 Poster: A snowHead
|
Looking at some resorts I see they have less than 100cm depth in snow
What amount to you consider as being poor on high/ lower slopes
Is 50cm ok?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Yeah 50cm'll be totally fine, on piste certainly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Depends what's underneath the snow. If grassy slopes then 50 cm is usually okay on piste, but if rocky then you'd want 150+ cm to avoid disappointment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
50cm is well deep
prolly start getting concerned at 50cm for rocky, an 20cm for grassy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| andy wrote: |
50cm is well deep
|
Not where I ski! Season doesn't even start until it gets close to a metre and they don't open the rocky areas until it's around 150 cm and still can be marginal then. I'm happy once the 2m barrier is cleared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
One factor you need to think about is the accuracy of the reported depths. I'll never forget a March trip to Sauze D'Oulx where the resort was reporting 60cm up top and 30cm on the bottom slopes...we turned up in town to find that the home run was possibly 30cm wide, but definitely no deeper than 5cm! Despite no snowfall all week and 20+ temps (the home run was completely bare by day 2), the resort was reporting 20cm on the bottom slopes when we left 6 days later. Even if there had been a place on the lower slopes that had had 30cm coverage at the start of the week there was no way it lost only 10cm depth all week.
I tend to ignore the reported snow depths. If I want to know if a resort has enough snow then I'll find a report or some photos from someone who's just been and judge for myself. If you see skidmarks or cows on the slopes then you know it's not going to work out well... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the resort.
I have skied with 25cm at the base, and still been able to ski back to tat base, on slopes that were roads or grass meadows underneath the snow.
I wouldn't like to try skiing on that depth if it was rockier underneath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you'll find it's "cm"s not "CM"s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ChrisWo wrote: |
One factor you need to think about is the accuracy of the reported depths. I'll never forget a March trip to Sauze D'Oulx where the resort was reporting 60cm up top and 30cm on the bottom slopes...we turned up in town to find that the home run was possibly 30cm wide, but definitely no deeper than 5cm! Despite no snowfall all week and 20+ temps (the home run was completely bare by day 2), the resort was reporting 20cm on the bottom slopes when we left 6 days later. Even if there had been a place on the lower slopes that had had 30cm coverage at the start of the week there was no way it lost only 10cm depth all week.
I tend to ignore the reported snow depths. If I want to know if a resort has enough snow then I'll find a report or some photos from someone who's just been and judge for myself. If you see skidmarks or cows on the slopes then you know it's not going to work out well... |
This is very true. Some resorts are accurate and credible and some are, let's say completely inaccurate and incredible. You wil often see figures not quite adding up (eg snow depth nearly equal entire season snowfall). When you get to some resorts reporting eg 1m lower depth, and you travel all over resoet and can't see anywhere where depth could be more than 30cm, you wonder where exactly they could possibly be taking measurements from. If one resort has a great rep for snow, and reporting a lower snow depth than somewhere with not so great a rep, be suspicious (although the latter resort may genuinely be having a great season). If you read reviews you will know where snow is genuinely reliable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Easter LAST year in Val Thorens and they would have clapped their hands hugely at 50cm. They were still skiing down this as a piste everyday and rebuilding it as best they could every night
At this time of year I should think a resort with 50cm is still doing quite well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Last time I was in St Anton there were lots of songs boasting about 20 centimeters, not entirely sure it was all about the snow depth though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported as 50cm, confirmed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Skiing on thin snow can be cool.
It creates natural obstacles that force you to slalom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I agree with Whitegold, this was great for practicing slalom tech and jump turns without the hassle of lugging a load of gates up the hill 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
In fact when we skied during that week I took that photo in VT last year the bases of our skis suffered considerably less damage than when we skied a week on Les Arcs best boiler plate following 7-8 weeks of no snow in Jan 2011. I think when you hit a stone in soft slush it just tends to bury easier back into the snow than gouging into your bases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
By this point in the season, when the snow is super dense and compacted, 20cms is fine (probably equates to a metre of freshly fallen snow, but that's a guess). At the start of the season when it's lighter and less consolidated you need a bit more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
mountainaddict,
| Quote: |
Mrs MA has always seemed happy enough with 10cm
|
Oh good, glad it's not just me who's imagined a different subject for this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
Skiing on thin snow can be cool.
