# Mountain Vertical updates - all New England ski areas



## MV Frank (Feb 23, 2011)

Hey guys,
I've said in the past that I'd post on AlpineZone when there any major updates on Mountain Vertical. Well...big update here. This has been a long work in progress but we finally finished reporting REAL stats for NEW ENGLAND ski mountains.

Check it out --
*mountainvertical.com/biggest-skiing-in-new-england.html*

Within this set, some ski areas are actually pretty honest (for example, I'll give cred to Stowe for only reporting fall-line vert on their site, when they could easily exaggerate)...but the vast majority inflate their mountain stats in some way. For example, tons of ski areas measure to the base of their lowest parking lot. Some even measure to the base of the lowest parking lot AND THEN round up to the next hundred (come on...). So this is about reporting what's real, from an independent source.

In this update, we used USGS and other sources to check up on 61 ski areas.
*Below, I'll call out a few notables from this big New England update:*

Sugarloaf -they claim 2820 ft of vertical...MV reports 2410 ft (snubber inflates their stat by ~400 ft...the rest is very legit fall line vertical)
-with expansion into brackett basin, they now legitimately have bragging rights as biggest terrain in the East (in the 800-900 acre range). I was there recently and the new terrain is awesome...

Cannon -they claim 2180 ft (that's the summit to base of mittersill)...MV reports 2089 -- that's fall line to the tram base, whether you take kinsman, tramline, or regular trails all the way down

Smuggs -they play up their numbers and claim 2610 ft...MV reports 2088 ft -- that excludes the connector to morse mtn

Jay Peak -they claim 2153 ft...MV reports 1936 ft -- Huge discrepancy...

Stratton -they claim 2003 ft (when you measure to base of parking lot...), MV reports 1891 ft

Attitash -they claim 1750 ft...MV reports 1662 ft -- conspicuous way of rounding up...

Mt Snow -they claim 1700 ft...MV reports 1589 of actual fall line vertical

Saddleback -they claim 2000 ft...MV reports 1542 ft of actual fall line vertical... (rounded up to the next 1000?)

Magic Mtn -they claim 1700 ft...MV reports 1468 ft -- pretty big discrepancy here

Bretton Woods -they claim 1500 ft...MV reports 1394 ft

Gunstock -they claim 1400 ft...MV reports 1291 ft

Ragged -they claim 1250 ft...MV reports 1105 ft

Wachusett -they claim 1000 ft...MV reports 945 ft

Berkshire East -they claim 1180 ft...MV reports 923 ft -- big discrepancy

oh, and *check out our article in the boston globe!*

Thanks AZ


----------



## bobbutts (Feb 23, 2011)

Cool findings.
How does USGS accuracy compare to Google Earth?  
Or a personal visit with your GPS device?


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 23, 2011)

There are several Killington skiers who report skiing from the top of the K1 down to the Skyeship Base on a regular basis.   Just because you don't ski the mountain that way, doesn't mean others don't.....

While I agree that many mountains inflate various stats, there's a lot of 'opinion' to your website.


----------



## billski (Feb 23, 2011)

Bolton is 960'? That doesn't seem right.


----------



## billski (Feb 23, 2011)

billski said:


> Bolton is 960'? That doesn't seem right.



Maybe so.  You can't ski top to timberline directly. Hmm.


----------



## skidmarks (Feb 23, 2011)

Nice report! Does the Thunderbolt really have 1900 Vert??


----------



## JonD (Feb 23, 2011)

Great site. Another feature I would be interested in is "True" trail counts. This would take much more work, and would be subject to much more debate. But, it would be very interesting to see how many true trails there are, excluding upper/lower, connectors, split left/right, etc.


----------



## threecy (Feb 23, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I think a lot of the numbers being reported as "True-up" are subjective at best.


----------



## FridayHiker (Feb 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> I'm sorry, but I think a lot of the numbers being reported as "True-up" are subjective at best.



Agreed.  Someone needs to show MV how to ski Cannon.  You can definitely ski from the Tram to the base of Mittersill, so why the arbitrary decision to exclude that route?

MV just lost its credibility in my book.


----------



## The Sneak (Feb 23, 2011)

Hmm. The smartphone vertical app measured BEast as ~1140 vertical. 

The wachusett findings by MV make sense since I've been told that the vert of the summit chair is 965.


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 23, 2011)

Nice try Frank. Better luck next time.


----------



## MV Frank (Feb 23, 2011)

FridayHiker said:


> Agreed.  Someone needs to show MV how to ski Cannon.  You can definitely ski from the Tram to the base of Mittersill, so why the arbitrary decision to exclude that route?.



Quick jump in to respond. Tram to Mittersill is objectively not fall line. Summit to the tram base is fall line drop. I think that is pretty clear.


----------



## tipsdown (Feb 23, 2011)

I do like this...It definitely gives you a better measurement of a mountain's true vertical....Having said that, I don't understand Saddleback...That doesn't appear accurate.  You can certainly ski all 2k vertical from top-bottom.  There's some runout out but it's fall line vertical.


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 23, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> Quick jump in to respond. Tram to Mittersill is objectively not fall line. Summit to the tram base is fall line drop. I think that is pretty clear.



Not to distract you from your pressing work, but can _you_ actually ski the fall line?


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 23, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> Quick jump in to respond. Tram to Mittersill is objectively not fall line. Summit to the tram base is fall line drop. I think that is pretty clear.



define Fall Line

defend why you have Killington in the 1700 range when indeed 3000 vert is skied often by some people


----------



## threecy (Feb 23, 2011)

The Sneak said:


> Hmm. The smartphone vertical app measured BEast as ~1140 vertical.
> The wachusett findings by MV make sense since I've been told that the vert of the summit chair is 965.



Interesting that the measurements are apparently down to the foot, despite USGS maps not being the same.

"A rigorous process to make sure our numbers are accurate...We're able to do this by using external mountain data to perform our own independent topographic analysis of what the numbers should be, and draw our own conclusions. We can understand everything there is to know about a ski resort’s mountain topography, and report it accurately on this site."

Hopefully the rigorous process isn't placing a pointer on a location on Google Earth. 



Also interesting that only Killington's K1 gondola counts, yet the vertical below Jiminy Peak's summit lifts counts (ie the Partek triple and Grand Slam double).  Surely that terrain, in conjunction with the main mountain, isn't "commonly skied, lift-served, continuous fall-line runs."


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> define Fall Line
> 
> defend why you have Killington in the 1700 range when indeed 3000 vert is skied often by some people



I usually ski from the Peak to Route 4 once per weekend. Usually it is for the sake of a long run, hitting the bathroom, and grabbing a cup of coffee. Breaks up a day. 

Take a look at the smiles on Great Eastern along the way.


----------



## ceo (Feb 23, 2011)

Tram to base of Mittersill can't be done without some climbing (Fleitman Trail through Tuckerbrook is partly uphill), so I'd say it's fair to not count it.


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 23, 2011)

Does this all count the chairlift offramp? Cause that's at least 10-20 feet at a lot of places.

