BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Accurate. People from here have no idea.
So many times I'll hear the native born say, "it's terrible", and I'm thinking, this would actually be pretty decent in Vermont. LOL
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Wasatch Update: November 2025
- Thread starter thetrailboss
- Start date
Accurate. People from here have no idea.
So many times I'll hear the native born say, "it's terrible", and I'm thinking, this would actually be pretty decent in Vermont. LOL
KBL Ed
New member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 20
- Points
- 3
Who does everyone use for forecasts? There is a guy for N.E., Snowology, who does a really good job. Any reliable people who actually know the mountains, and is not forecasting just for "Park City" or whatever?
jimmywilson69
Well-known member
Snowology... that guy is a certified hack
Personally, I just read the NWS/NOAA forecasts. This product is specifically for the Cottonwoods:
Click "Salt Lake Area" if you do not see a forecast for the Cottonwoods.
I also read this blog, but Jim has not been posting as often:
Finally, some folks read Evan's site, but most of the information is behind a paywall:
Getting Closer to the Action | Utah Daily Snow Forecast | OpenSnow
High pressure continues to keep Utah dry and mild for a few more days before we finally see the ridge flatten midweek,...
And then some folks go for the alternative forecast, which is Powder Buoy. He has been striking out though this season and his site is kind of messy. I think he usually posts on social media.
Powder Buoy - Connecting Ski Soul Riders From Hawaii To The Rockies
Based on the distance of the buoy and the average speed and direction of the storm, we will generally get hit with that same low pressure about two weeks later. Plan your powder flu two weeks in advance for snow skiers (Utah, Colorado, Jackson)
powderbuoy.com
KBL Ed
New member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 20
- Points
- 3
Snowology: If by "hack" you mean he constantly shills his paywalled site, you are absolutely correct. But his forecasts have been on point.
Yeah, I used to like OpenSnow when less of it was behind a paywall.
Good idea to click on a point at elevation at NWS, though that still won't have the human interpretation. I'll look and see if they have something more general for the Park City areas. I'll check the other ones, too. Thanks.
Yeah, I used to like OpenSnow when less of it was behind a paywall.
Good idea to click on a point at elevation at NWS, though that still won't have the human interpretation. I'll look and see if they have something more general for the Park City areas. I'll check the other ones, too. Thanks.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I bought fat powder skis preseason.
This is all my fault.
This is all my fault.
Edd
Well-known member
What’d you get? I want new pow boards but lacking inspiration with choosing.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I got a the fattest Bacons (122 underfoot) that Line makes. My in-season skis are 106 underfoot (Soul 7), but when we get a really great dump it's just not enough. It's not a huge deal, but after living out here the last 2 winters I did wish I had something fat for those 12"+, 15"+, 20"+ days and cycles, but since I ski Park City and not Alta/Bird, we get far fewer 12"+ days, so I didnt want to spend a lot and so was looking used. Visited the places outside the Cottonwoods figuring I'd find more used powder skis there than maybe anywhere on the planet, and I was right, but they still wanted like $450 - $650 even well-used. Then I found these in SLC on clearance at EVO as the only 2 pairs from prior year they had on clearance for $320, and a different shop across the street I got a straggler set of bindings for $99. So for $450 new total I was fine with it given the skis alone should be $900 or so.
Then the S/Force pictured I just go too because my new boots I got last year don't fit my rock skis. Went into the local shop we go to and the guy gave me 3 or 4 narrow options underfoot and told me to take any one I want for $150. SOLD! They're actually in great shape for being 4 year old rentals, which makes me think most people don't want to rent 80 underfoot rentals.
Last edited:
Always great to find deals like that- build the quiver. Hers a question for you- I'm old school, and still like deep and steep in 12'+ new snow( I don't really care if there is new snow or not) its a more successful day to me if snow billows over chest cam and super successful if I get face shots ( admittedly not easy to see in trees but . .) so my thinking was never more than 96 cm under foot as with 104-106, etc., no matter how much snow there is, unless its Greeley Ridge type chutes, I'm gonna stay on top at almost any speed. I've had that experience on mid-fats. Other side of that debate is you get to stay on top if only a couple inches . . . .
jimk
Well-known member
Just my two cents from skiing up to four months per winter in UT over the last decade: Normally, I use 107mm underfoot for all storm days. This is a bit on the narrow side compared to many other UT powder skiers. I've used a borrowed pair of 114mm skis on a couple occasions. I manage ok with 107, but I'm an old, slow plodder. I don't care about going deep like the old days. I want some float to survive the day and reduce exertion. Where the 107mm really comes in handy is in the two or three days of chopped up powder that follow a storm. This is when you want to ski off-piste in nice, but chopped or slightly heavy snow. This is snow you (or at least I) want to skim over to some degree. Many find 122mm to be good for those kind of days too, but 122 is a pretty big piece of lumber to push around if you're not strong or aggressive enough. I skied once on a deep powder day with a guy on 141mm underfoot. He did ok, but they worked his a$$ hard
PS: found a photo of the guy on 141:
Last edited:
My dedicated powder ski is 115 mm underfoot and I find it is fun to ski and not too demanding.Just my two cents from skiing up to four months per winter in UT over the last decade: Normally, I use 107mm underfoot for all storm days. This is a bit on the narrow side compared to many other UT powder skiers. I've used a borrowed pair of 114mm skis on a couple occasions. I manage ok with 107, but I'm an old, slow plodder. I don't care about going deep like the old days. I want some float to survive the day and reduce exertion. Where the 107mm really comes in handy is in the two or three days of chopped up powder that follow a storm. This is when you want to ski off-piste in nice, but chopped or slightly heavy snow. This is snow you (or at least I) want to skim over to some degree. Many find 122mm to be good for those kind of days too, but 122 is a pretty big piece of lumber to push around if you're not strong or aggressive enough. I skied once on a deep powder day with a guy on 141mm underfoot. He did ok, but they worked his a$$ hard
When snow is deep, my ski choice ranges between 95mm and 110mm depending on what I intend to ski.
And no, I am not bringing the powder skis to Vermont for my trip. I have my Head Kore 87's in the baggage hold on my flight.