# Mountain Vertical updates...Sugarbush and Killington



## MV Frank (Oct 29, 2010)

Hey guys - Frank from MountainVertical.com here
Someone told me there was a previous thread here about on this stuff.......very cool to see. Thought I'd register and post about an update we made, spur some discussion

We just released our new exact numbers for Sugarbush and Killington...the green check marks (the previous numbers on the site were general estimates)

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

Sugarbush
-previously reported...2600 ft
-new Mountain Vertical exact vertical...2552 ft

Killington
-previously reported true vert...1720 ft
-new numbers from us....1645 ft (true vertical) and 3033 ft (max elevation diffference)
It is a big discrepancy, but our judgement is that it accurately represents the ski area as a series of midsized mountains with midsized runs, versus something like cannon which clearly offers 2k of solid, uninterrupted downhill vertical. The 1645 above represents the K1 drop. Yes, we know that k-peak to skyeship is technically doable, but no one goes to killington to make that run, plus you get stuck on launchpad (why is that rated blue anyway?)

Believe it or not, Killington was one of the original example cases that motivated the four of us to make this website.....we thought it was silly that killington claimed 3000, which implies a rocky mountains order of magnitude, but when you actually ski it, it's nothing like that..

Curious to hear thoughts.

gotta post the random plug... we just created our mountain vertical facebook page...join the group/share


----------



## xlr8r (Oct 29, 2010)

Killington should be measured from top of skye to bottom of skyeship which is somewhere around 2500ft  Lots of people ski down to the bottom of skyeship from the top of skye.  It might be flat on the lower half but it does add up to a lot of continuous vert.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 29, 2010)

I like the idea of two numbers. One for the max typically skied run and another for actual uninterrupted vertical that really is doable in one run. When you refer to "Max Elevation Difference" is that continuous? Or is that the "trued up" vertical number that a resort might use (highest point to lowest point, regardless of continuity)? If it is the latter, I would suggest three sites to ensure your site is not being misleading or disingenuous: Your "True Vertical" number, a "Potential Continuous Vertical" number, and the Max Elevation Difference. The issue most folks take with your True Vertical number is that a limited number of skiers, very likely beginners and their families or the clinically insane, might enjoy doing 3k vert at K.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 29, 2010)

MV Frank said:


> Hey guys - Frank from MountainVertical.com here
> Someone told me there was a previous thread here about on this stuff.......very cool to see. Thought I'd register and post about an update we made, spur some discussion
> 
> We just released our new exact numbers for Sugarbush and Killington...the green check marks (the previous numbers on the site were general estimates)
> ...



Nice work on the cool web site.  And FB liked complete!


----------



## RootDKJ (Oct 29, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Nice work on the cool web site.  And FB liked complete!


+1.  Keep the updates coming!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 29, 2010)

cool website


so, who is going to tackle the challenges of true trail counts and true acreage


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 29, 2010)

Frank--

I'll take a look, but why the change for Sugarbush?


----------



## mister moose (Oct 29, 2010)

Ski-able Vertical, interesting concept.  Sorta like was introduced here and on K-zone over 3 years ago.  When can I expect royalty checks to start?

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=82626&highlight=season+pass
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=34398&highlight=season+pass
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=25211&highlight=season+pass&page=2

http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30436&hilit=season+pass
http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27635&hilit=season+pass
http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21742&hilit=season+pass
http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17216&p=237999&hilit=season+pass#p237999


----------



## Geoff (Oct 29, 2010)

MV Frank said:


> Hey guys - Frank from MountainVertical.com here
> Someone told me there was a previous thread here about on this stuff.......very cool to see. Thought I'd register and post about an update we made, spur some discussion
> 
> We just released our new exact numbers for Sugarbush and Killington...the green check marks (the previous numbers on the site were general estimates)
> ...



There are an awful lot of 8 year old children who would disagree with your point of view.   Killington peak lodge to Skyeship base is a life changing event if you're in a wedge skiing your first truly long run.

