New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Low Altitude Skiing

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 

If a person was medically restricted (sickle cell for example) to lower-altitude skiing where, on average, could they expect to find the best skiing in America? In the World? Looking for real ski resorts not little ski areas.

 

I think the East Coast resorts like Stowe and the Loaf will be best in USA, but not sure about far-western resorts. How high is Tahoe? Is there such a thing as a resort at Mt Hood, and how high is it anyway. Maybe Alyeska?

 

In Europe, I know that a lot of the resorts have summit elevations higher than the base elevations in the Rockies but still might be too high. How about Scandanavia?

post #2 of 25
Why don't you tell us the physician's altitude recommendation? Whitefish base is at 4464, summit at 6817 feet. Also, for best skiing, that depends on the year and terrain preferences.
post #3 of 25

In N. America, I would say Whistler/Blackcomb. A little lower would be Alyeska.

post #4 of 25

The various PNW ski areas (Bachelor, Baker) are fairly low.

post #5 of 25

Baker tops out at 5089, Aleyska at 3939, Alpental at 5420.
It really depends on how high is dangerous for the patient, but all three of those are pretty well respected ski areas that I wouldn't mind being restricted to.

post #6 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Why don't you tell us the physician's altitude recommendation?

 

I don't know, I just know that Aspen was not good.

post #7 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post
 

The various PNW ski areas (Bachelor, Baker) are fairly low.

Bachelor lowest elevation 5,700', top 9,000

http://www.mtbachelor.com/winter/mountain/mountain_experience/trail_map

 

Mt Hood Meadows lodge about 6,000, top 7,300, bottom 4,500

www.skihood.com

 

Timberline on Hood 7,500 or so top to below 6,000


Edited by GorgeSkier - 1/16/14 at 8:08pm
post #8 of 25

If you want a real resort, Whistler seems like the obvious call.

 

As noted above, the PNW hills are all low. The offer some great skiing (esp off piste), but are not resorts.

 

IIRC, the Sierra resorts are all substantially higher...

 

Might look at Hood - as noted by others.

 

NZ resorts are all pretty low. Tough to beat the ambiance around Wanaka - ski Treble Cone and Cardrona... Not big resorts, but big enough. Especially when combined with other sightseeing.

 

The places I know of in Scandinavia are pretty low - but not big resorts.

 

Heli-skiing w/ Arctic Heli in Iceland is not resort skiing, but it is about as good as it gets IMO. The lowest elevation they will ski to is the beach :) Some coastal BC ops ski some relatively lower elevation terrain as well. As do the NZ heli ops.

 

Check out Japan?

post #9 of 25

With altitude sensitivity it is often sleep elevation that matters most.  So maybe if you're sleeping in Bend at 3,000 you can still ski off the top of Bachelor at 9,000.  Whistler seems the most obvious big mountain choice in North America: sleep at 2,000, ski no higher than 7,200.   You can also sleep at ~3,500 or so and ski no higher than 7,000 at all 4 of the major Kootenay areas: Red, Fernie, Schweitzer, Whitefish.  

 

If that's too much Alyeska has a base at 250 and highest lift service at 2,750.

 

South Island NZ you are sleeping very low  at 1,000 or less, then driving to a hill and skiing not much over 6,000.  Snow conditions are quite erratic by North American standards though.

 

Another suggestion: Niseko base is 1,000 feet or less.  Top lift service is 4,000 with a 400 foot summit climb above that.

 

So overall, if low altitude + ski quality are the parameters is there a serious challenge to Niseko?  You need to get there in the next month though, before that low altitude becomes a liability.

post #10 of 25

Tahoe is fairly high, the lake is at 6,000 feet above sea level and everything you ski goes up from there.

post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Why don't you tell us the physician's altitude recommendation?

I don't know, I just know that Aspen was not good.