I think it'd be better to just be even more subjective and rate how big a mountain skis. "I know it's only 750 feet, but it skis like the Matterhorn"


----------



## trackbiker (Feb 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> Interesting that the measurements are apparently down to the foot, despite USGS maps not being the same.
> 
> "A rigorous process to make sure our numbers are accurate...We're able to do this by using external mountain data to perform our own independent topographic analysis of what the numbers should be, and draw our own conclusions. We can understand everything there is to know about a ski resort’s mountain topography, and report it accurately on this site."
> 
> ...



Good points threecy. There's no consistency to how MV subjectively calculates their vertical.
At least with the mountains self reports we know they're all consistently inflated. MV's are all over the place without any objectivity or standards.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 23, 2011)

trackbiker said:


> Good points threecy. There's no consistency to how MV subjectively calculates their vertical.
> At least with the mountains self reports we know they're all consistently inflated. MV's are all over the place without any objectivity or standards.



hilarious

lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> hilarious
> 
> lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting



All MV's info, is just another opinion, offered to those that can't make an informed judgment on their own. 

Oh, I'm also in that club at K-Mart that skis from K-Peak to the Skyeship Base... so maybe I'm already biased against MV's "opinion".


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> hilarious
> 
> lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting



Seriously, what is so inaccurate about peak and base elevations and a bit of arithmetic? 

Seems to me that lil frankie is trying to be a wannabe Nader in this quest.

And he does not question Greek Peak's vert? They measure their base altitude from the parking lot. Now there is a case for him to examine.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 23, 2011)

I agree with all of the points mentioned about the subjectivity and inaccuracies of all this.  

But also, who cares?  Seems like a ton of work to nitpick about something no one really cares about.  I judge a mountain by a lot of things but reported vertical isn't one of them.  Vertical does count, but only in the sense of how it feels, not how it's reported. For example, I have no idea what Wildcat's vertical is or how they report it.  I just know that it feels like a lot when I ski it....and I like it.  If I only ski the Zoomer lift at Cannon does the mountain's reported vertical matter to me?  Whistler has HUGE vert (although I have no idea what it is or how they report it) but who skis it top to bottom?  So who cares?


----------



## threecy (Feb 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting



Seems to me perhaps the most objective way to look at this would be to look at maximum vertical served by one lift.  That's certainly something I look at when I'm looking for a place to ski.


----------



## EPB (Feb 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> Seems to me perhaps the most objective way to look at this would be to look at maximum vertical served by one lift.  That's certainly something I look at when I'm looking for a place to ski.



Me too!


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 23, 2011)

threecy said:


> Seems to me perhaps the most objective way to look at this would be to look at maximum vertical served by one lift.  That's certainly something I look at when I'm looking for a place to ski.



I agree, but it depends though.

Some mountains it requires two lifts to ski a particular run.  The Kidderbrook area at Stratton comes to mind.  Great glades out on that part of the mountain, but you need to take two lifts to ski them.


----------



## dw2 (Feb 23, 2011)

Is that stratton vertical top to sun bowl base, because that's pretty close to the vert they claim.

also, Gunstock i measured cause I was curious. in person, 1390 feet (no, didn't use a tape measure, used a pretty accurate altimeter) - I'll give them the 1400 because pistol is a tiny bit lower than Panorama.


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 23, 2011)

I'm having deja vu all over again.


----------



## billski (Feb 23, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> So who cares?


I agree.  But I would like to see this comparison of mountains: 



Number of Waffle Haus's


Bathrooms on the first floor
Price of  Cheeseburger
Cost of Valet Parking
Free Bag Check
Inside ticket purchase

:dunce:


----------



## kcyanks1 (Feb 23, 2011)

billski said:


> I agree.  But I would like to see this comparison of mountains:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes!  Also bathrooms on mountain (top, middle) so I don't have to go down to the bottom (for a mountain you don't always ski top-to-bottom, or one where the base lodge is out of the way).


----------



## billski (Feb 23, 2011)

kcyanks1 said:


> Yes!  Also bathrooms on mountain (top, middle) so I don't have to go down to the bottom (for a mountain you don't always ski top-to-bottom, or one where the base lodge is out of the way).


Ski through McDonalds.


----------



## oakapple (Feb 23, 2011)

Unfortunately, Frank has been utterly deaf to the criticisms of his methodology, and what he claims is objective is nothing of the kind.

Probably the best solution is to present several numbers, and let the reader decide what’s important. That would eliminate subjective judgments, like “Nobody skis Killington Peak to Skyeship Base.”


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 23, 2011)

I think Frank got what he wanted out of his post.


----------



## marcski (Feb 23, 2011)

It doesn't really matter does it? ....the precise Vertical of a hill.  What's been hard, challenging and fun to ski is hard, challenging and fun to ski whether its 200 or 300 feet shorter or longer in vertical than you initially thought.  

Also, I think you need to add in average pitch or steepness over the entire length of a lift pod or mountain's vertical in order to get a better barometer and really make sense of the numbers.


----------



## marcski (Feb 23, 2011)

Also there are definitely some kinks in the site>...

I looked out west at Alta's listing.  MV claims 2005 but then goes on to state "Alta height based on total elevation difference is 2528 ft".    Now that last sentence leads one to believe that Alta claims that their vert is 2528...which they do not..they claim it is 2020.   However, MV's number  is close to accurate if you include the hike upto Mt. Baldy.


----------



## EPB (Feb 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I agree, but it depends though.
> 
> Some mountains it requires two lifts to ski a particular run.  The Kidderbrook area at Stratton comes to mind.  Great glades out on that part of the mountain, but you need to take two lifts to ski them.



For me, I find little to be more obnoxious about a ski area's layout than having to take two lifts to ski the entirety of a run.  It's one of my few complaints with Sugarloaf (which I consider my favorite eastern resort), because most of the goodies off of the summit require two lifts to ski again.  They have serious weather issues to combat, but it's still very inefficient.  The silver lining, of course, is that said runs are less likely to get abused.


----------



## EPB (Feb 23, 2011)

marcski said:


> It doesn't really matter does it? ....the precise Vertical of a hill.  What's been hard, challenging and fun to ski is hard, challenging and fun to ski whether its 200 or 300 feet shorter or longer in vertical than you initially thought.
> 
> Also, I think you need to add in average pitch or steepness over the entire length of a lift pod or mountain's vertical in order to get a better barometer and really make sense of the numbers.



I actually like to look at a lift's vertical relative to its length.  The ratio gives decent insight into average pitch (though isolated pitch can vary dramatically as lift lines get longer), and the length/vertical of a lift are useful for determining how long the runs should last relative to other areas.  

The average pitch is far from perfect, though.  Consider the Wildcat Summit Express and the FourRunner Quad at Stowe.  Wildcat offers 2041 vertical served by a 6616 foot lift.  Stowe offers 2040 feet of vertical serviced by a 6280 foot lift.  Little distinguishes them until you observe that Wildcat's pitch is as consistent as it comes, while Stowe has more steeps followed by more flats.


----------



## pro2860 (Feb 23, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Seriously, what is so inaccurate about peak and base elevations and a bit of arithmetic?
> 
> Seems to me that lil frankie is trying to be a wannabe Nader in this quest.
> 
> And he does not question Greek Peak's vert? They measure their base altitude from the parking lot. Now there is a case for him to examine.