If you want to talk sustained vertical that would interest an advanced skier, it's certainly not 1645 feet.   You'd be hard pressed to find more than 1,000.   Outer Limits gives you that.   I guess you could say that walking up to Catwalk and skiing to the base of the Canyon Quad is the longest sustained vertical but you hit intermediate in the middle of anything off the Superstar Quad or K1 Gondola.

I find the whole thing laughable.   Whistler, the biggest in North America, gives you 5,000 feet but you ski it 1,500 to 2,000 at a time.   The monster resorts in Europe give you 7,000 but you rarely ski the bottom part.   I've been to Tignes a bunch of times.   I've been to La Grande Motte at the top a bunch of times but I've never bothered to ski all the way down to Bas Tignes.   My favorite mountain in the US is Monarch.   1000 feet of vertical and center pole double chairs.   Vertical is the most over-rated statistic ever and I don't understand why anyone would zero in on it.


----------



## mister moose (Oct 29, 2010)

Geoff said:


> There are an awful lot of 8 year old children who would disagree with your point of view.   Killington peak lodge to Skyeship base is a life changing event if you're in a wedge skiing your first truly long run.
> 
> Vertical is the most over-rated statistic ever and I don't understand why anyone would zero in on it.



When you grow up at Blandford, Otis Ridge and Sundown, Vertical has meaning, trust me.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 29, 2010)

MV Frank said:


> Killington
> -previously reported true vert...1720 ft
> -new numbers from us....1645 ft (true vertical) and 3033 ft (max elevation diffference)
> It is a big discrepancy, but our judgement is that it accurately represents the ski area as a series of midsized mountains with midsized runs, versus something like cannon which clearly offers 2k of solid, uninterrupted downhill vertical. The 1645 above represents the K1 drop. Yes, we know that k-peak to skyeship is technically doable, but no one goes to killington to make that run, plus you get stuck on launchpad (why is that rated blue anyway?)


 
*YOU = FAIL.*

If you can't ski killington top to bottom and have fun doing it, you're doing something wrong.


----------



## mondeo (Oct 29, 2010)

mister moose said:


> When you grow up at Blandford, Otis Ridge and Sundown, Vertical has meaning, trust me.


It's diminishing returns, though. 500ft to 1000ft is a big deal, 1500ft to 2500ft doesn't mean nearly as much.

But if you're counting the bottom 300ft of the K-1, why not count K-1 to Bear base? Again, not going to ski it all day, but if Jug Handle is good and South Ridge isn't running, it might be worth a few runs.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 29, 2010)

Geoff said:


> There are an awful lot of 8 year old children who would disagree with your point of view.   Killington peak lodge to Skyeship base is a life changing event if you're in a wedge skiing your first truly long run.
> 
> If you want to talk sustained vertical that would interest an advanced skier, it's certainly not 1645 feet.   You'd be hard pressed to find more than 1,000.   Outer Limits gives you that.   I guess you could say that walking up to Catwalk and skiing to the base of the Canyon Quad is the longest sustained vertical but you hit intermediate in the middle of anything off the Superstar Quad or K1 Gondola.
> 
> I find the whole thing laughable.   Whistler, the biggest in North America, gives you 5,000 feet but you ski it 1,500 to 2,000 at a time.   The monster resorts in Europe give you 7,000 but you rarely ski the bottom part.   I've been to Tignes a bunch of times.   I've been to La Grande Motte at the top a bunch of times but I've never bothered to ski all the way down to Bas Tignes.   My favorite mountain in the US is Monarch.   1000 feet of vertical and center pole double chairs.   Vertical is the most over-rated statistic ever and I don't understand why anyone would zero in on it.



I'm guessing for the generally male population that seems to care about it, it's the age old ego driven "mine is bigger than yours" mentality  :lol:


----------



## Edd (Oct 29, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> *YOU = FAIL.*
> 
> If you can't ski killington top to bottom and have fun doing it, you're doing something wrong.



Hello MV Frank.  Introducing Highway Star.  He's very glad to meet you.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 29, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> cool website
> 
> 
> so, who is going to tackle the challenges of true trail counts and true acreage



That's easy, divide by three.....:smile:


----------



## gmcunni (Oct 29, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> That's easy, divide by three.....:smile:



oh 3?  i thought it was the number of people in the marketing dept that you used as the divisor


----------



## jaywbigred (Oct 29, 2010)

This thread is hilarious.


----------



## Geoff (Oct 29, 2010)

drjeff said:


> I'm guessing for the generally male population that seems to care about it, it's the age old ego driven "mine is bigger than yours" mentality  :lol:



Hey, I'm one of the people who skis Breakaway when the South Ridge lift isn't running.   You get about 400 vertical feet sustained on a superb skiing surface.   Total flats to get there.   Total flats to get back to a lift.   I care about the skiing surface and how interesting the terrain is.

When Whistler is socked in, I tend to ski the short tree runs off the endless traverse to the 7th Heaven lift.   Everybody ignores them since it's an endless traverse to get to them, an endless traverse to get out, and two lifts to get back to midmountain.   I do Blackcomb's Outer Limits on the other side for the same reason.   Most people won't ski it because it dumps you into the infinite traverse out from the Blackcomb glacier.   I think there's a sign that says the lift is 3 miles.


----------



## Mapnut (Oct 29, 2010)

Frank, I suggest you review some of the summit and base elevations claimed by areas that have good top-to-bottom skiability, just not quite that much.  For instance the claimed summit elevation of Jay Peak is 100 feet too high, the claimed base elevation of Stratton is 100 feet too low (roughly).  I agree with what you got for Sugarbush North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Peak_(Vermont)
http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=18&X=838&Y=5966&W=1&qs=|stratton|vt|


----------



## vonski (Oct 29, 2010)

I will make top to bottom runs at Ellen/Sugarbush on a regular basis, but generally off the Northridge chair, not the peak..  The Killington run to the bottom of the Skyeship was always a once a day event for me when I skied there.  It was either a middle of the day run or the last run out if parked at the skyeship parking lot on rte. 4.  

I think the verticle should really be based off what one can get off of one single lift.  This would give Stowe a big advantage, but for the weekend warrior I like the verticle obtained off the Northridge chair at Sugarbush.  I am just getting tired particularly early season!  just my 2 cents.  

Thinking Snow and Cold.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 29, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Frank--
> 
> I'll take a look, but why the change for Sugarbush?



PM sent.  Interesting stuff. Don't worry about HS, he is always lashing out as all the predictions he has made in the last 6 years have been wrong including his latest, predicting that kmart would be the first to open in the east.
:lol:


----------



## drjeff (Oct 29, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Hey, I'm one of the people who skis Breakaway when the South Ridge lift isn't running.   You get about 400 vertical feet sustained on a superb skiing surface.   Total flats to get there.   Total flats to get back to a lift.   I care about the skiing surface and how interesting the terrain is.
> 
> When Whistler is socked in, I tend to ski the short tree runs off the endless traverse to the 7th Heaven lift.   Everybody ignores them since it's an endless traverse to get to them, an endless traverse to get out, and two lifts to get back to midmountain.   I do Blackcomb's Outer Limits on the other side for the same reason.   Most people won't ski it because it dumps you into the infinite traverse out from the Blackcomb glacier.   I think there's a sign that says the lift is 3 miles.





I'm in total agreement with you're assesment Geoff!  Heck, a couple of my Western Favorites,  Deer Valley and The Canyons, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you about, have layouts where it's actually impossible to ski the complete max/min elevation vertical, but have some really great terrain stashes that come at you in 500 to roughly 1000 vertical foot batches.  And i'm quite comfortble in my "mascu-ski-linity" to admit that I very often like my vertcial in smaller packages!  :lol:


----------



## Barnibus (Oct 29, 2010)

mister moose said:


> When you grow up at Blandford, Otis Ridge and Sundown, Vertical has meaning, trust me.



