 Poster: A snowHead
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
For the sake of argument we will assume that it has off-piste in proportion to on-piste.
|
That really is a daft assumption, FTZ.  |
I wasn't suggesting that off-piste IS in proportion to off-piste, I was suggesting we assume that for the sake of the argument. I'm trying to get at how much skiing 'space' people feel they need.
Maybe we need to add a caveat...... "For those of you who spend >95% of your time on piste, how many Kms of piste do you think of as a minimum for a one week skiing holiday" .
Or .... "For those of you who prefer to ski off-piste, let's assume that all the off-piste is closed because of Avalanche risk / lack of snow or that your skiing companions are strictly piste skiers the ..... How many Km do you think of as the minimum for a one week skiing holiday?"
And I know the answer is .... 'It depends', but if we assume that 600kms of piste is enough got anyone and 10Kms is probably too little for most people then what would you look got when planning a ski holiday? Or, are there genuinely people who would be happy to go to a resort with 10 Kms, no off-piste, and ski that all day for a week?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Toadman wrote: |
| It's not about the length of the pistes, it's how you use them. (or so I've been told). We're talking skiing, right? |
So you would be quite happy in a fridge with 160m of piste for an entire week?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
[quote="foxtrotzulu"][quote="pam w"][quote]
| Quote: |
Or .... "For those of you who prefer to ski off-piste, let's assume that all the off-piste is closed because of Avalanche risk / lack of snow or that your skiing companions are strictly piste skiers the ..... How many Km do you think of as the minimum for a one week skiing holiday?"
|
Still a daft question - for me the answer is I'm likely to cancel and save the precious vacation days. I've actually driven away from a Xmas trip after one miserable day on overcrowded man-made slopes to go and do something more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
100km no more, no less. If there isn't 100km I'm not going, if there are over 100km, you can stick it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
100km no more, no less. If there isn't 100km I'm not going, if there are over 100km, you can stick it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@foxtrotzulu,
I think the answer is very specific to the group and the level of skiing so a general answer is pretty meaningless.
e.g., When our kids were small we needed very little mileage because we would only ever get 3 hours at a stretch before we wanted to be back to play with them on the nursery slope
My observation is that a lot of happy "advanced intermediates" aren't really working on their skiing much and for them a big part of the holiday is travel around an area - different views, different restaurants. It's totally natural that they value a big piste map.
If you really enjoy the "conscious practice" of working on improving your technique then skiing the same run repeatedly is a lot of fun if it has the right pitch and snow for what you are trying.
If you love off piste then one slope can sometimes offer a hundred different lines to play with - small resorts with few off piste enthusiasts can be better than mega resorts with a hundred ski bum powderhounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 lift which moves at a high speed with at least 500m vert... ideally closer to 1000m!
Zell am See was pretty good for this, the trassXpress rose nearly 1000m I think with a nice 4km black back down to the base. So I guess the answer is 4km?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think all we are establishing in this thread is that FTZ is the voice of many "typical" holiday skiers who like total mileage and really don't care about ungroomed.
Then we have a bunch of atypical folks from those who just enjoy the turn or pursue different things. So there will never be an answer. Hell I spent a whole winter in a resort that had maybe 10km of groomers and loved every single day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
For the sake of argument we will assume that it has off-piste in proportion to on-piste.
|
That really is a daft assumption, FTZ. |
I wasn't suggesting that off-piste IS in proportion to off-piste, I was suggesting we assume that for the sake of the argument. I'm trying to get at how much skiing 'space' people feel they need.
Maybe we need to add a caveat...... "For those of you who spend >95% of your time on piste, how many Kms of piste do you think of as a minimum for a one week skiing holiday" .
Or .... "For those of you who prefer to ski off-piste, let's assume that all the off-piste is closed because of Avalanche risk / lack of snow or that your skiing companions are strictly piste skiers the ..... How many Km do you think of as the minimum for a one week skiing holiday?"
And I know the answer is .... 'It depends', but if we assume that 600kms of piste is enough got anyone and 10Kms is probably too little for most people then what would you look got when planning a ski holiday? Or, are there genuinely people who would be happy to go to a resort with 10 Kms, no off-piste, and ski that all day for a week? |
Well... I would rather go to Westendorf with ~45kms of pistes (and wouldn't bother skiing the other 240km in the connected SkiWelt) than go to PdS or the Dolomites (other places I've gone on family ski trips to and only really skied onpiste). But that's partly due to a connection with the area. And tbh I wouldn't pay to go on a ski trip where piste skiing was the only option.
With 6 weeks of family trips there over the years, 45km is enough to not get bored IME.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most pistes can be done in various ways, conditions change everything and I have had some great repeat runs on the same piste with conditions just so, but not bothered a year later due to ice/visibility.
Also irrespective of people's self belief, if you only go once a year for 6 days, you do not need 600KMS, 60 would probably do it.
Which is why we go back to the same place every year 
I used to over mark a pistemap of the the 3 valleys as a record of what I had covered, missing most the enjoyment of the skiing, just trying to get as much done as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
well, IMHO, it is not the X km of pistes, but the quality of it. As @clarky999 said, PDS has lots of km, but I hate those 'connecting' or 'traversing' pistes that you have to use in order to get to the interesting stuff - so you ski more km, but some of these km are just traversing from one place to another ... what is the big deal?
Pistes Km are like megapixes in photo/video camerras - there are more important elements to camera quality than a number of megapixels - same with ski resorts KM
I have done resorts with 600, 450 etc km, but the best one for me and the only one to which I will be returning for the 4th time this coming February has only 15 pistes ... still the most enjoyable place with lots to discover 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes,
| Quote: |
I think all we are establishing in this thread is that FTZ is the voice of many "typical" holiday skiers who like total mileage and really don't care about ungroomed.
|
You misunderstand me. I don't ski off-piste but it's not that I don't 'care' about it. I mention KM of piste simply because it's more easily comparable. In Europe we don't usually quote # of hectares that are in bounds or somesuch. Also, I never, ever suggested it's about total mileage. It's not at all. For me it's about having enough variety - If possible, I don't want to ski the same run fifteen times a day for six days; and it's about flexibility- having enough space to choose a run to suit the conditions. Fog... let's go high. Cloud, let's stay low. Ice, let's find a south facing slope. Slushy, let's look for a North facing slope etc. Crowded? Let's head off over there etc. I have never totted up my KM's skied during the week. It's meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
it's about flexibility- having enough space to choose a run to suit the conditions. Fog... let's go high. Cloud, let's stay low. Ice, let's find a south facing slope.
|
I agree that stuff matters - there are some quite small resorts that have plenty of altitude, lots of different elevations and some tree-lined runs for bad weather days. Just one that few in the UK have visited is Solda in Sud Tyrol
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
And there are some big resorts - Tignes is an example - where you can be trapped in a windswept lunar landscape when the weather closes in, forcing closure of the lifts to more shelter parts of the mountain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| Toadman wrote: |
| It's not about the length of the pistes, it's how you use them. (or so I've been told). We're talking skiing, right? |
So you would be quite happy in a fridge with 160m of piste for an entire week? |
A bad week of skiing on 160m of piste beats a good week in the office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Then I ski on piste!