I checked Greek Peak with a garmin etrex handheld gps and found the parking lot to be 1335 Feet and the highest point I found was top of chair 1 at just under 2100 feet....Their stated vertical is 952 ft.....


----------



## ctenidae (Feb 23, 2011)

billski said:


> I agree.  But I would like to see this comparison of mountains:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I prefer Waffle Cabin, myself.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 23, 2011)

I would dispute several of the numbers above based on having personally reviewed topo maps. Heck, I am half tempted to altimeter test some of these so called "true ups". But I probably won't cause in the grand scheme of things, it isn't an issue I care about that much. But I do care about ski areas being slandered with unfounded data, especially that proporting to be scientifically founded. I was on the fence about this true up thing at the start. Now I say its bunk. Let's keep the vert as the ski areas hype them with non-continuous vert and rounding and all. Heck with it. This attempt has proven its folly to attempt to dispute the established system We all know so many areas really are off. But by that much? Nah. Some numbers are bumped a smidge to hit a benchmark number but this is just junk science.



tipsdown said:


> I do like this...It definitely gives you a better measurement of a mountain's true vertical....Having said that, I don't understand Saddleback...That doesn't appear accurate.  You can certainly ski all 2k vertical from top-bottom.  There's some runout out but it's fall line vertical.


Saddleback does not make sense but don't forget that the beginner quad is below the base area. That couldn't be more than 100-200 vert. I could buy a true up vert of 1800' but the number above seems WAY off.


----------



## MV Frank (Feb 23, 2011)

Man...out of roughly 500 ski resorts in North America, the #1 most controversial out of everything continues to be *KILLINGTON*. Almost every single resort listing is dispute-free, but killington seems to always stick out. No one is getting riled up about SUNDAY RIVER getting chopped vertical, or SMUGGS getting chopped down, or removing snubber from SUGARLOAF...that's because the rest of the hundreds of ski resorts out there are cut and dry cases, where it is totally clear that true-up makes sense to anyone with half a brain.

...and then there is Killington...the ONE tricky one that will forever spark heated debate. People get angry and fired up at the K1 measurement, rant and denounce the metric as a result. But if we were to put out a number of ~3000 ft vertical, others will lash out "bullshit, a REAL 3000 ft fall line is Snowbird's drop, not traversing across intersections at Killington." For all other ski resorts it is very clear, but Killy's a strange case that's a pain to report on.

*The SPIRIT of the True-up stat is to provide something meaningful and informative (and certainly not to slander resorts)*
In this spirit, it is _informative _to report that Killington offers roughly 1650 vertical of advanced fall line terrain
It is also _informative _to report that Killington offers about 2500 vertical of mostly green terrain, long winding trails (skye to skyeship)

Don't you get it? True-up is simply a means to standardize everything behind a name. It is not about the stat...it is about the spirit, and the the spirit here is to provide better information. Don't discount that.

*Oakapple *actually called us out on something we said we were going to do a long time ago, but didn't do -- provide multiple numbers for Killington and allow the readers decide what's important to them. That was way back in October in AlpineZone forums...and we never got around to it. Blame is on part laziness and part complexity in getting it done (the database behind the site really isn't set up to report multiple numbers like this...we gotta 'hack' it bit). But no more excuses...it is up now:

http://mountainvertical.com/biggest-skiing-in-new-england.html#59

All three numbers are there:
1645 ft maximum fall line - K1
2551 ft of continuous run from skye to skyeship, namely great eastern
3033 ft from the top of catwalk to skyeship, if you choose to do that

People will continue to debate about killington, which is why we now provide all the info on MV.
But for those of you saying this is an 'arbitrary' metric, *consider that Killington is a really weird case, and that for 99% of resorts out there, the determination of true-up stat is very clear.*

Anyway, hope this helps calm things down and make a little peace. There was a lot of hard work going into this, I hate to see it shit on because everyone disagrees with Killington's stat. Get with the spirit of what we're trying to do here.


----------



## MV Frank (Feb 23, 2011)

oh yeah, and I forgot to mention
@ riverc0il:
Saddleback is 1719 ft if you include the greens at the bottom, but 1542 ft on all runs from the summit to the lodge. Check the topos if you doubt it yourself.

yes, they did round up 1719 up to 2000 feet.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 23, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> *The SPIRIT of the True-up stat is to provide something meaningful and informative (and certainly not to slander resorts)*
> In this spirit, it is _informative _to report that Killington offers roughly 1650 vertical of advanced fall line terrain
> It is also _informative _to report that Killington offers about 2500 vertical of mostly green terrain, long winding trails (skye to skyeship)
> 
> Don't you get it? True-up is simply a means to standardize everything behind a name. It is not about the stat...it is about the spirit, and the the spirit here is to provide better information. Don't discount that.



True Up does not provide something meaningful and informative

True Up provides your opinion

Your data is highly subjective

In the case of Sugarloaf.  Why ommit the snubber pod?  How do you know if it's not someone's preference when they ski there to ski from the top of Tote all the way down to the Shipyard Brewhaus.  It might not be YOUR particular preference on how to ski the mountain, but it could be someone elses. 

Compare that to Mt. Ellen at Sugarbush.  What's the difference with cutting out the Summit Quad's Vert at Sugarbush vs the Snubber Quad's Vert at Sugarloaf?  Most people I know don't ski Sugarbush North top to bottom.  But, they could if they wanted to.

Ultimately, any 'veteran' skier who's got 100 days on the snow knows how to read between the lines when researching areas.  Most people with less than that simply don't care.

Yes, mountains do 'stretch the truth' of what they've got. While an interesting read, I don't think your website does all that much to paint an accurate picture.  It offers your opinion and that's about it.

By the way, the cheeseburger on the poster at Wendy's?  Never had one that looked that good.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 23, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> Anyway, hope this helps calm things down and make a little peace. There was a lot of hard work going into this, I hate to see it shit on because everyone disagrees with Killington's stat. Get with the spirit of what we're trying to do here.



Lastly,

Your attitude about True Up is rather smug.  You seem like the type of guy who can't admit when they're wrong.  The authority behind your statements regarding how ski areas should be viewed is pretty much equally as off putting as how mountains market themselves by stretching the truth.

There maybe some metric to truly measure a mountain.  I just don't think you've hit it.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 23, 2011)

I stand corrected on Saddleback, that is shocking! Not even 1800' if you include the beginner area at the bottom. Scandalous!



MV Frank said:


> True-up is simply a means to standardize everything behind a name. It is not about the stat...


That said, I still think you shouldn't be applying a word like "standardize" to your project. You are just changing the measurement reported. The STANDARD is top to bottom vert, continuous or not. Like it or not, that takes the subjectivity out of the equation.

I appreciate your efforts to true up incorrectly reported vertical (such as Saddleback's). Let's call out those scamming marketers (and I'll say that even though I LOVE Saddleback!) for taking an exaggeration and spinning it into a complete and total fabrication.

You seem defensive about the K vs other areas. Here is the difference I have observed here. NO ONE sets a goal to ski Loaf top to Snubber bottom unless they are going back to their condos. No one sets a goal to ski Jordan or Oz Peak down to White Cap base as a skiing run unless they truly need to get to White Cap Base for a reason. Folks on here report that folks DO ski K Peak to Route 4 and not just as an end of day run. I find it hard to imagine, I certainly wouldn't do it, but I can see why a beginner or intermediate skier or someone that loves a lower angle T2B long ripping groomer run might love that sort of thing. Your 'standards' imply everyone else shares your definition of continuous vertical. 

