Poster: A snowHead
|
zebedee wrote: |
but is the snow different?
Would the whole concept of no marked pistes be a good thing for someone wanting to try off-piste for the first time? |
The snow is the same! But if you're lucky, you get lots of them to yourself since there're fewer people on the mountain. (Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, they're drier in SOME of the places. But unless you're off-piste, it ski the same)
For someone "wanting to try off-piste", it's GREAT!
You'll see everyone skiing all over the mountain, piste or no piste. So go ahead and give it a try.
If you find yourself falling a lot or not able to ski as well as you like, it might be a good indication for a few lessons.
Most instructors speak English as their first language.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
zebedee,
Quote: |
I assume the quality of instructors in on a par with Europe, generally?
|
Thats a loaded question, in my experience instructors vary almost as much within a sizeable school as between schools and the same is true for countries. Some people are convinced of the benefit of instruction with someone who speaks English as a native language, my own experience once again is that it is less important than if the instructor works well for me.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
We met a whole team of Americans in our hotel in Italy a couple of years ago, and we asked them why they had made the trip to ski in Europe, they said that they found the resorts in the US too homogenised, they preferred the undulating, sometimes narrow, sometimes cambered slopes of Europe! So I guess for some, too perfect, is too boring. They also said that as the mountain ranges in the US were formed long before those in Europe, they often have domed shaped tops due to erosion; this creates more gentle vertical drops, whereas the younger Alps, are still quite spiky, so often have more dramatic vertical drops, (which they loved). Not being a geologist I cannot say if this is fact, but it seems to make sense.
I notice there are lots of comments about queues in Europe, which I find odd, as we have never had to queue for a lift more than 5 mins in any resort we have been to in the last 12 years, which includes Italy, Andorra, and Austria. France we wouldn't return to, not because of queues, but because of the inflated prices for 2nd rate food and accommodation. We eat like kings in Austria, and have never known anyone to be disappointed with their accommodation, no matter how cheap. Apparently standards are kept high to please their predominantly German clientele.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Quote: |
They also said that as the mountain ranges in the US were formed long before those in Europe, they often have domed shaped tops due to erosion; this creates more gentle vertical drops, whereas the younger Alps, are still quite spiky, so often have more dramatic vertical drops, (which they loved). Not being a geologist I cannot say if this is fact, but it seems to make sense.
|
This is true. However the Canadian Rockies have plenty of spiky bits.
I had my first skiing experiences in North America, and I've kept going back every year (mainly to Canada), although I've also skied in Europe and Japan.
For me it's the ability to ski anywhere within bounds (or at least anywhere that my ability lets me: I'm still working on this. I want to get maximum value from my lift ticket), without having to hire a guide that hits the button for me.
Additional factors are the high standard of accomodation, and the friendliness of the locals.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Acacia wrote: |
Quote: |
They also said that as the mountain ranges in the US were formed long before those in Europe, they often have domed shaped tops due to erosion; this creates more gentle vertical drops, whereas the younger Alps, are still quite spiky, so often have more dramatic vertical drops, (which they loved). Not being a geologist I cannot say if this is fact, but it seems to make sense.
|
This is true. However the Canadian Rockies have plenty of spiky bits.
For me it's the ability to ski anywhere within bounds (or at least anywhere that my ability lets me: I'm still working on this. I want to get maximum value from my lift ticket), without having to hire a guide that hits the button for me.
Additional factors are the high standard of accomodation, and the friendliness of the locals. |
Lots of pointy North American ranges. Tetons (Jackson Hole), Montana, Idaho rockies, Oregon/Washington Cascades (many ski hills), Canadian Rockies, BC coastal range ...
As others point out, the 'if you can see it, you can ski it' rule makes a huge difference. Go where you want inbounds - pistes are simply for getting on and off lifts.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Someone would have to do a real good sell job for me to go back to the States. Give me Europe anyday. For example, ski down the Zuser Tali in the Arlberg, mountains either side, winding around, just beautiful. Compare this with going up and down one or two mountains in one resort in the US. In the Arlberg you can ski all day and not do the same run twice.
Plus LHR is a nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's really quite simple. If you're a piste skier, stay in Europe. If you're starting to get a taste of off-piste and don't want to deal with all the avi issues, go to North America.
As for scenary, to each of their own. I do find the mountains more "pointy" in the Alps even compared with the Tetons and such. So the Alps is prettier, for MY taste. (Though I know others who found the tree-covered mountains in NA more pleasing) So, if I'm in a sight-seeing mood, I'd go to the Alps. But that's only visible when it's NOT actually snowing, which doesn't go quite as well if I'm after fresh powder.
