On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:38:34 -0800, Miguel Naughton 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>--- Scott Braaten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Snow quality was nice and dry.
>I dunno, the wind caused some damage.  Not quite a crust
>but firmer on top than I prefer.  I'm surprised that you hiked
>up, I thought it would be real nasty up there and the snow
>would be wind packed.  Guess not.

Guess I said that wrong.  It was nice and dry AND windpacked.  Like the 
difference betwen dry/wet powder, there's a difference between dry/wet 
windpacked.  I was thinking that the fact we are right around the first of 
March, the sun angle is significantly higher and within the next month or 
even couple weeks we are going to start dealing with sun crusts and 

Anyway, it wasn't "nasty" up there but heavily windpacked...except in 
sheltered treed regions.  The difference I saw between the top regions and 
lower resort areas was that the wind had really sandblasted the snow up 
top.  The windslab was supportable and caused a fun, chalky-like skiing.  
Quite hard to describe but it seemed much, much better than the stiff, 
slabby, but breakable stuff lower down.  

I do not want anyone to get the idea its not windpacked up is, 
and quite heavily.  I've always heard that out west the wind (Mammoth 
Mountain/Sierra) blows so hard that its not uncommon to get a great wind 
blown, chalky, carvable surface.  That's kind of what I'd picture this 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit