# Jay Peak summit elevation



## from_the_NEK (Dec 16, 2011)

What is the true summit elevation of Jay Peak?

Jay Peak ski resort's website claims 3,968 ft. At least that is the figure that comes up when you add the stated vertical (2,153 ft) to the base elevation (1,815 ft).

Every other source I can find (other than ski websites that get the stats from the resort) have the summit about 110 feet lower between 3,853 ft. (wikipedia), 3,857 ft (topo map meter elevation of 1175.9 converted to feet), and 3,861 ft (http://americasroof.com/highest/vt.shtml).

Looking in Google Earth, the base of the Village chair is 1,837 and the highest summit elevation I can find seems a bit low at 3,774.

Where did this extra 100+ ft come from?


----------



## kingdom-tele (Dec 16, 2011)

3850-3880 depends on if your standing at the tram terminal or sitting on the granite bench on the ridge. maybe they are taking the number from the top of the weather tower with the GPS held on a stick


they also get 400" fo snow a year NEK:roll:


----------



## jrmagic (Dec 16, 2011)

kingdom-tele said:


> 3850-3880 depends on if your standing at the tram terminal or sitting on the granite bench on the ridge. maybe they are taking the number from the top of the weather tower with the GPS held on a stick
> 
> 
> they also get 400" fo snow a year NEK:roll:





Marketing departments can do anything.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 16, 2011)

kingdom-tele said:


> 3850-3880 depends on if your standing at the tram terminal or sitting on the granite bench on the ridge. maybe they are taking the number from the top of the weather tower with the GPS held on a stick
> 
> 
> they also get 400" fo snow a year NEK:roll:



Playing with fuzzy snow total numbers is one thing. However, the summit elevation should be set in stone . 



Burke recently "updated" their vert from 2000' to 2011'. With the new lift being about 15 ft high I can now see this as being closer to accurate. 10 feet is one thing but 100+ is stretching it.


----------



## mister moose (Dec 16, 2011)

When I was researching vertical drop numbers I also came across the Mt Snow overstatement of vertical.  It apparently dates back to the early days and was never corrected.  Look at the topo, and all you'll find from base to summit is 1,585.  The mountain claims 1,700 feet.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 16, 2011)

True Up Vertical guy enters in 3,2,1................


----------



## drjeff (Dec 16, 2011)

mister moose said:


> When I was researching vertical drop numbers I also came across the Mt Snow overstatement of vertical.  It apparently dates back to the early days and was never corrected.  Look at the topo, and all you'll find from base to summit is 1,585.  The mountain claims 1,700 feet.



Summit to the base of the tubing hill (which a few folks actually ski/ride down at the end of the day to get back to their cars parked in the lower lots) is the 1700 feet.  Summit the the main base lodge is the 1585 feet.  Way back when, before the tubing hill was converted from a ski run into the tubing hill AND ASC decided to put the Grand Summit Hotel in AND a glorified "road" between the hotel and the base lodge, it was continuous verts if you wanted them.  Now, unless you feel like skiing/riding across 1 lane of asphalt it's not happening.  Although in certain renditions of Mount Snow's new master plan, that might just change at some time in the future


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2011)

Jay Peak has repeatedly used the term "4,000 feet" to describe their summit and it is a pet peeve of mine since it certainly does not break 4,000 feet.

The true summit, in my mind, is the granite bench that was referred to in this thread.  But maybe, like Snowbird, there was a higher point that they bulldozed/blasted to smithereens to build the tram terminal and they are reminiscent of a time when that higher point existed.  :-?


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 16, 2011)

USGS Topo for Jay uses meters and cites 1,175.9m as the summit which equals 3,858 ft.

edit:  whoops, missed that you already said that.  oh well.


----------



## troy (Dec 16, 2011)

they got the lying part down @ J!  It served them well though...


----------



## Nick (Dec 16, 2011)

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics


----------



## jrmagic (Dec 16, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Jay Peak has repeatedly used the term "4,000 feet" to describe their summit and it is a pet peeve of mine since it certainly does not break 4,000 feet.
> 
> The true summit, in my mind, is the granite bench that was referred to in this thread.  But maybe, like Snowbird, there was a higher point that they bulldozed/blasted to smithereens to build the tram terminal and they are reminiscent of a time when that higher point existed.  :-?



Blasting over 100 vert off the top??


----------



## MadPatSki (Dec 16, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Jay Peak has repeatedly used the term "4,000 feet" to describe their summit and it is a pet peeve of mine since it certainly does not break 4,000 feet.



As a kid, they were using 4,001' to be precise. Tremblant had 3,001' also... Both driven by marketing's crap which increased the summit by approximately 200' each.


See old Tremblant map here.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2011)

jrmagic said:


> Blasting over 100 vert off the top??



Snowbird took 40 or 50 vertical feet off of Hidden Peak for the Tram.


----------



## marcski (Dec 16, 2011)

drjeff said:


> Summit to the base of the tubing hill (which a few folks actually ski/ride down at the end of the day to get back to their cars parked in the lower lots) is the 1700 feet.  Summit the the main base lodge is the 1585 feet.  Way back when, before the tubing hill was converted from a ski run into the tubing hill AND ASC decided to put the Grand Summit Hotel in AND a glorified "road" between the hotel and the base lodge, it was continuous verts if you wanted them.  Now, unless you feel like skiing/riding across 1 lane of asphalt it's not happening.  Although in certain renditions of Mount Snow's new master plan, that might just change at some time in the future



And then you could take the the chain-driven, Mixing Bowl, chairlift back up and get some grease drippings onto your jacket.   .


----------



## threecy (Dec 16, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> The true summit, in my mind, is the granite bench that was referred to in this thread.  But maybe, like Snowbird, there was a higher point that they bulldozed/blasted to smithereens to build the tram terminal and they are reminiscent of a time when that higher point existed.  :-?



3,861' on the 1953 USGS topo.


----------



## awf170 (Dec 16, 2011)

While we're in the process of calling resorts out.... check out Magic, they advertise their base elevation at 1,150ft.  It's more like 1,400ft.  They also add that extra 250 feet to their vert!


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Dec 16, 2011)

Something I love calling out the WV fans in my area on....

WATERVILLE VALLEY _*loves*_ to claim 4000' for their dumpy little resort. In fact, on their website stats they claim a 4,004 foot summit elevation and 2,020 foot vertical.

The summit of Mt. Tecumseh (the mtn on which the resort sits) is at 4,004. Does the lift go to the true summit? Not even close.

Top of High Country, I'd give 3830' plus or minus. High Country being the BS double lift you may ride once a day. So as far as I'm concerned, the "top" of Waterville for my purposes is the top of the quad, which is about 3450'. Base of about 1880' gives them a whopping vert of about 1570 when lapping the quad. Sorry, not enough to play with the big boys.

Topo map


----------



## threecy (Dec 16, 2011)

Gnarcissaro said:


> Something I love calling out the WV fans in my area on....
> 
> WATERVILLE VALLEY _*loves*_ to claim 4000' for their dumpy little resort. In fact, on their website stats they claim a 4,004 foot summit elevation and 2,020 foot vertical.
> 
> ...



They'll have 1,912' vertical feet open tomorrow, which only two other ski areas in the state (Loon, Wildcat) can claim at the moment.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 16, 2011)

Yup, Jay lies. No reason to go their, it's all marketing. 

I don't care much for their labeling the Summit Haus "Elevation 4000" which is a load of BS.

I was under the impression that Jay claimed around 3800-3900 actual summit elevation despite the a fore mentioned BS.

Regarding Waterville, I used to have the impression they lied about 2000' vert but I think it was demonstrated that they actually have 2k vert despite not having a 4k summit.

Regarding Magic, it does seem to ski like it has 1600 vert so I'd be surprised to hear that their vert is off.


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 16, 2011)

Gnarcissaro said:


> Something I love calling out the WV fans in my area on....
> 
> WATERVILLE VALLEY _*loves*_ to claim 4000' for their dumpy little resort. In fact, on their website stats they claim a 4,004 foot summit elevation and 2,020 foot vertical.
> 
> ...



Generous - I would say 3425 at the top of the quad and 3810 at the top of HC. Base is at 1840.  1585' vert to top of quad. 1970' to top of HC


----------



## wintersyndrome (Dec 16, 2011)

You know the season is starting off crappy when on December 16th were BSing about vert and mountain stats and marketing...


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Dec 16, 2011)

I think it was the winter of 2000-2001 when I was attending PSC and worked as a lifty at WV.  I was working the bottom lift shack on the HC, when we had to shut down, why? Well the top lift shack blew over.

While many people rarely use the HC lift due to wind, not being open, etc, it's only fair that you give them the 1970' (not saying you are not).  It is lift served afterall.  Let's be honest most mountain pods in the NE are 1000' to 1600' if you are lapping any one lift.


----------



## MadPatSki (Dec 16, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Yup, Jay lies. No reason to go their, it's all marketing.
> 
> I don't care much for their labeling the Summit Haus "Elevation 4000" which is a load of BS.
> 
> I was under the impression that Jay claimed around 3800-3900 actual summit elevation despite the a fore mentioned BS..



I believe Jay's 4001' (like the 3001' at Tremblant) claim disappeared many years ago.


----------



## Nick (Dec 16, 2011)

wintersyndrome said:


> You know the season is starting off crappy when on December 16th were BSing about vert and mountain stats and marketing...



Qft


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 16, 2011)

MadPatSki said:


> I believe Jay's 4001' (like the 3001' at Tremblant) claim disappeared many years ago.



I saw it last season and almost wrote Steve Wright about it....


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 17, 2011)

Le Massif built a huge pyramid at the top of their downhill run to qualify vertically as an Olympic downhill run years ago. I'd guesstimate they added a couple/few hundred feet of vertical. Quebec City didn't win their bid for the Olympics but the pyramid is still there. Base elevation is pretty near zero however being it's right on the St. Lawrence but they have the vertical drop.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 17, 2011)

Bummer QC didn't get the Olympics.  I hope they do someday.  Such a great place.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 17, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> *Bummer QC didn't get the Olympics. * I hope they do someday.  Such a great place.



Me too.  Olympic hockey within driving distance would be a dream come true.

Not likely to happen for many, many years though, since Vancouver just had it. :sad:


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 17, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Bummer QC didn't get the Olympics.  I hope they do someday.  Such a great place.



+1


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 17, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> I saw it last season and almost wrote Steve Wright about it....


Where did you see it? I know the elevation they have in the tram car signs is less than 4k' which always seems funny because the Summit Haus has "eleveation 4k" up there. Though I'll give them a pass on that... that isn't an official statistic but rather is just what it is...


----------



## MadPatSki (Dec 17, 2011)

steamboat1 said:


> Le Massif built a huge pyramid at the top of their downhill run to qualify vertically as an Olympic downhill run years ago. I'd guesstimate they added a couple/few hundred feet of vertical. Quebec City didn't win their bid for the Olympics but the pyramid is still there. Base elevation is pretty near zero however being it's right on the St. Lawrence but they have the vertical drop.



The top didn't get any elevation on the ski area as the East side remains higher, however it gave them a right type of slope for a downhill. Even with the build up, the run wouldn't qualify for a FIS Men's Downhill. Missing something like 300ft vert. The building of that course (and destruction of the old trail 42) was made primarily to have an Eastern training area for Alpine Canada.

In the 2002 Bid, they proposed a start ramp at the top and a finish on the river (alt. 0)

There was huge talk in the Quebec media last year and a possible 2022 bid

Proposition about choosing building another course at Le Massif. There was also a bunch of options thrown around by local politicians about going to the Gaspe Peninsula or other high mountains. Calgary was mentioned, so was Whiteface.

I wrote a blog piece in French on the different sites and the whole saga.

Ski Mad World: Québec et les Jeux Olympiques Not sure how Google translator is going to work on it

My conclusion (Quebec has very little mountains (not even talking ski areas) that would have the topography and FIS minimum to hold a Men Downhill, the exception being in the Torngats in Northern Quebec. I also believe that Whiteface is the only place that such a race could be held in the East.

Back to Jay....I didn't realize that 4k numbers was still floating around besides an old name/sign at the Tram Haus.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 17, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Where did you see it? I know the elevation they have in the tram car signs is less than 4k' which always seems funny because the Summit Haus has "eleveation 4k" up there. Though I'll give them a pass on that... that isn't an official statistic but rather is just what it is...



It was their 'Elevation 4k' apartment name and also in a snow report or on their website, referring to how their "4,000 foot summit is colder and gets more snow than the base," or something like that.  I understand some leeway in measuring snow, some leeway in making some claims, but telling folks that your 3,800 foot tall mountain is 4,000 feet tall is blatantly wrong and clearly misleading.  It does more harm than good, because it makes me question other stats and statements.  Then again, how they are able to get around the truth about their terrible weather (wind and cold) is still amazing.  I have had more windholds/lost days up there than any other place.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 17, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Then again, how they are able to get around the truth about their terrible weather (wind and cold) is still amazing.  I have had more windholds/lost days up there than any other place.


And I've had more and deeper powder days there than any other place. You hold some deep grudges, dude!


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 17, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> And I've had more and deeper powder days there than any other place. You hold some deep grudges, dude!