The Rockies, on the other hand, OFTEN has big dumps of powder followed by days of clear blue sky. And due to the dry climate, the powder stay fresh for a long while. And in the rare case of continueous snowy days, the high tree line in NA makes skiing less hazardeous. So for actual skiing, I found N. America more reliable, if not as pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've done 3 seasons in Europe and 2 in the US (Tahoe), but also skied loads of places in most states of the US. My favorites being Jackson Hole, Squaw Valley and Kirkwood.
My summary is this.
Europe - in great conditions - NOTHING beats it. Great food, atmosphere,scenary.
USA - Quality not quantity (except Tahoe has actually more skiing that the whole of Colorado! So that's an excpetion. In one place however you cant get as much as the 3 Valleys or Espace Kily etc...no where nr.
Now that my season days are over I end up doing alternate years as I LOVE both. That said the last 2 years i've done Europe and haven't had a drop of new snow. Compare that with my 3 previos trips to Jackson Hole and I had about 32 powder days in 39 days of skiing !!
Now that I have kids Europe is just so easy. Jump in the car and 8 hours later you are in the mountains.
If you haven't been then i'd say go, but in my opinion avoid Colorado. Most over rated place i've ever been. Short vertical and scenary no where nr as good as other places. I'm a massive Tahoe and Mammoth fan. Especially in Feb / March. But if want a Europeam type scenary then Whistler will be your place and also Jackson Hole.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Alex A, I would go so far to say, for piste-only skiers, snow quality (powder) doesn't mean much. As long as there's enough coverage to get the piste open...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I was a bit unfair with my comment above. I suffer terribly from jet-lag. This is a nightmare because I have a sister and family who live in Princeton, NJ (but Boston at the moment) and my other sister and her family live in Australia. As a rule flying this way from the States I get 7 days of feeling rough, 14 days from Australia. Any tips?
Also, I'm heading of to Boston later on, where can I ski ?
p.s.I still think the Alps are prettier!
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
abc, good point. I never seem to think of it that way as I like to go off into the back country so much ! If you think about purely piste skiing then I think i'd take Europe most times.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Having skied for the last 25 years or so, both in Europe and Canada I have to say I much prefer Western Canada for the following basic reasons:-
1/ Less crowded (especially if you avoid the obvious package holiday destinations like Whistler and Banff). Fresh tracks often available all morning and sometimes all day. And I'm talking on marked pistes, not backcountry here!
2/ More reliable snow (particularly early season)
3/ Dry champagne powder pretty much guaranteed, except for coastal resorts (haven't seen ice or even much hardpack in the last few seasons. In fact my wife, who's only skied in Canada, thinks normal hardpack IS ice)
4/ More tree line skiing
5/ More accessible off-piste without involving helicopters, hiking, etc.
6/ Big and luxurious accomodation (for the price of a rabbit hutch in France)
7/ More friendly service if you like that kind of thing
8/ More relaxed atmosphere, probably due to points 1 and 7
The only real drawback is the relatively long haul travel, but it's well worth it IMHO. Although we don't have any children to deal with and I'm used to extensive travelling with work.
In fact we liked it so much we bought an apartment out there last season. Haven't skied in Europe seriously for over 5 years apart from the odd long weekend, which is now all I consider it for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
4/ More tree line skiing
5/ More accessible off-piste without involving helicopters, hiking, etc.
6/ Big and luxurious accomodation (for the price of a rabbit hutch in France)
|
4/ To each of their own. As you see above, others found the treeline skiing boring.
5/ Off piste is more extensive but more "crowded" in the sense everyone goes off-piste. In Europe, large majority of skiers stick to the piste so "side of piste" kind of off-piste is actually less crowded.
6/ You're comparing with France. My experience in Austria and Switzerland lodging is on par with N. America.
Can't comment on the crowded part since all my trip to the Alps are during "off season".
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Trees = less windswept terrain and better visibility in foggy/snowy conditions. You don't actually have to be skiing directly through the trees (although it is fun if they're well spaced) to get the benefit. I don't see what trees have got to do with whether or not a particular run is boring? There are equally boring treeline and exposed runs. I can't say I've ever been bored by a tree.
It rarely gets crowded on the pistes, never mind off them where I ski. I'm forced to take my holidays at peak times, so crowds are a major issue for me. Even the more popular Canadian resorts are getting too crowded for my liking eg. Whistler.
I haven't personally found accomodation anywhere in Europe to match Canada at a sensible price, but I'll take your word for it.