You grew up skiing Blandford? I didn't think anyone even knew that place existed. Still a fun little mountain, with some good trees and great grooming. I was a snowboard instructor there for 4 years, and learned to ride there before moving onto the all41 pass then finally Killington


----------



## ceo (Oct 29, 2010)

Barnibus said:


> I was a snowboard instructor there for 4 years, and learned to ride there



Hopefully not in that order.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 29, 2010)

Whiteface is a Giant!!!  haha


----------



## mondeo (Oct 29, 2010)

drjeff said:


> I'm guessing for the generally male population that seems to care about it, it's the age old ego driven "mine is bigger than yours" mentality  :lol:


Speaking of egos...


tjf67 said:


> Whiteface is a Giant!!! haha


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 29, 2010)

mondeo said:


> Speaking of egos...




If skiing 3k vert in one run make me a thug thats cool.


----------



## EPB (Oct 29, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> If skiing 3k vert in one run make me a thug thats cool.



All this size talk might make some feel uncomfortable and resort to mud slinging.  Don't take it personally.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 29, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> All this size talk might make some feel uncomfortable and resort to mud slinging.  Don't take it personally.



I dont.

To the point though that vert does not matter.  I guess I would take the same stance if the hill I enjoyed does not have much of it.  That not being the case I love to ski long runs with a lots of vert.  Really sets you for when you go to hill with very little in comparison.


----------



## Rambo (Oct 29, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> If skiing 3k vert in one run make me a thug thats cool.



But... the bottom 900 ft. of Whiteface is relatively flat... So more like 2,100 ft. of decent steeps


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 29, 2010)

Rambo said:


> But... the bottom 900 ft. of Whiteface is relatively flat... So more like 2,100 ft. of decent steeps



You are correct.  That is where the skier cross track is laid out.  You ever take a run through those things?  They are a blast with 5 six of your closest friends trying to edge each other out.  When you are in the race you forget  how much your legs hurt.  BTW it is 600 Ft and 2300 hundred according to your math.


----------



## Geoff (Oct 29, 2010)

ceo said:


> Hopefully not in that order.



Q: What do you call a 2nd day snowboarder?

A:  An instructor


Barnibus is pretty much the best snowboarder at Killington and one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet.   I ski with his father and, on a relative scale, us old guys are total hacks.


----------



## KevinS (Oct 29, 2010)

This might be obvious, but just remember that a 1000 foot vertical run is not twice as long as a 500 foot vertical run, it is significantly more than double. To me there IS a big difference between 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 feet of sustained vert. Is it the only thing that matters? Of course not. But all else being equal, I like more vert.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 29, 2010)

KevinS said:


> This might be obvious, but just remember that a 1000 foot vertical run is not twice as long as a 500 foot vertical run, it is significantly more than double. To me there IS a big difference between 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 feet of sustained vert. Is it the only thing that matters? Of course not. But all else being equal, I like more vert.



Pitch matters in the calculation


----------



## 2knees (Oct 29, 2010)

KevinS said:


> This might be obvious, but just remember that a 1000 foot vertical run is not twice as long as a 500 foot vertical run, it is significantly more than double. To me there IS a big difference between 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 feet of sustained vert. Is it the only thing that matters? Of course not. But all else being equal, I like more vert.



if the runs are the same in terms of steepness, then wouldnt it be exactly double?  or am i opening myself up to all kinds of mathematical ridicule here.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 29, 2010)

impressive

dropping the pythagorean theorem


----------



## jaywbigred (Oct 29, 2010)

drjeff said:


> I'm in total agreement with you're assesment Geoff!  Heck, a couple of my Western Favorites,  Deer Valley and The Canyons, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you about, have layouts where it's actually impossible to ski the complete max/min elevation vertical, but have some really great terrain stashes that come at you in 500 to roughly 1000 vertical foot batches.  And i'm quite comfortble in my "mascu-ski-linity" to admit that I very often like my vertcial in smaller packages!  :lol:



Masculini-ski?