It creates natural obstacles that force you to slalom. |
As long as it's not my own ski, I'm quite happy to ski on 1cm!
Realistically, on piste 20cm should be perfectly fine. Even 10cm is ok on hire skis. Off piste, it will be case by case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I thought the question was below what level you would consider it being poor, not the absolute minimum depth you can trash your skis on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1969jma, as others have said it really does depend an awful lot on what lies under the snow.
Lets take Wengen as a resort as I know it so well, here almost all of the runs are over what in the summer would be grassy meadows, there are a few exceptions but I'll get to those later, Wengen tourist office post snow depths taken from a set of specific locations around the various mountains, now as a regular visitor I now that if the resort is reporting more than 30cm of snow it is normally possible to ski back to resort though there may be a few worn spots in places (I've actually skied back with just 15cm on the grass but this tracks out within a day or two at most), 40 - 50 cm in resort and you can pretty much be certain of a ski run back save maybe towards the end of the season when the hot weather turns snow to slush but that happens everywhere. If I see that Kleine Scheidegg and Mannlichen snow depths are about 1M or more I can be pretty certain that all the runs save maybe one or two will be open, the exception will occur if the snow fell with high winds, this can cause a reasonable snow depth in the sheltered areas where the snow is recorded, but strip the snow completely from exposed slopes, this is where webcams are your friends, most resorts seem to have one or two these days, by observing the webcams you can often see if an area has grass or bare patches and shows windblown snow at that point you can be pretty certain that at least some runs will be bare or unpassable, I said I'd get to the exceptions later, at Wengen there is run run in particular that passes through a boulder field, for that I'd want a good extra 50cm of snow to be lying, anything less and it will be new bases please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| I thought the question was below what level you would consider it being poor, not the absolute minimum depth you can trash your skis on! |
On piste, 5m or 50cm ski the same. So I don't see what's so "poor" to ski even 20cm snow for as long as whatever that "minimun" depth is enough that will NOT trash one's ski.
Off piste is more complicated because the "minimun" varies from one spot to the next, not having the benefit of the piste basher to even it out (and compact those whatever cm ther is).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stuarth, 405cm for March isn't too shabby
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
As said, it does depend on the resort and what's under the snow. Austria tends to be ok with thin snow as it's mainly grass. A lot of the French / Italian resorts are bare rock / stones which need a few more cm otherwise you're just taking chunks out of your skis.
As per the Pennine photo above, I've skiied in Glencoe where there's maybe 30 cm at the top and perhaps 5 cm at the bottom. Got some good gouges on my skis rockhopping on that day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Even though this doesn't look like a lot of snow, it was still in excellent condition. Some of the best corn I've ever skied, at Glen Shee!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pedantica wrote: |
mountainaddict,
| Quote: |
Mrs MA has always seemed happy enough with 10cm
|
Oh good, glad it's not just me who's imagined a different subject for this thread. |
And normally I get the blame for comments like that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| abc wrote: |
On piste, 5m or 50cm ski the same. So I don't see what's so "poor" to ski even 20cm snow for as long as whatever that "minimun" depth is enough that will NOT trash one's ski.
|
As said earlier, minimum depth depends what's underneath - in some places you need much more than 50 cm to cover the rocks. In general a low base = more rocks, more bare patches and generally crap skiing conditions. Worst I've experienced personally was Kitzbuhel. I can't remember what the reported snow depth was, but there were rocks poking through everywhere and skis were totally trashed after a couple of days. Skiing conditions were pants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
On piste, 5m or 50cm ski the same. So I don't see what's so "poor" to ski even 20cm snow for as long as whatever that "minimun" depth is enough that will NOT trash one's ski.
|
Worst I've experienced personally was Kitzbuhel. I can't remember what the reported snow depth was, but there were rocks poking through everywhere and skis were totally trashed after a couple of days. Skiing conditions were pants. |
But that's my point, whatever that's required to NOT trash the ski is good skiing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
have said, it's all about the underlying terrain. In the last week of the season (early May), I've skied on <2cm in Val Thorens:
