Impressions of Switzerland and Austria

I just got back from my honeymoon which took me from Grindelwald to Vienna over 17 days. I'm still a bit jet-lagged, and have to filter through literally thousands photos so I will upload the photos later. We went from Grindelwald to Landeck via the Grimsell Pass and Chur. We visited Garmisch-Partikichen, Innsbruck, Zell am See, Salzburg and Vienna.

Firstly, I would like to say that Grindelwald has the most dramatic mountains I've ever seen. The mountains literally drop 9,000 ft from the top of Eiger 13000ft to the valley 4000ft.

On our drives through the Tirol I saw that almost every town has it's own lift and resort. It seems like many of the mountains out there have awkward exposures( south facing/west facing). Also, the landscape reminded me more of Vermont/New Hampshire than the rockies. The valleys were very lush, and looked a lot like vermont, so it clearly isn't as dry as out west. The mountains, like I said, looked more like Vermont in that the usable/skiable parts were often not rugged and there wasn't very much above tree line skiing, however, on the top of many of the mountains were limestone ridges that were like spines/vertical cliffs of what seemed like thousands of feet (the exception to this was the alberg, which is immense ). There were places there like the kitzstein glacier and the stubai glacier which were truly immense in scope, but for the most part, it didn't seem like the mountains were incredibly large. Zell am See, (where Nikki and I hiked the Pinzgauer Spanziergang) is surrounded by ski resorts that all seem within the scope of a mountain like Gore or Whiteface. There was very little terrain above the tree line with exception of Kitzstein to which you need to take a bus. Many of the mountains there had direct southern exposure, and also the majority of the summits were below 7,000 feet.

I look forward to returning to these places in the winter sometime in the near future. Again, I'll get those photos as soon as I have time.

The best mountains for summer activities are not necessarily the best for winter. Chamonix might an exception for that.

I would like to say that Grindelwald has the most dramatic mountains I've ever seen.

Click to expand...

That was my impression of Chamonix. The Rick Steves guides tout both in those terms.

The valleys were very lush, and looked a lot like vermont, so it clearly isn't as dry as out west.

Click to expand...

We were struck by the lush valleys also. There is no real wet/dry season in the Alps. They get a lot of rain in the summer, unfortunately including the 2 days we spent in the Austrian Alps above Salzburg in August 1999. And why half the places in England/France/Germany/Austria were clouded out of that eclipse. That was my first, and I heeded expert advice and went to Hungary before spending the rest of that trip in Austria and Germany.

Tony Crocker":90h9ilal said:

The best mountains for summer activities are not necessarily the best for winter. Chamonix might an exception for that.

Click to expand...

We drove by a lot of places that are renowned for their winter, such as kitzbuhel, and I will say they just weren't nearly as I imagined them. I've not yet been to Chamonix, but I would imagine it is very dramatic, and that the skiing there must be better than the Berenese Oberland where the top 4000 ft of elevation is useless. I've heard the town there is a souless, and not as nice as some others which have lesser skiing but more charm.

The place that looked the best for skiing was in the Tirol: St. Anton, Landeck, and Erwhald. It seemed those mountains were completely skiable, and had 6 to 7 thousand feet of usable vert. The kitzbuhel alps were much like the Berenese Oberland in that the highest mountains weren't really skiable because they were high due to sheer cliffs. Much of the skiable terrain was below the tree line, and frankly didn't seem too impressive.

I wonder if anyone here has skied Garmisch? We stayed there and the ski mountain didn't particularly impress. There are really impressive views, but I would imagine those are not skiable mountains.

Innsbruck, has impressive mountains but the ski mountains weren't anything special, although, the Stubai Glacier was very impressive.

Lastly, it seems to me that the cost of skiing is way more reasonable out there compared to the N. America. The tickets seemed always around 25 Euro per day, and sometimes that was for the whole ski region and included bus and train transport! If only the snow was as good out there as it was out west, or is it?

:worthless:

jasoncapecod":25tb7lqb said:

:worthless:

Click to expand...

Tired, Jet-Lagged, and sorting through literally thousands of photos. Will get it done sometime in the next few days.

IMO the best ski terrain in Switzerland is in the southwest corner of the country near the French and Italian borders. Zermatt, for example has some stunning terrain and long vertical.

admin":znauykog said:

IMO the best ski terrain in Switzerland is in the southwest corner of the country near the French and Italian borders.

Click to expand...

Based upon my "barely scratch the surface" day at Verbier, I would agree with that.

rfarren":znauykog said:

I wonder if anyone here has skied Garmisch? We stayed there and the ski mountain didn't particularly impress. There are really impressive views, but I would imagine those are not skiable mountains.

Click to expand...

We rode the tram up the Zugspitze from the Austrian side on that same 1999 trip. There's glacier surface lifts up there (for spring, not summer), and from what I read the main ski area is down low. I also read that not much of the terrain between the 2 is skiable.

rfarren":znauykog said:

If only the snow was as good out there as it was out west, or is it?

Click to expand...

I'm still working on that. There may be a couple of microclimates in the Arlberg that hit 400 inches. Due to low tree line there aren't many places that measure high in the ski terrain. Verbier averages 230 inches at 7,200 feet, which is probably representative of many of the big resorts. I can tell you that if you're north facing at high altitude and that latitude the snow preservation is excellent.

Tony Crocker":292ku1jx said:

rfarren":292ku1jx said:

If only the snow was as good out there as it was out west, or is it?

Click to expand...

I'm still working on that. There may be a couple of microclimates in the Arlberg that hit 400 inches. Due to low tree line there aren't many places that measure high in the ski terrain. Verbier averages 230 inches at 7,200 feet, which is probably representative of many of the big resorts. I can tell you that if you're north facing at high altitude and that latitude the snow preservation is excellent.

Click to expand...

IMHO quantity is not the only determining factor on snow quality. Based on the vegetation we saw I would imagine the water content in the snow is quite a bit higher than what is found in Colorado and Utah.

In my limited experience Alpine snow is nothing like Continental North American snow. I found the consistency more akin to New England snow.

Pictures now:

More pictures:

I forgot one picture from the OberAlpen Pass. We went by Andermatt, and it looked like this:

Great pictures, it brings back some memories. I just stopped for a few minutes at the train station in Andermatt. It looked very interesting since it was clearly not as developed as the other locations I visited, but as you said, it's impossible to see the expanse of the area. The one thing that really struck me in Zermatt and the Jungfrau ski areas was how rocky, convoluted and cliffed-out the terrain was. There were gigantic boulders everywhere in Zermatt and tons of uphill sections and huge cliffs around Wengen, Kleine Scheidegg and Mürren. Although I'm sure there's still some off-piste in these areas, the low snowfall and the aforementioned terrain must really limit your options.

Staley":37ajwrsr said:

...The one thing that really struck me in Zermatt and the Jungfrau ski areas was how rocky, convoluted and cliffed-out the terrain was. There were gigantic boulders everywhere in Zermatt and tons of uphill sections and huge cliffs around Wengen, Kleine Scheidegg and Mürren. Although I'm sure there's still some off-piste in these areas, the low snowfall and the aforementioned terrain must really limit your options.

Click to expand...

I would imagine that is true, especially when you consider that much of the terrain around First, Wengen, Murren, and Kleine Scheidegg is below 9,000 ft. I suppose the exception to that would be Murren, which has higher terrain when you consider the terrain off the Schilthornbahn. The other thing that doesn't come off in the photos, is that almost all of the terrain was a moderate blue(at most methinks). There just didn't seem to be much steep stuff. Zell am See however, did have some very steep terrain, but their issue apparently has to do with their low elevation and snow sureness.

BTW, those slopes in the foreground of the picture below is Saalbach. We were on top of a ridge with north facing slopes. around 1900 Meters. The base was about 800M.

The one thing that really struck me in Zermatt and the Jungfrau ski areas was how rocky, convoluted and cliffed-out the terrain was. There were gigantic boulders everywhere in Zermatt and tons of uphill sections and huge cliffs around Wengen, Kleine Scheidegg and Mürren. Although I'm sure there's still some off-piste in these areas, the low snowfall and the aforementioned terrain must really limit your options.

Click to expand...

Zermatt has the virtue of optimal altitude/exposure to make up for its reputedly modest snowfall. Some of their own marketing material says key expert sectors are often not skiable until sometime in February. March/April are best, probably somewhat like Taos/Crested Butte here, though Zermatt at least is open throughout April.

Andermatt is one of the places with a good snow reputation, probably well over 300 inches at higher elevation.

Zermatt had the most snow guns I've ever seen. I'd definitely love to go ski there for the unbelievably beautiful scenery and expanse of the trail network, but if I was looking for off-piste skiing, I'd surely go somewhere else. Even if the snow was good, the expert areas didn't look like they would compare to Chamonix, Val d'Isere, St. Anton, etc.

Rob, great pics , what a great trip..

When I was in Zermatt this summer, I was surprised to see hundreds of fixed snowmaking guns. My guess is that they have at least 50% of the mountain covered.

Crap, I should have read Stan's post first..

jasoncapecod":39qj5eir said:

My guess is that they have at least 50% of the mountain covered.

Click to expand...

That would be 50% of the pistes. Probably 5% or less of the mountain. Since the latter is what's important to most FTO skiers, they should heed the March/April recommendation.

Tony Crocker":1eeti0x5 said:

jasoncapecod":1eeti0x5 said:

My guess is that they have at least 50% of the mountain covered.

Click to expand...

That would be 50% of the pistes. Probably 5% or less of the mountain. Since the latter is what's important to most FTO skiers, they should heed the March/April recommendation.

Click to expand...

How good is the avy control off-piste in Europe? Places like the Alberg,Tirol and the French Alps, where there is more snow and lots of off-piste, would be great as long as avy control opens up that terrain safely. I would imagine if Zermat doesn't get too much snow, the off-piste doesn't play a factor anyhow.