2knees said:


> if the runs are the same in terms of steepness, then wouldnt it be exactly double?  or am i opening myself up to all kinds of mathematical ridicule here.



Yes, if the same steepness. I think his point was that vertical feet, as a metric, tells you nothing of the steepness of the trail. Obviously, steeper trails will rack up vert more quickly over distance, but, on paper, a 1,000 vert run could be a long cruiser over many miles dropping very slowly, or a short, steep black diamond that you can ski in a few minutes.


----------



## KevinS (Oct 29, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> Pitch matters in the calculation



Obviously.


----------



## KevinS (Oct 29, 2010)

2knees said:


> if the runs are the same in terms of steepness, then wouldnt it be exactly double?  or am i opening myself up to all kinds of mathematical ridicule here.



That is thinking of the cross section of a mountain as a triangle. They aren't. We all know runs are actually composed of some sections that are steeper and some sections that are flatter.

So at a 500' vert mountain, it needs to be pretty steep the whole way or it will suck. If you stick a couple flat spots in it, you are getting no speed on it (having grown up at a mountain with 500' vert, I can assure there are trails where you can not get up to speed before you are at the bottom).

On a 1000' vert run, you can have a 300' vert headwall, a bunch of length that is pretty flat but you are booking it across, and then another headwall and some run out, and your run feels signifcantly longer than it otherwise would (because that flat section is all bonus run you don't get at the small mountain)

For example we probably all know Nosedive at Stowe. In my opinion, the bulk of the run is pretty flat pitch and would be lame if it was 500' of that. But couple it with a good 400' start and that run is a lot of fun. If you cut that run in half and put the top half as one trail and the bottom half as another trail, would it be as good? I don't think so.

Sometimes the sum is greater than the parts.


----------



## mondeo (Oct 29, 2010)

KevinS said:


> That is thinking of the cross section of a mountain as a triangle. They aren't. We all know runs are actually composed of some sections that are steeper and some sections that are flatter.
> 
> So at a 500' vert mountain, it needs to be pretty steep the whole way or it will suck. If you stick a couple flat spots in it, you are getting no speed on it (having grown up at a mountain with 500' vert, I can assure there are trails where you can not get up to speed before you are at the bottom).
> 
> ...


And if you add bumps to, say, a 1200ft vert trail, it'll ski longer than 2500ft vert of steeps.

Vert is a quantitative measure. You're trying to go qualitiative, at which point the discussion breaks down.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 29, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Q: What do you call a 2nd day snowboarder?
> 
> A:  An instructor
> 
> .



:lol: I was thinking about that joke too, here's another

Q: How does an instructor become a millionaire?

A: start out as a billionaire


----------



## Geoff (Oct 29, 2010)

KevinS said:


> This might be obvious, but just remember that a 1000 foot vertical run is not twice as long as a 500 foot vertical run, it is significantly more than double. To me there IS a big difference between 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 feet of sustained vert. Is it the only thing that matters? Of course not. But all else being equal, I like more vert.





2knees said:


> if the runs are the same in terms of steepness, then wouldnt it be exactly double?  or am i opening myself up to all kinds of mathematical ridicule here.



Math > KevinS and 2knees is the winnah!

The length of a 1000 vertical foot run is precisely 2x the length of a 500 vertical foot run... assuming identical pitch.

I drew an illustration here with two right triangles of identical size strung together next to a right triangle twice its size.   As you can see, the length of the hypotenuse on the larger triangle is exactly the same as the two smaller ones concatenated together.   You don't even need to remember high school geometry to grasp this one.


----------



## KevinS (Oct 29, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Math > KevinS and 2knees is the winnah!
> 
> The length of a 1000 vertical foot run is precisely 2x the length of a 500 vertical foot run... assuming identical pitch.
> 
> I drew an illustration here with two right triangles of identical size strung together next to a right triangle twice its size.   As you can see, the length of the hypotenuse on the larger triangle is exactly the same as the two smaller ones concatenated together.   You don't even need to remember high school geometry to grasp this one.



I'm working on my masters degree in mechanical engineering, trust me, I have trig down. 

Now, can you post a picture of mountain that is shaped like a triangle?


----------



## KevinS (Oct 29, 2010)

mondeo said:


> And if you add bumps to, say, a 1200ft vert trail, it'll ski longer than 2500ft vert of steeps.
> 
> Vert is a quantitative measure. You're trying to go qualitiative, at which point the discussion breaks down.



Not really. My argument is that in almost all real world cases if you double the vert, the trail length is more than double a comparable trail at half the vert.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 29, 2010)

mondeo said:


> And if you add bumps to, say, a 1200ft vert trail, it'll ski longer than 2500ft vert of steeps.
> 
> Vert is a quantitative measure. You're trying to go qualitiative, at which point the discussion breaks down.



Really?  Thanks Mr. bright light.  I think we are one of the only places that is going to offer that.  It takes a lot longer to get the bumps here because of the lack of skier traffic but they do come.


----------



## KevinS (Oct 29, 2010)

Ok so obviously I've done a terrible job explaining my reasoning. Now that I'm home from work I'll try to make it clearer since I have a bit more time. 

Let me add a quick graphic instead of trying to do it with words. 

Clearly we all know if you scale a triangle the lengths of the side increase proportionally, but in 99% of the cases we're not scaling a triangle.

A trail really has a variable elevation. You hit a headwall, then a flat spot, than a steeper spot, then a flatter spot. For the sake of argument I'm going with pure flat and pure consistent pitch. 

In this case the length of the skiable surface is the sum of all the "steep" and all the "flat" spots. In the real world it would be an integral. Here it would 4 steep spots + 3 flat spots for the double vert, but only 2 steep spots and 1 flat spot for the half vert.

Notice, the bigger one has a proportional number of steep sections, but the number of flat spots doesn't scale that way. The number of flat spots is actually the # of steep spots minus 1. If you only have two steep spots, you are only getting 1 flat intermediate section. 

The length will at a minimum be exactly proportional to the increase in vert, but this would only happen on a trail with no flat spots. Which is why I said "double or significantly more". A trail with twice the vert and twice the skiable length would be the special case of consistent pitch along the length of the trail, which is unusual.


----------



## mondeo (Oct 29, 2010)

KevinS said:


> Not really. My argument is that in almost all real world cases if you double the vert, the trail length is more than double a comparable trail at half the vert.


And it's only a valid argument if you agree on what comparable trails of different vertical drops are. A constant pitch 500ft vert trail is not comparable to a varying pitch 1000ft vert trail, but give me a constant pitch 500ft vert and I'll find you an equally constant pitch 1000ft vert. Same with a 1000ft drop to a 2000 ft drop, but I'll have to look at resorts in the West at that point.


----------



## jaja111 (Oct 29, 2010)

Geoff said:


> ....... Most people won't ski it because it dumps you into the infinite traverse out from the Blackcomb glacier.   I think there's a sign that says the lift is 3 miles.



My friends and I call that traverse off the glacier "Juggernaut" for a reason. The friends on snowboards call it "F-that" after one time. Two years ago it was filled with cookies sticking out of the "base". It kills me that there's also a ton of idiots resting in the middle of the trail thus making the idea of holding 50mph off the bottom of the glacier a waste of turns. It's my only real complaint about Blackcomb.


----------



## Geoff (Oct 29, 2010)

KevinS said:


> I'm working on my masters degree in mechanical engineering, trust me, I have trig down.
> 
> Now, can you post a picture of mountain that is shaped like a triangle?



What an easy request!


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 29, 2010)

Geoff said:


> What an easy request!



LMAO   I also assume with Franks methodology the Loaf's vert will be shaved about 300'.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 29, 2010)

ski_resort_observer said:


> LMAO   I also assume with Franks methodology the Loaf's vert will be shaved about 300'.



I think they did already, it just hasn't been verified.....I think.


----------



## Geoff (Oct 29, 2010)

The Kevin S version of the Sugarloaf logo.   Better?