Damned if I never stop dissing Sugarbush for its run outs. But that doesn't mean both Bush North and South don't have legit claim to well over 2k' T2B vert. I think it SUCKS skiing those mountains top to bottom. Some folks love it. Whatev. Maybe some folks love ripping K top to bottom, I dunno. There are just too many factors, too many ways to measure by too many standards. It convinced me that the current and actual standard is probably better than any other.

That don't excuse resorts for exaggerating vertical feet in increments of hundreds of feet though


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Lastly,
> 
> Your attitude about True Up is rather smug.  You seem like the type of guy who can't admit when they're wrong.  The authority behind your statements regarding how ski areas should be viewed is pretty much equally as off putting as how mountains market themselves by stretching the truth.
> 
> There maybe some metric to truly measure a mountain.  I just don't think you've hit it.



I disagree. I haven't seen anything that really qualifies as "smug" from him, unless it is in another thread. I haven't seen anything to evidence that he cannot admit when he is wrong. 

But what I have seen is you kind of being an a$$ to him when all he has done is tried to explain himself. He even tailored the website and the description of Killington to pair nicely with all the Kmart whine. 

Your combativeness seems unprovoked, honestly (again, unless I am missing some part of this story). His attempts at accurately reporting vert might not be perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than what most mountains report.

And while obviously there is subjectivity to "True Up", imo a researched, thoughtful, and articulate opinion that attempts to paint an honest picture is better than thoughtless adherence to straight math that is used to paint a patently dishonest picture. 

I am not singling out any one resort either, because if one does it, then they all, kinda, have to do it, or risk losing customers [unless they want to try to warrant for that by putting up a loud "Truth in Vert" advertisement/notice, like some have done with Snow Reporting]. Thus, they are all guilty, but all blameless...unless you could find out who did it first, many years ago...


----------



## skidmarks (Feb 23, 2011)

skidmarks said:


> Nice report! Does the Thunderbolt really have 1900 Vert??



I find it amazing that you could have had a real 2,000 vertical drop resort at Mt Greylock in Ma that would have put it ahead of Jay Peak and Mad River Glen. Talk about a missed opportunity. I know they tried to develop Greylock Glen but that would have been a small 700ish area.


----------



## trackbiker (Feb 23, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> Man...out of roughly 500 ski resorts in North America, the #1 most controversial out of everything continues to be *KILLINGTON*. Almost every single resort listing is dispute-free, but killington seems to always stick out. No one is getting riled up about SUNDAY RIVER getting chopped vertical, or SMUGGS getting chopped down, or removing snubber from SUGARLOAF...that's because the rest of the hundreds of ski resorts out there are cut and dry cases, where it is totally clear that true-up makes sense to anyone with half a brain.
> 
> ...and then there is Killington...the ONE tricky one that will forever spark heated debate. People get angry and fired up at the K1 measurement, rant and denounce the metric as a result. But if we were to put out a number of ~3000 ft vertical, others will lash out "bullshit, a REAL 3000 ft fall line is Snowbird's drop, not traversing across intersections at Killington." For all other ski resorts it is very clear, but Killy's a strange case that's a pain to report on.



Frank, You miss the whole point. It's not that you chop vertical. It's how you do it subjectively.
Read RiverCoils post on Sugarbush for example. You don't apply the same subjective measurements there as you do to at Killington. It's not Killington. It's your subjective measurements that are not applied consistently. 
I'm in the group that doesn't really take into account what anyone says about the vertical when deciding where to ski. I had map reading in second grade. I can figure it out myself. Most people end up skiing pods anyway. I just hate BS marketing and your methodology does nothing to help because there is no objectivity in your numbers.


----------



## threecy (Feb 24, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> But I do care about ski areas being slandered with unfounded data, especially that proporting to be scientifically founded. I was on the fence about this true up thing at the start. Now I say its bunk.



Well said.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 24, 2011)

That's it. I am going all in with a defense of the Loaf's vertical RE: the Snubber lift. For the record, I hardly ever ski the Loaf and I am no Loaf homer. Not that a Loaf homer couldn't make the same argument but I want to state up front that I have no defensive bias here.

I bet beginners and intermediates skiing snowfields to Snubber are blown away by all that skiing. I bet its HARD for them to keep skiing down the Snubber after already having skied 2200 vert from the summit. Even if its not hard to add the Snubber, I bet they are truly blown away by that much vertical and how different it is from other mountains. Even if it is not sustained steep vertical, it is irrelevant. They skied it, they were probably impressed by it, and its a legit reason for skiing the Loaf... to experience that type of vertical drop.... EVEN if only skiing T2B just to get back to a condo.... even for an expert skier. That's still a crap ton of vert.

Yes, it is not continuous expert pitch. But WHAT mountain in New England has continuous Top to Bottom expert pitch. HOW can you say the Snubber is not legit because it is a run out but other mountains with run outs count, just because you HAVE to ski them to get back to certain lifts if going Top to (almost but not quite excepting a base area trail) Bottom. I cited the Bush earlier for bad run out. Same with Jay. The entire Metro Quad area and the last 100-200' stateside is strictly figure 11'ing back to the lift. Boring! Still part of the vert. Have to ski it though. But I don't have to ski the Snubber if I don't want and personally I normally wouldn't except staying at a condo so therefore it doesn't count even though some other folks might enjoy that sorta thing?

I disagree with how you are truing up mountain vertical. Loaf is legit, IMO. So is Sunday River. So is Killington. Just because that is not how I personally ski the mountain does not mean that it is not an option that some skiers want to do and enjoy. I think you are better off dropping the subjectivity from the site and focusing on actual vertical numbers. I agree that two non-interconnected mountains should be called out for using non-continuous numbers. Biggest continuous vert only as a measuring tool for those mountains is important. But if the vertical is all continuous, you are not applying a standard but rather you are applying subjectivity that others can and will disagree with. Standards are universally accepted.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 24, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> oh yeah, and I forgot to mention
> @ riverc0il:
> Saddleback is 1719 ft if you include the greens at the bottom, but 1542 ft on all runs from the summit to the lodge. Check the topos if you doubt it yourself.
> 
> yes, they did round up 1719 up to 2000 feet.



Does the 1719 figure measure from the top of the lift or the top of the snowfields?  I do believe Saddleback counts their snowfields in their vertical measurement just as Sugarloaf does.

just curious


----------



## threecy (Feb 24, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I do believe Saddleback counts their snowfields in their vertical measurement just as Sugarloaf does.



I believe Saddleback does, though it's a bit more of a stretch than Sugarloaf, since it's more of a hike to get to the summit from the top of their lift.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 24, 2011)

Who cares.  Shut up and ski the damn mountain and enjoy it.  Crap, I would be happy skiing Nashoba today instead of working.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 24, 2011)

Whiteface has 2300 vert off of the gondi.  Off of the summit chair there is 1600 ft vert.  You can ski from the summit to the bottom for 3200 vert and it is all storng Intermediate(blacks at other mountains) and Blacks.   Suragloaf is the the only hill in the East that compares from a vert stand point, The only problem is it will take an hour to get to the top.  Well i can not comment on Wildcat cause I have never been there.   Sugarbush, Stowe, Smuggs come in after that.  K I put in a class with Gore and Jay peak.   Cannon is steep but short.  May be if the Tram were running that would not have been my opinion.