No surprise, range is from 7800 to 12500! Looks like most of the recommendations are for places far below that.
post #12 of 25

As others have already stated, the PNW has relatively low elevations compared to the southern Rockies. Western Canada is relatively low, too. If you can't have altitude, go for latitude!  :D

 

Of course, in the East, you have the advantage of being familiar with the places you're skiing.

post #13 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
Of course, in the East, you have the advantage of being familiar with the places you're skiing.

 

This family lives in the midwest and is new to skiing but pretty keen on it. Anyway, everything is new for them.

post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
Of course, in the East, you have the advantage of being familiar with the places you're skiing.

 

This family lives in the midwest and is new to skiing but pretty keen on it. Anyway, everything is new for them.

 

Are you looking for a resort with other things to do, or a place with decent skiing and perhaps less of a destination resort?  I looked and the summit of Gore Mountain is 3600'.  But little else around and limited lodging options.  However, an alternative is to stay 30 min away in Lake George.

 

Found a table in Wikipedia that includes Peak and Base elevations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts

 

Mt. Tremblant peak is only 2870.  Snowshoe in WV is up at 4848, the disadvantage being that the village is at the top of the mountain.  Although can stay at Silver Creek, which is lower.  From the midwest, Snowshoe may be drivable.

post #15 of 25

Sun Valley has base elevation about 5,500'  about like Denver.  Might be higher than Alyeska, but the weather is a lot better, and it is a real resort.

post #16 of 25

Whistler is as resort-like as you can get, and it's at low elevation.

post #17 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marznc View Post
 

 

Are you looking for a resort with other things to do, or a place with decent skiing and perhaps less of a destination resort?  I looked and the summit of Gore Mountain is 3600'.  But little else around and limited lodging options.  However, an alternative is to stay 30 min away in Lake George.

 

Found a table in Wikipedia that includes Peak and Base elevations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts

 

Mt. Tremblant peak is only 2870.  Snowshoe in WV is up at 4848, the disadvantage being that the village is at the top of the mountain.  Although can stay at Silver Creek, which is lower.  From the midwest, Snowshoe may be drivable.

 

World Class destination like Aspen, Zermatt, JH, St. Moritz but at low altitude. Lots of good ideas here, thanks everyone. Probably Whistler is the winner.

post #18 of 25
Whistler is probably the best. But the weather sucks for newbies and it's a pita to get to,
post #19 of 25

The Tremblant village is set up pretty nicely.  Combined with a night or two in Montreal, could be a nice ski vacation with a European feel without having to fly across the pond.

post #20 of 25

Depends how bad you want it and what you want to spend, but clearly, Whistler is the place to be for low altitude stuff....anywhere.

post #21 of 25
Niseko. 985 to 4290 ft.
post #22 of 25

Depending where you are in the Midwest, you may want to consider Boyne, MI; Indianhead, UP MI or Lutsen, MN.  No elevation issues (all under 2,000) but clearly nothing like the western resorts.  If they are close to you, they can be good cheap fun.

 

Eastern skiing is fun but if you’re going to fly, go west and try Whistler or any of the other lower elevation suggestions.

post #23 of 25

There was a related thread a few years back that might have some more candidates:  http://www.epicski.com/t/94587/wanted-town-under-1000-feet-with-day-trip-access-to-decent-skiing-and-reasonable-cost-of-living

post #24 of 25

As far as Colorado ski areas, Steamboat is the lowest major resort with a base at 6,900 feet aand a peak elevation of 10,500.  The base is 1000 feet lower than Aspen (which still has a lower base elevation than most of Colorado ski areas).

 

To put things in perspective, there are several Colorado ski areas with a base elevation higher than Steamboat's summit.

 

With sickle cell, is the primary issue sleeping at a high elevation or exercising at a high elevation? With many cardiology issues, it is ok to ski at the elevation as long as resting is done at a lower elevation.

 

"Best" skiing is also something that it would be useful to define. If it is a family of low intermediates, the best hill would obviously be different than the best hill for a family of ripping experts.

post #25 of 25

You should try Cerro Castor in Ushuaia, Argentina.  Base at 200mts (600ft) peak 1000 (3000 ft aprox).  I took my daughter with heart condition and she loved it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel