I am sorry, but that is a little much. "Low angle" powder at Alta.
Sure, if you are an idiot and see the untracked stuff to the right of the Sugarloaf lift above East Greeley you are going to get stuck down in that bowl. But otherwise, give me a break.
I don't have a bad thing to say about Snowbird, but I prefer Alta. I like the terrain and the vibe better there. I guess that means I "really can't ski". Maybe if I had the advantage of skiing in Pennsylvania as a child I would be better.
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA
remember prickly when you worked a year at the bird you didnt have a tram pass, with out the tram I can safely say alta is better. but if snowbird gave 1 and 2nd year non mountain operations there tram pass then I think your opinion would change greatly
Snowbird -3000 vertical feet of sustain vertical with untracked snow for most of it, and soft snow for days after a storm. For instance ski Silver Fox or Great Scott both require no traversing and get 1000 vertical feet right off the bat, then ski some low angle powder down near chips, hit anderson's hill(super short traverse) ski down that for another 500 vertical feet. Then you still have your choice of the lower faces which are all about 1000 vertical feet. Trying getting that long of a run in at alta.
Alta- 1200 vertical feet of steep after a rocky pain in the ass traverse, that is still probably tracked out quickly because everyone is willing to traverse at alta. The runs bump up super quick because many alta skis have decided skinny skis are the way to go and push pile the snow into huge rutted bumps. all this coupled with bad exposure and slower ski patrol than snowbird, and the alta-tude, have made me mostly stay away from this year.
I have determind anyone who likes alta over snowbird falls in to these caterogies.
1.they really cant ski
2.they dont have a tram pass at snowbird
3.they hate snowboarders so much
4.they really enjoy working tons of low angle powder