All the other hills are feeder hills
:beer:


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Feb 24, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Folks on here report that folks DO ski K Peak to Route 4 and not just as an end of day run. I find it hard to imagine, I certainly wouldn't do it, but I can see why a beginner or intermediate skier or someone that loves a lower angle T2B long ripping groomer run might love that sort of thing. Your 'standards' imply everyone else shares your definition of continuous vertical.



As someone who ski's the Kpeak to rt 4 route several times while I visit K, I can confirm (as others have) that is it is possible, and should count.  Being from PA I ski short 600-700 vert runs, so eventhough I classify myself a level 8-9 skier, I also enjoy taking a long groomers.  especially on cold days, because the family likes to ride the gondola to get warm.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 24, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> Cannon is steep but short:


How can you tell someone is a Whiteface skier?

They think 2k vert is short. 

:lol:


----------



## oakapple (Feb 24, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> *Oakapple *actually called us out on something we said we were going to do a long time ago, but didn't do -- provide multiple numbers for Killington and allow the readers decide what's important to them. That was way back in October in AlpineZone forums...and we never got around to it. Blame is on part laziness and part complexity in getting it done (the database behind the site really isn't set up to report multiple numbers like this...we gotta 'hack' it bit). But no more excuses...it is up now:.....
> 
> People will continue to debate about killington, which is why we now provide all the info on MV. But for those of you saying this is an 'arbitrary' metric, *consider that Killington is a really weird case, and that for 99% of resorts out there, the determination of true-up stat is very clear.*


Although you've now added what amounts to a "footnote" for Killington, your primary stat remains the subjective one, namely, your opinion of the longest run you would personally be interested in doing. As other folks have noted, this subjectivity affects your "rating" of many other mountains, not just Killington.

To really do it right, you probably need 2 or 3 numbers, rather than just one. For instance:

1) Highest lift-serviced terrain to lowest lift-serviced terrain, even if not connected.

2) Longest possible continuous run, even if part of it is green.

3) Your stat, namely, "the most vertical distance at a resort that can be achieved on commonly skied, lift-served, continuous fall-line runs."

Another possible approach is to show green, blue, and black. For instance, at Killington I don't see any conceivable argument that Great Eastern is NOT a legitimate, top-to-bottom continuous run. The only reason you're excluding it is that it's green (although G.E. would probably be blue at many resorts).

The point being: to an extent, you're accusing the mountains of shading the truth, and there is nothing false about including green runs in the true vertical.


----------



## tipsdown (Feb 24, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I stand corrected on Saddleback, that is shocking! Not even 1800' if you include the beginner area at the bottom. Scandalous!
> 
> 
> That said, I still think you shouldn't be applying a word like "standardize" to your project. You are just changing the measurement reported. The STANDARD is top to bottom vert, continuous or not. Like it or not, that takes the subjectivity out of the equation.
> ...



As discussed, not that it matters much but.....Saddleback does have 2k of vert.  The topo you're looking at is outdated.  About 5 years ago they extended the learning area down and installed a quad.  The topo maps referenced still show the T-Bar with the smaller learning area.  If you look carefully you'll notice that the new trail network (that extends further down the mountain) isn't even on the map.  Yes they do include the snowfields. But I wouldn't consider this scandelous.  If your going to nail them on snowfields then it's more like 1880 of vert.  If you don't then it's 2k.


----------



## Riverskier (Feb 24, 2011)

Frank, I like the site. While there is clearly some subjectivity, I find this a much more meaningful measure of a resort's vert than what is reported by ski areas. For the record, I ski at Sunday River and ski from the top of Oz/Jordan to the bottom of Barker/White Cap at least once per day and enjoy it. However, I still agree that the vert you are reporting for SR is a much more meaningful number.


----------



## oakapple (Feb 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Who cares.  Shut up and ski the damn mountain and enjoy it.


A website devoted to the ski industry claims that "The numbers floating around out there now are simply not accurate," and purports to be putting out something that will "keep them honest."

If you're going to accuse the ski resorts of shading the truth, and then you shade it yourself in another direction, you need to be called on it.


----------



## Bumpsis (Feb 24, 2011)

FridayHiker said:


> Agreed.  Someone needs to show MV how to ski Cannon.  You can definitely ski from the Tram to the base of Mittersill, so why the arbitrary decision to exclude that route?
> 
> MV just lost its credibility in my book.



I wouldn't call myself a Cannon expert but I do know the area fairly well, so I'm really curious. How do you ski from the top of the Tram served top to Mittersill base?
This of course excludes the traditional path down Taft Slalom and the hike over.

If you mean the traverse down Tuckerbrook area, OK, I have not been there for a long time now, but it looks to me (looking at a map) that you'd need to take the Tuckerbrook quad first. So even if there is a direct passage to Mittersill from the base of Tuckerbrook, it's still a major traverse and that's a big part of debunking the vertical claims that ski areas have made.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 24, 2011)

oakapple said:


> A website devoted to the ski industry claims that "The numbers floating around out there now are simply not accurate," and purports to be putting out something that will "keep them honest."
> 
> If you're going to accuse the ski resorts of shading the truth, and then you shade it yourself in another direction, you need to be called on it.


 

Does it really matter what the vert is for a mountain. 

In the immortal words of the Planet Fitness ad

You go up! You go down!


----------



## EPB (Feb 24, 2011)

It seems odd that people are making a fuss over the subjectivity of these vertical drop numbers.  The project seeks to set up a reasonable set of criteria off which to make vertical drop calculations.  For the most part, I cannot say that these numbers are far off.  I have not been to Sugarbush in the winter, but those numbers seem a bit perplexing.  Admittedly, I wouldn't be one to judge.  

I also don't understand why MV has come off as arrogant/wont admit wrong in any way, shape, or form.  The guy has been criticized, and not unjustly because this is a subjective topic, and he has explained his thought process in further detail.  This is not an exact science, these are measurements based on opinions.  Reasonably valid ones if you ask me.  

Nothing quantitative in skiing will be able to ensure that you have a good day on the slopes, and no statistical measure will be able to express numerically the extent to which a skier will enjoy a certain area based on their preferences.  They are just numbers, and interesting, thought provoking ones at that.  Good job- interesting stuff.


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 24, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> Frank, I like the site. While there is clearly some subjectivity, I find this a much more meaningful measure of a resort's vert than what is reported by ski areas. For the record, I ski at Sunday River and ski from the top of Oz/Jordan to the bottom of Barker/White Cap at least once per day and enjoy it. However, I still agree that the vert you are reporting for SR is a much more meaningful number.



Exactly!



oakapple said:


> A website devoted to the ski industry claims that "The numbers floating around out there now are simply not accurate," and purports to be putting out something that will "keep them honest."
> 
> If you're going to accuse the ski resorts of shading the truth, and then you shade it yourself in another direction, you need to be called on it.