----------



## MV Frank (Oct 30, 2010)

haha.. nice

anyway, i've got my 2 cents to offer on a lot of the things talked about, which I'll get to eventually

but fyi for now -- brand new update in the site...we're giving away free lift tickets on the mountain vertical front page. maybe one of you guys can get it.

--> http://mountainvertical.com/index.html


----------



## oakapple (Oct 30, 2010)

Killington Peak down to the bottom of Skyeship is a legitimate run. Indeed, there are multiple ways of getting there. I agree that an _expert_ is unlikely to do this, but ski resorts aren't built for experts only. It was always Killington's unique selling point that the top and bottom of almost every lift were reachable by skiers of modest ability.

I do agree with your analysis, for resorts where the highest point to the lowest point is literally impossible on skis without walking, or so unlikely that hardly anyone would do it.

I like that you're keeping the resorts honest, but is total vertical really that important a measure? It is somewhat interesting to know the longest possible continuous run. But most skiers don't spend their whole day going to the highest point reachable, and then skiing all the way down to the lowest point reachable. Usually, it's one of those "do it once" kind of things.

One pet peeve of mine, though I don't know how you would measure it, is resorts that lie about their percentage of green, blue, and black territory. Most resorts want to give the impression that, regardless of your skill level, they have plenty of terrain for you. There are various ways to creatively "lie" about this. An obvious one is where the run-out of a black (or blue) trail is coded green, but the only way you could reach it is by skiing the harder part first.

By the way, I think the reason why Launchpad is blue is because it crosses several black trails, and for that reason they want to keep the raw novices off of it. Obviously, the difference between the easiest blue and the hardest green can be minuscule, and in fact they could flip based on the amount of snow cover, weather, grooming, and so forth.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 30, 2010)

MV Frank said:


> haha.. nice
> 
> anyway, i've got my 2 cents to offer on a lot of the things talked about, which I'll get to eventually
> 
> ...



I really like your site, very well done, and really can't disagree with most of what you find/say.  As you go forward (I am sure you are busy with other things), but it would be cool if you also added things like max vert via single lift,  maximum continous vert (which in most cases is the real vert and list primary trail/trails for doing so.  I think the stats geeks like myself really enjoy your site.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 30, 2010)

oakapple said:


> Killington Peak down to the bottom of Skyeship is a legitimate run. Indeed, there are multiple ways of getting there.



I think everyone including Frank knows that they are real ski trails



> I agree that an _expert_ is unlikely to do this


They will if their vehicle is parked at the Skyeship parking lot.



> I do agree with your analysis, for resorts where the highest point to the lowest point is literally impossible on skis without walking, or so unlikely that hardly anyone would do it.


That's not exactly what Frank is measuring. Lets say you have have 5000 people at kmart on a semi busy day and there are 100 cars in the Skyship parking lot. How many of those skiing will be sking on the trails down to Rt 4? 

His findings are certainly open to debate, real resort vert has been discussed many times on AZ. His real vert for SR at 1520 vs a reported 2300 and change is spot on. One time I did the traverse from the top of Jordan Bowl lift all the way to the bottom of the resort just to check it out the 2300 vert experience. Lots of poling, even a few short uphills but the worst part was crossing several busy wide trails. 

I agree 100% that the vert is not, to many, all that important. lots of SR regulars who post in here have a great ski experience there and that is the bottom line. Plus the fact that they do about 500,000 skier visits says other people like the place too.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 31, 2010)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I think everyone including Frank knows that they are real ski trails
> 
> 
> They will if their vehicle is parked at the Skyeship parking lot.
> ...



Agreed, plus lets think about the fact that most resorts in the east whether 1500ft of vert or 3300ft of vert most customers only do about 1500ft of vert in one run.  Whether it's Sugarloaf, Killington, Jay, Cannon, or Sunapee, Magic, or Mt Snow, you are generally going to do about 1500ft of vert on a fair amount of your runs.  So at the end of the day vert has little effect on people, it's what makes up the 1500ft vert that plays a more important roll in what people think of a mountain...


