lifts and place to meet up and whete you can screw up meeting someone.

If someone thinks that skiing out West is vast, they shouldn't even think of skiing out in the Alps.

 

[kingslug]

Alta is vast? Is the West vast? Killington? The question how many different lifts and place to meet up and whete you can screw up meeting someone.

If someone thinks that skiing out West is vast, they shouldn't even think of skiing out in the Alps.

Now where talking about a whole different thing..

 

[abc]

I agree that as skiers all we care about is skiable acreage. I'm going by what slug said:

"How do you handle the huge areas which are so much vaster than ours"

Larger amount of skiable acreage can fit into a smaller area out west where things are more open. So as an example, does a Snowbird have more skiable area than Sugarbush, of course it does. Does it cover more area overall? Not so sure, take into consideration Mt. Lincoln, Mt Ellen, and Slidebrook, and whatever the difference is, it's not going to be as great % wise as the difference in skiable area.

I don't exactly know what kingslug meant. But one possibility is finding lines. If that beig the case, then a large SKIABLE acreage is harder to familiarize than a smaller skiable acreage, even if the latter has a larger overall acrease that's not skiable.

Alta is actually one such example. Although it isn't the largest resort by western standard, it's just big enough by eastern standard in terms of skiable acreage. And without numerous named runs as reference, it's not easy to nail the exact line following some verbal "direction", especially in the trees. I've found myself ended up on terrain above my head only 20 yard off the intended line in more than one occasion.

 

[AdironRider]

Whats funny is were talking about Alta and Snowbird feeling vast, when in reality they ski very small compared to most Western resorts.

 

[kingslug]

Depends, but I get what you mean. The difference with Alta is that it doesn't have many lifts, you have to work to get where you want to go. I have taken runs that took an hour to complete.