Come on, seriously? (My understanding is that) the resorts use strict math that in no way paints an accurate picture. Frank uses a heavy dose of human subjectivity to try to paint a more accurate picture, and I think the attempt is laudable and informative in a way that none of the resorts really can claim.

I am shocked at how combative some of you are about it. Does Frank have some agenda that I don't know about? Why so many raw nerves being struck?

To me, it is just like a car review or Consumer Reports. When they rate things like "interior styling" or "Options offered", they obviously make subjective choices about what styles or options they like/value. They rank cars based on those individual criteria (of course, they also use all their micro criteria to make an attempt at "Car of the Year" rankings that attempt to be more macro). Naturally, not all people agree with their subjective ranking of "interior styling" or what have you, just as not all people agree that skiing from Catwalk to Skyeship represents the Killington experience in a way that makes reporting that vertical meaningful to the public.   

Consumer Reports and the car magazines hold themselves out to be truth seekers against the back drop of automotive marketing and claims, and I am glad they exist. To me, True Up offers the same sort of review for Vert marketing/claims made by mountains. And, like Consumer Reports, Frank readily publishes his methodology on the website, which is more than you can say for most mountains!


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 24, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> It seems odd that people are making a fuss over the subjectivity of these vertical drop numbers.  The project seeks to set up a reasonable set of criteria off which to make vertical drop calculations.  For the most part, I cannot say that these numbers are far off.  I have not been to Sugarbush in the winter, but those numbers seem a bit perplexing.  Admittedly, I wouldn't be one to judge.
> 
> I also don't understand why MV has come off as arrogant/wont admit wrong in any way, shape, or form.  The guy has been criticized, and not unjustly because this is a subjective topic, and he has explained his thought process in further detail.  This is not an exact science, these are measurements based on opinions.  Reasonably valid ones if you ask me.
> 
> Nothing quantitative in skiing will be able to ensure that you have a good day on the slopes, and no statistical measure will be able to express numerically the extent to which a skier will enjoy a certain area based on their preferences.  They are just numbers, and interesting, thought provoking ones at that.  Good job- interesting stuff.



Ding ding ding. EPB ftw!!!


----------



## Puck it (Feb 24, 2011)

I thought size does not matter!!!


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 24, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I thought size does not matter!!!




They are being nice.  :beer:


----------



## Puck it (Feb 24, 2011)

tjf67 said:


> They are being nice. :beer:


 
You mean the mountains or my wife?


----------



## oakapple (Feb 24, 2011)

jaywbigred said:


> I am shocked at how combative some of you are about it.


I actually agree with you that what Frank is _attempting_ to do is laudable. It is because it is so laudable that his inaccuracies are so unfortunate.



> To me, it is just like a car review or Consumer Reports. When they rate things like "interior styling" or "Options offered", they obviously make subjective choices about what styles or options they like/value.


I think the difference is that everyone realizes Consumer Reports is a subjective judgment, albeit one that is prepared by experts. But Frank is purporting to publish something factual, when (for many mountains) he is _really_ just substituting one form of subjectivity for another.

His work, as good as it is, could be so much better if he debunked the _real_ inaccuracies, and then made the subjective part of it abundantly clear. That's what Consumer Reports does.


----------



## Mapnut (Feb 24, 2011)

I'd like to speak up in defense of Frank, who's done publicly what I've been doing privately for years - checking vertical drop on topo. (I have mentioned a few results on Snowjournal.  ) I agree with almost all his numbers, disregarding his decisions to drop vertical feet that aren't really worth skiing (I side with the Killington 3,000ers on that). I've found that roughly half of all ski areas lie about their vertical drop (more than just rounding up) and it's good to call them out.  By the way, little ski areas are generally worse liars than big ones - and NELSAP areas were the worst!

But I think both Frank and Riverc0il are making the same mistake on Saddleback. I agree with Frank's number from the top of the summit quad (El. 4020, 100 feet below the true summit) to the base lodge. For the overall vertical, I'm guessing you're both looking at Google Earth.  It shows the old T-bar novice area below the base lodge.  I can't find a map which shows the bottom of the present South Branch quad, but Skilifts.org lists its length as 2760 and its vertical as 346.  That's vertical below the base lodge.  The base lodge is about 2460 so the lowest elevation is about 2120.  If you allow them the 100 hike-up feet to the summit, they get the 2000.  I'd call that an acceptable stretch, not a lie.

Excuse me, Tipsdown, I missed your post where you already pointed out the difference in the lower lifts at Saddleback.


----------



## threecy (Feb 24, 2011)

Part of the problem is that this seems to be billed as an objective professional project when in fact it is objective personal research.




jaywbigred said:


> And, like Consumer Reports, Frank readily publishes his methodology on the website



Not quite...I don't see any references to what the source material for the measurements is.

It certainly can't be the USGS maps, as they don't offer measurements down to the foot for most of these ski areas.

Thus, what is it?  Using a cursor in Google Earth?


----------



## tipsdown (Feb 24, 2011)

Mapnut said:


> I'd like to speak up in defense of Frank, who's done publicly what I've been doing privately for years - checking vertical drop on topo. (I have mentioned a few results on Snowjournal.  ) I agree with almost all his numbers, disregarding his decisions to drop vertical feet that aren't really worth skiing (I side with the Killington 3,000ers on that). I've found that roughly half of all ski areas lie about their vertical drop (more than just rounding up) and it's good to call them out.  By the way, little ski areas are generally worse liars than big ones - and NELSAP areas were the worst!
> 
> But I think both Frank and Riverc0il are making the same mistake on Saddleback. I agree with Frank's number from the top of the summit quad (El. 4020, 100 feet below the true summit) to the base lodge. For the overall vertical, I'm guessing you're both looking at Google Earth.  It shows the old T-bar novice area below the base lodge.  I can't find a map which shows the bottom of the present South Branch quad, but Skilifts.org lists its length as 2760 and its vertical as 346.  That's vertical below the base lodge.  The base lodge is about 2460 so the lowest elevation is about 2120.  If you allow them the 100 hike-up feet to the summit, they get the 2000.  I'd call that an acceptable stretch, not a lie.



Agreed.  Well said.


----------



## ceo (Feb 24, 2011)

Bumpsis said:


> I wouldn't call myself a Cannon expert but I do know the area fairly well, so I'm really curious. How do you ski from the top of the Tram served top to Mittersill base?
> This of course excludes the traditional path down Taft Slalom and the hike over.



As I noted above, you can get to Mittersill base from Peabody base via the Fleitman Trail, but it requires a fair amount of poling.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 24, 2011)

ceo said:


> As I noted above, you can get to Mittersill base from Peabody base via the Fleitman Trail, but it requires a fair amount of poling.


 
Now, that we have come full circle. Let's go around again.


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 24, 2011)

oakapple said:


> But Frank is purporting to publish something factual, when (for many mountains) he is _really_ just substituting one form of subjectivity for another.



I guess it boils down to me disagreeing with this statement. I don't think Frank purports to publish anything factual, if by "factual" you mean "resultant from scientific study". I think it is pretty clear from his published description of the methodology used that what he is doing is subjective, and not the product of a science experiment. In describing it, he uses words like "commonly skied", "skiability", "skier's perspective" that make it obvious subjectivity is involved, at least imo.