As you say, each to their own. The less people think like me, the less crowded it stays
If I had the time I'd ski in both Europe and NA. But since I don't, I pick the option I consider delivers the best overall experience. The fact that I'm prepared to travel long haul to get there, when I could get to Europe in a morning says it all. If the NA resorts were only a couple of hours away, I suspect they would get a LOT more crowded.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
uktrailmonster, and you wouldn't be trying to plug your apartment would you
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Nope, that wasn't my intention
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Quote: |
I don't see what trees have got to do with whether or not a particular run is boring?
|
I wasn't wording it correctly. It's not the skiing per se. But there's not much scenary to speak of when skiing in tree-lined runs. Missing an important aspect of being in the mountains.
Though like I said, people who ski wide open bowls all the time found tree-line piste more interesting. It's defintely strongly influenced by what one's used to or looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Ok I see what you mean now. In my view there is wonderful scenery to behold in both tree-lined and open mountain, but they can look very different. I like both personally, but the quality of the actual skiing is my main priority. In that sense, I generally consider trees as a positive benefit to the skiing conditions i.e less windswept, better visibility etc. That was the reason I listed tree-line skiing as a plus point for NA as there is generally more available over there. Well it's certainly a plus point for me anyway, but I simply listed my own personal reasons for choosing NA over Europe for my main skiing holidays. As I said, I'd ski both if I had more time.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
uktrailmonster, totally agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
uktrailmonster, same here although we still go to Whistler and love it. In fact only 8 sleeps to go
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
geetee wrote: |
uktrailmonster, same here although we still go to Whistler and love it. In fact only 8 sleeps to go |
I love Whistler too, but I have to take my main holiday over Christmas / New Year when it's a bit of a zoo in all major international resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh geetee, get Pro to update the Dave Murray camp reports and photos. He hasn't posted any this season yet. I need a good laugh!
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Snowy, yes we need updates! I'll get Kenny and SteveJ to have a word next week.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I'm just back from Colorado, and have skied western Canada, France, Switzerland and briefly Italy.
Europe is undoubtedly sometimes stunning scenically, and in terms of vertical, culture and cuisine. However, NA is being treated overly harshly.
I have photos (which I will soon post) from Colorado (and Val Thorens - from earlier this season) which show the Colorado scenery to be spectacular. Anyone who denies it can't have been there themselves. Simple as. Of course one might prefer the Alps, but the Rockies, even in Colorado, are beautiful. I do admittedly have a soft spot for the forested slopes, frozen lakes and snow capped peaks of the Rockies, as well as the skiing between trees (and without views of all the other runs, so that you feel like you are really exploring and could end up anywhere next) but I don't think I am being unfair here.
The snow is also fabulous. It is regular (I say this from personal experience as well as on the basis of many conversations with locals) and soft and dry and it does make a difference to a piste skier too. While the off piste is fantastic, the snow on the pistes, particularly when typical in-between-snowstorm-weather is in place (ie. bluebird days around or just below zero and cold nights) is special. It softens during the day and is simply glorious to ski on (particularly given the careful maintenance and grooming), before the freezing, clear nights with Colorado's bone dry air whisk any moisture away and reset the cycle to the beginning again. It makes a difference.
As for extent, obviously the USA doesn't offer village to village skiing, or 6000ft vertical drops, but taking Vail for example, its 3,400ft drop is not to be sneered at, and the seven bowls on the back offer endless open skiing, while the new Blue Sky Basin area, with its glades, groomers, open faces, moguls etcetc. could be skied for days on end without getting bored.
The service, efficiency and attitude all contribute to what I believe is a hugely worthwhile skiing experience.
Oh, and by the way Alex A, you are talking out of your back bottom when you say that Tahoe has more skiing than all of Colorado put together. You're waaaaaaay off the truth there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When our children were at school we found it cheaper to go to North America during Feb half term than to go to Europe. We skiied in New Hampshire, fabulous accommodation, great relaxed tuition (the US instructors were all about having fun), beautifully groomed slopes. Couldn't fault it. We used to get flights to Boston for about £250 each (don't know what they'd be now) and then we'd try a few different resorts during the week. Great fun!
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Sue S wrote: |
When our children were at school we found it cheaper to go to North America during Feb half term than to go to Europe. We skiied in New Hampshire, fabulous accommodation, great relaxed tuition (the US instructors were all about having fun), beautifully groomed slopes. Couldn't fault it. We used to get flights to Boston for about £250 each (don't know what they'd be now) and then we'd try a few different resorts during the week. Great fun! |
Still about the same.
More over, the pound goes a bit further once you landed.
(and this is one year the east coast gets quite a bit of snow)
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
While we're touching on the East coast thing, it's well worth going the whole hog out West if you're going to bother with NA. East coast snow conditions are no match for the West, or Europe for that matter, unless you are very lucky. The East coast resorts get marketed quite heavily by UK tour operators because of the shorter flights, but don't be fooled. The locals head West when they want some serious skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
uktrailmonster, yes but if you're only going for a week then the jetlag has to be a bit better if you're only going to the east coast and not the west.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Quote: |
East coast snow conditions are no match for the West
|
Again, for piste skiers, the difference is not much.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
There's no way I'd do a season anywhere else than BC right now. The only other place I'm considering outside of Canada for next season is Chamonix.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Outside of many, many trips to Europe (mostly France) I've only been to Banff, but I loved it. It's just a different experience. I thought the scenery was breathtaking and the Canadians were the nicest, friendliest people I've ever met. As for the skiing, it was great, but not the fabulous snow I was lead to expect. There was plenty of it, but it wasn't powdery or 'sugary' because the conditions were unusually mild. In fact on one afternoon at Lake Louise it was all melting drastically and turned to porridge! Some of the runs were just fabulous though.
We went for 10 days, and I wouldn't have gone for any less time. So the positives were stunning scenery, friendly people, good skiing, uncrowded pistes with no lift queues, well-groomed runs with plenty of variety and far too much food! The only real downside was lack of nightlife, I think we only had one proper night out.
I think I'd like to try another resort in America or Canada, but pound for pound I'm quite happy with the French and Austrian resorts. The scenery is always gorgeous, even if some resorts themselves aren't too pretty, and all the resorts work hard to keep the pistes in the best condition they can. For me, the apres ski is a big part of what makes the holiday enjoyable and you can't beat the Austrian resorts for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
We've never been to the US or Canada and the main reason is simply the cost of flights. Granted we're in a slightly different situation from most insofar as anywhere in Europe we just get in the car and point and shoot, but the money we would spend on flight to get to NA pays for an extra week of skiing in Europe - or effectively halves the cost of skiing here
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
hd wrote: |
......... Whereas in Europe off-piste skiing is implicitly frowned upon by the resort managers............ |
Not in my experience. Where are you thinking of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc wrote: |
Quote: |
East coast snow conditions are no match for the West
|
Again, for piste skiers, the difference is not much. |
I disagree. East coast skiing is quite often icy hardpack. West coast is more often soft freshly groomed powder. Quite a difference in my book. Over the last 2 seasons I've skied 8 weeks on the West coast and not seen even a single day of icy hardpack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
geetee wrote: |
uktrailmonster, yes but if you're only going for a week then the jetlag has to be a bit better if you're only going to the east coast and not the west. |
True, but then I'd rather go to Europe than the East coast for a shorter trip. Even less travel and better skiing. Although I can understand people choosing the East coast for a different cultural experience etc. But personally I'd take the jetlag for the better skiing every time. It's not exactly a life threatening condition! We go for 2 weeks only to offset the cost of the flights rather than the jetlag, which I don't really care about. Actually makes it a lot easier to hit the first morning lifts
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Picadilly wrote: |
As for the skiing, it was great, but not the fabulous snow I was lead to expect. There was plenty of it, but it wasn't powdery or 'sugary' because the conditions were unusually mild. In fact on one afternoon at Lake Louise it was all melting drastically and turned to porridge! Some of the runs were just fabulous though.
|
Fabulous light powder is never guaranteed anywhere in the world over a specific 10 day period. All you can do is bias the odds more in your favour by choosing resorts that have a higher statistical chance of the best snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles wrote: |
hd wrote: |
......... Whereas in Europe off-piste skiing is implicitly frowned upon by the resort managers............ |
Not in my experience. Where are you thinking of? |
In all the european resorts I have visited it is almost always made clear that skiing off-piste without a guide (even between the pistes) is not recommended and done entirely at your own risk.
Whereas in North America you are actively encouraged to ski "off-trail".
All in-bound terrain is avalanche patrolled and fair game.
Many resorts make big noises on their 5am online snow reports about how much new has dumped each night and which area of the mountain will offer fresh tracks.
Resorts like Fernie offer in-bounds terrain the vast majority of which would be classified as proper off-piste in most European resorts.
US/Canadian ski patrols work hard to open up and make safe "off-trail" areas after a dump much more so than in Europe.
So if you only ski the pistes stick to Europe. If you're an off-piste/powder junkie North America is well worth the trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|