It is what it is, Riv.  This is not a deep grudge.  Yeah, I've had powder too, but I've also had a number of days that didn't even get started and I've driven up there for nothing.


----------



## win (Dec 18, 2011)

When we first bought Sugarbush the summit of Mount Ellen was listed as 4135.  Someone pointed out that the real elevation was 4083.  After researching that, we realized that he was correct, so the we changed it to 4083. Not sure why the difference.  Maybe the mountain struck with age as do humans?


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 18, 2011)

win said:


> When we first bought Sugarbush the summit of Mount Ellen was listed as 4135.  Someone pointed out that the real elevation was 4083.  After researching that, we realized that he was correct, so the we changed it to 4083. Not sure why the difference.  Maybe the mountain struck with age as do humans?



Les Otten found another 50'.......


----------



## 56fish (Dec 18, 2011)

wintersyndrome said:


> You know the season is starting off crappy when on December 16th were BSing about vert and mountain stats and marketing...



Big 10-4.


----------



## nlmasopust (Dec 19, 2011)

MadPatSki said:


> There was also a bunch of options thrown around by local politicians about going to the Gaspe Peninsula or other high mountains.



Hopefully the long-ass drive from QC to Chic Chocs would prevent this from ever happening.  I couldn't imagine a worse way to ruin the most perfect backcountry locale accessible by car here on the East Coast than to build an Olympic downhill run!   :uzi:


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Dec 19, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Les Otten found another 50'.......



Maybe Les sold that 50' to Jay Peak to shrink some debt :wink:


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 19, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Maybe Les sold that 50' to Jay Peak to shrink some debt :wink:



I bet when Win sold Jay "the Snail" which became the Metro Quad the deal included the 52 vertical feet.


----------



## soposkier (Dec 19, 2011)

MadPatSki said:


> My conclusion (Quebec has very little mountains (not even talking ski areas) that would have the topography and FIS minimum to hold a Men Downhill, the exception being in the Torngats in Northern Quebec. I also believe that Whiteface is the only place that such a race could be held in the East.



could be mistaken, but I believe Sugarloaf can host a FIS Downhill.


----------



## MadPatSki (Dec 19, 2011)

soposkier said:


> could be mistaken, but I believe Sugarloaf can host a FIS Downhill.



Requirements for Men: between 800 and 1100 meters (2625' and 3609').

Women: 500 to 800 meters (1640' to 2625').

Sugarloaf is at 2820', however that would include the lift below the lodge. So theoretically it might be possible..Sugarbush is the other one that just above the minimum.

The course also needs a consistent pitch (ie. eliminating places like Killington or Smuggs).


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 19, 2011)

While were on this subject I'll call out my home mt and threecy will love this.Cannon suddenly shrank last year to 4080.Its always been 2146 vert but has grown to 2180 because the base went down from 2000 to 1900.To be fair the mt stats does put the mt elevation with a qualifier as (ski area) as 4080.


----------



## luvinjaycloud (Dec 19, 2011)

*Jay on Sat.*

Jay on Sat. wasn't exaggerating about the 3-4 fresh that fell the night before.    softened things up nicely for the morning.


----------



## Steve@jpr (Dec 19, 2011)

*Elevation 4000*

I think referring to the Tram Haus top as Elevation 4000 is more colloquial than anything else.  If we were marketing the term as a competitive advantage I'd agree (Come check out the canless soda machine perched high atop our Elevation 4000 warming hut-the highest canless soda machine in the East!).

I'll take a look at what our *real* elevation is and if it's not 3958, we'll certainly update.  if I'm being completely honest, we've taken what's been posted the previous year and rolled with it-at least as long as I've been here.  I think.

steve


----------



## MadPatSki (Dec 19, 2011)

Steve@jpr said:


> I'll take a look at what our *real* elevation is and if it's not 3958, we'll certainly update.  if I'm being completely honest, we've taken what's been posted the previous year and rolled with it-at least as long as I've been here.  I think.



Thanks for chipping in Steve.

I know I have a Jay Peak brochure here somewhere stating an actually summit altitude of 4001' (mid 1970s), which I think predates your employment with the ski industry. I didn't see that number in a while, because I don't go and look at these things (although some might have). Like I mentioned above, Tremblant exaggerated their altitude to 3001' in the same period which they corrected at one point.

On the attraction factor...I admit it, as a kid (around 4th grade), I bugged my mom to go to ski Jay because the summit was above 4000', regardless of out cottage near Tremblant.


----------