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 24, 2011)

threecy said:


> Part of the problem is that this seems to be billed as an objective professional project when in fact it is objective personal research.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, I'll agree with that. I was referring to his lopping off whole sections of mountains, not so much that derivation of the data. Maybe he can speak to the method to getting measurements down to the foot...


----------



## oakapple (Feb 24, 2011)

jaywbigred said:


> I don't think Frank purports to publish anything factual, if by "factual" you mean "resultant from scientific study". I think it is pretty clear from his published description of the methodology used that what he is doing is subjective, and not the product of a science experiment.


Oh really? Read the following (from his site), and try to tell me it _doesn't_ go to great lengths, to try to persuade you that the site is reporting facts. Even the label, "True-Up Vertical," creates the impression that other statistics are false.



> About MountainVertical.com Verification of Stats
> It should all be about accuracy:
> MountainVertical.com is seeking to independently verify every single metric that every ski resort out there claims – to keep them honest. We've spent thousands of hours to conduct deep analyses and independently calculate the key stats for every resort: vertical drop, true-up vertical, and skiable area.
> Our aim is to be the most reliable independent resource on the web for ski and snowboard mountain metrics.  . . .
> ...


----------



## campgottagopee (Feb 24, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> And he does not question Greek Peak's vert? They measure their base altitude from the parking lot. Now there is a case for him to examine.



You leave Greek Peak outta this....it's all about Sundown around these parts :razz:


----------



## bobbutts (Feb 24, 2011)

> What is our method? Verify, verify, verify. For every single resort, we _independently analyze and calculate_ numbers for vertical drop, true-up vertical drop, and skiable acreage. *We're  able to do this by using external mountain data to perform our own  independent topographic analysis of what the numbers should be, and draw  our own conclusions.* We can understand everything there is to know about a ski resort’s mountain topography, and report it accurately on this site.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's the statement from the site.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 24, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> You leave Greek Peak outta this....it's all about Sundown around these parts :razz:


 

I knew it.  Size does matter.


----------



## MV Frank (Feb 24, 2011)

nice lively discussion about this...everyone's thoughts (even if disagreeing) are good to hear - thanks. Hey even if I butt heads with some, its refreshing to do it with an analytical group able to actually make intelligent arguments (much more than can be said about other forums..)

There is a lot I want to weigh in on based on a lot of the discourse, but I'm in a rush right now to get out the door -- 4.5 hour drive to Jay Peak for 3 days (its going to dump snow tomorrow ) Maybe when I get back, if this thread is still active. In any case, hope you guys can get up there to the pow...peace.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 24, 2011)

Wonder how much vertical he will get in the drive?


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 24, 2011)

campgottagopee said:


> You leave Greek Peak outta this....it's all about Sundown around these parts :razz:


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 24, 2011)

MV Frank said:


> nice lively discussion about this...everyone's thoughts (even if disagreeing) are good to hear - thanks. Hey even if I butt heads with some, its refreshing to do it with an analytical group able to actually make intelligent arguments (much more than can be said about other forums..)
> 
> There is a lot I want to weigh in on based on a lot of the discourse, but I'm in a rush right now to get out the door -- 4.5 hour drive to Jay Peak for 3 days (its going to dump snow tomorrow ) Maybe when I get back, if this thread is still active. In any case, hope you guys can get up there to the pow...peace.



Take some lessons while you are up there little man. It will do you good.


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 24, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Take some lessons while you are up there little man. It will do you good.



Pretty cool tough guy!!


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 24, 2011)

jaywbigred said:


> Pretty cool tough guy!!



This little fellow will be well served by the instruction at JP.  He will then truly discover the fall line.


----------



## billski (Feb 24, 2011)

Kinda hard to get Yawgoo, Blue Hills, Ward, Bradford wrong.  Now tell me why did he single out MRG as only allowing skiers.  Does that affect the vertical.  

At what vertical does this list begin to become controversial - around Gunstock?

Now, Tony Crocker over at firsttracks used to post quite an analysis of ski areas, where he focused on ski-able vertical, counting top of lift, not mountain summit, etc.  I guess he tore it down.  I always wondered what Tony thought of this new site.

I think I'll just go ski and leave this discussion for the summertime when all I can do is perspire and dream.

Git it done!


----------



## St. Bear (Feb 24, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> This little fellow will be well served by the instruction at JP.  He will then truly discover the fall line.



Is that from the Tough Mudder?  I'm doing it in April.


----------



## billski (Feb 24, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I prefer Waffle Cabin, myself.



If I recall right, someone sued over this name and they had to change.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 24, 2011)

Mapnut said:


> But I think both Frank and Riverc0il are making the same mistake on Saddleback. I agree with Frank's number from the top of the summit quad (El. 4020, 100 feet below the true summit) to the base lodge. For the overall vertical, I'm guessing you're both looking at Google Earth.  It shows the old T-bar novice area below the base lodge.  I can't find a map which shows the bottom of the present South Branch quad, but Skilifts.org lists its length as 2760 and its vertical as 346.  That's vertical below the base lodge.  The base lodge is about 2460 so the lowest elevation is about 2120.  If you allow them the 100 hike-up feet to the summit, they get the 2000.  I'd call that an acceptable stretch, not a lie.


I did reference Google Maps terrain. Obviously not the most accurate topo. But even if you took the summit reading down to below the beginner area, it was barely 1800ish as I recall. Could just be that Google Maps Terrain feature is really just that far off. Let's hear from someone with a USGS reading.


----------



## Hockley Valley (Feb 24, 2011)

About Killington-

Even if you argue  and say the route to the bottom doesn't count(which it totally should)
Isn't the Skyeship HSQ 1800 vertical? from skye peak which is about 3800 to the base of bear which is around 2000


----------



## billski (Feb 24, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I did reference Google Maps terrain. Obviously not the most accurate topo. But even if you took the summit reading down to below the beginner area, it was barely 1800ish as I recall. Could just be that Google Maps Terrain feature is really just that far off. Let's hear from someone with a USGS reading.



OK kids, here is the USGS quad topo for Saddleback.  

According to my GPS software which is loaded with USGS maps we have:
Base(end of road) 2493
Summit 4120
Delta: 1627
and 200 more feet to the base of the beginner lift and bottom-most 2nd road.
total delta: 1827 feet


You guys duke it out and call me in the morning; I'm going to bed.
Remember, these  maps are dated and probably don't reflect the current state of all lifts or trails.

Let me know if you want any other topos.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 25, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Take some lessons while you are up there little man. It will do you good.



Really?  Why


----------



## threecy (Feb 25, 2011)

Hockley Valley said:


> About Killington-
> 
> Even if you argue  and say the route to the bottom doesn't count(which it totally should)
> Isn't the Skyeship HSQ 1800 vertical? from skye peak which is about 3800 to the base of bear which is around 2000



Skye Peak Express is listed as 1,525'

I think, aside from bias, one of the reasons Killington is getting called out with this project is that a sacrificial, high profile area needed to be 'cut down to size' to make a splash.


----------



## EPB (Feb 25, 2011)

threecy said:


> I think, aside from bias, one of the reasons Killington is getting called out with this project is that a sacrificial, high profile area needed to be 'cut down to size' to make a splash.



Potentially. Sensationalism tends to grab the reader's attention.  Along the same vein, I was also very surprised to see that Sunday River was listed at 1728 feet.  The measurement appears to be form the summit of Locke Mountain to the base of White Cap.  You'd figure by that logic that Killington could be measured at least from the summit of Killington Peak to the base of Snowshead/Rams Head.


----------



## oakapple (Feb 25, 2011)

eastern powder baby said:


> Potentially. Sensationalism tends to grab the reader's attention.  Along the same vein, I was also very surprised to see that Sunday River was listed at 1728 feet.  The measurement appears to be form the summit of Locke Mountain to the base of White Cap.  You'd figure by that logic that Killington could be measured at least from the summit of Killington Peak to the base of Snowshead/Rams Head.



Frank is measuring what he judges to be a "continuous fall line." Although there is a single run (Great Northern) that goes from Killington Peak to Ramshead base, it's a Frankenstein trail, having been assembled from various little bits, with a few nearly flat sections along the way. Frank's judgment is that "real skiers" would never do that, which probably comes as a surprise to the crowds you see on Great Northern. Beginners and low intermediates actually derive quite a bit of enjoyment from skiing that route, but to Frank those people aren't real skiers.


----------



## EPB (Feb 25, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Frank is measuring what he judges to be a "continuous fall line." Although there is a single run (Great Northern) that goes from Killington Peak to Ramshead base, it's a Frankenstein trail, having been assembled from various little bits, with a few nearly flat sections along the way. Frank's judgment is that "real skiers" would never do that, which probably comes as a surprise to the crowds you see on Great Northern. Beginners and low intermediates actually derive quite a bit of enjoyment from skiing that route, but to Frank those people aren't real skiers.



I overlooked the "continuous fall line" aspect of the measurements for sure.  

I just was thinking that most Sunday River skiers wouldn't go all the way down to the White Cap base.  Instead, they would head over to the White Heat quad that begins much higher on the mountain. Getting trapped down at the bottom of White Cap is not fun.  Beginner-esque terrain and not much of a run to get back to higher lifts isn't particularly appealing.


----------



## threecy (Feb 25, 2011)

One thing is for sure:  MVFrank != HighwayStar


----------



## jaywbigred (Feb 25, 2011)

oakapple said:


> Frank is measuring what he judges to be a "continuous fall line." Although there is a single run (Great Northern) that goes from Killington Peak to Ramshead base, it's a Frankenstein trail, having been assembled from various little bits, with a few nearly flat sections along the way. Frank's judgment is that "real skiers" would never do that, which probably comes as a surprise to the crowds you see on Great Northern. Beginners and low intermediates actually derive quite a bit of enjoyment from skiing that route, but to Frank those people aren't real skiers.



What percentage of beginners and low intermediates care about a stat like total vert? Maybe what Frank is trying to do, without realize it, is create a meaningful vert stat for people who actually care about things like vert stats...who, I'd bet are high intermediates or better a vast majority of the time. In other words, I'd be surprised if too many of the people that make up the "crowds" on Great Northern gave a darn about total vert advertisements (or even knew what total vert was).


----------



## tipsdown (Feb 25, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I did reference Google Maps terrain. Obviously not the most accurate topo. But even if you took the summit reading down to below the beginner area, it was barely 1800ish as I recall. Could just be that Google Maps Terrain feature is really just that far off. Let's hear from someone with a USGS reading.



Trust me rivercoil, the base level has changed since the new quad went it...The new learning area quad loading area is at 2120 ft. of elevation.


----------



## oakapple (Feb 25, 2011)

jaywbigred said:


> What percentage of beginners and low intermediates care about a stat like total vert? Maybe what Frank is trying to do, without realize it, is create a meaningful vert stat for people who actually care about things like vert stats...who, I'd bet are high intermediates or better a vast majority of the time. In other words, I'd be surprised if too many of the people that make up the "crowds" on Great Northern gave a darn about total vert advertisements (or even knew what total vert was).



As a person who was (I am guessing) a beginner/low intermediate a lot more recently than you were, I can tell you that you are mistaken. The fact that one can ski that long distance on a green trail is a considerable part of Killington's appeal. There are many mountains where the summit is not available to green skiers. For decades, the fact that every Killington chairlift has a green route to the bottom has been part of their selling proposition.

Even lower level skiers quickly figure out the advantages of higher vertical (better snow cover, longer runs before getting back to the chairlift, etc.). "Vertical" isn't such a deep concept that it takes years in the sport before you're aware of it.

Although I am past the point where I find Great Northern & Great Eastern challenging, I still use them occasionally as a change-of-pace. One of the Mountain Ambassadors there (clearly a strong skier) told me recently that he still enjoys skiing Great Eastern regularly.

And of course, Frank doesn't actually say that his claims are limited to skiers of a particular ability. He says that his statistic, "will limit the measurement based on the vertical that is commonly skied." Great Northern and Great Eastern are clearly commonly-skied runs.

The other thing is, Frank's website basically accuses the ski resorts of lying. He says that the purpose of his site is _"to keep them honest."_ If you're going to accuse people of dishonesty, you need to meet a higher standard.  If Frank weren't claiming to be more honest and accurate, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## Mapnut (Feb 25, 2011)

Oh, they lie, all right.  As I said, about half of them.  Maybe a quarter of them blatantly, by at least a hundred feet, and such that you can easily disprove the claims by just looking at a topo map.  There are others you can disprove from the lift installation statistics at skilifts.org.  I have looked at practically all the eastern ski areas, and while topo maps may not always be accurate, I have found several dozen areas that overstate vertical compared to topo - and not one that understates it.

Some areas don't actually state their vertical any more, but sites like skitown.com are still using historically-claimed numbers.  Berkshire East, for instance, doesn't make any claim but an old, much-too-high number of 1180 is still floating around.  I will be interested to see what the installed vertical is for their new triple chair when it's published.  The total vertical for the mountain would be a bit higher, since the original summit triple unloads about 10 feet higher (skilifts.org doesn't go back far enough in time to have that installation) and there's a tiny handle tow below the chairlifts.


----------



## oakapple (Feb 25, 2011)

Mapnut said:


> Oh, they lie, all right.  As I said, about half of them.


I wouldn't mind at all if Frank's website were solely concerned with reporting the actual "lies".


----------



## threecy (Feb 25, 2011)

Mapnut said:


> I will be interested to see what the installed vertical is for their new triple chair when it's published.  The total vertical for the mountain would be a bit higher, since the original summit triple unloads about 10 feet higher (skilifts.org doesn't go back far enough in time to have that installation) and there's a tiny handle tow below the chairlifts.



The newer Poma won't be published in the lift installation survey, as it was a refurbished lift.  Neither lift reaches the true summit, though the Summit Triple unloading ramp is almost the same height as the highpoint.  The bottom terminal of each triple is not the lowest of the lift served terrain at the mountain.  Also, there are some inaccuracies with the USGS map (and thus Google Earth).  Certainly there was some generous rounding involved by the Tambussi ownership, however it was not as much as the 7.5 minute topo would suggest.  It's certainly legit vertical, though, as there's barely any runout involved.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 25, 2011)

Frank

change your metric to Legit Vertical

signed,

the Clits


----------