----------



## MV Frank (Oct 31, 2010)

I remember reading before that historically, there have been collaborative initiatives to standardize resort metrics and even create universal metrics that factored in all types of attributes of a resort. Didn't get anywhere because resorts couldn't agree on it.

Obviously vert is not the only measure. Skiable acreage too. Obviously, to rate a mountain, everyone has to ski it themselves and form their own opinion. That's why vert won't matter to you if you already have your own impression. But I think that if you've *never* been to a mtn before, these numeric figures serve as a fairly decent proxy for what to expect.

For example, if I tell someone that has never been to Vail before that the resort offers 3000 vertical feet, then that person would expect 3000 vertical feet of solid downhill. And Vail actually delivers that, which is great.

But along the same token, if I tell someone who has never been to Killington that the resort offers 3000 vertical feet, then that person would expect 3000 vertical feet of solid downhill...and that person would be sorely disappointed. I think it is more fitting and accurate of a statement to say that killington offers about 1600 feet of solid downhill vertical with a *caveat* that it is possible to piece together a 3000 foot run if you don't mind covering a lot of near-flat terrain. That's not solid downhill vertical, though.

If you don't have solid numbers, then its really tough to try to get that quick snapshot of a resort you've never tested for yourself. Numbers are certainly useful in giving you part of the picture (but not the whole story, we acknowledge)


For truly huge mountains, yes you'll often ski it in chunks, but many people also like skiing it as a whole. I was at whistler this year and spent a lot of the time riding 2000 ft runs at a time, but we also live for those peak-to-creeks, racing down 5000 feet of vert without ever slowing down...its divine. You can't do that anywhere else and it puts you in awe of the sheer scale of the mtn -- they deserve credit for that, as well as any resort that enables you to do that.


Another point... if you think about it, true-up vertical or any type of technical ski stat naturally caters towards advanced skiers, not the beginners. A beginner will generally not look up technical mtn stats before visiting a resort (let alone even know what a vertical drop is). It is only the more hardcore skiers that do that. That's a reason why our metric attempts to look for the long fall line without any interruption, not the long green trail.

To this point, I'd say there are 2 reasons why east coasters dream of the west coast:
1. the quality of the powder
2. the sheer scale of mountains

Obviously the quality of snow/grooming is important. But, it's really tough to quantify this in a meaningful way to people. I mean, its not just snow depth, but moisture, quality of powder, etc.

At least we can quantify #2, the sheer scale of the mountain...which is vertical  and skiable acreage. It's why we made the site.



UVSHTSTRM said:


> I really like your site, very well done, and really can't disagree with most of what you find/say.  As you go forward (I am sure you are busy with other things), but it would be cool if you also added things like max vert via single lift,  maximum continous vert (which in most cases is the real vert and list primary trail/trails for doing so.  I think the stats geeks like myself really enjoy your site.



Thanks, and yeah we've got lots of ideas in the works. This site is still way in its infancy. We'll be adding to it.

One thing we are definitely looking to do once we finish with all the resorts is start posting details and explanations behind each resort's measurement.

For example, at whistler, you can hike to almost the top of blackcomb peak and shoot down to the left side of lakeside bowl. The trail maps don't even show that clearly. We wouldn't include this as part of true-up because its definitely more of a hidden gem than a commonly skied route, but these are the types of details we'd definitely like to share about every resort.

Cheers


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 31, 2010)

Geez, I don't even know where to begin. Prior to this debate, I was really critical of ski area vertical drop numbers. However, MV Frank's discussion points above make me actually want to defend ski area's use of vertical drop as highest point to lowest point because MV Frank's reasoning does not stand. One example is:



> A beginner will generally not look up technical mtn stats before visiting a resort (let alone even know what a vertical drop is). It is only the more hardcore skiers that do that.


I think both look at it but it is more likely the beginner than the hardcore that is influenced by it. The hardcore can look at a map, pull up a topo, or just know from experience (i.e. VT areas generally have run outs at most VT mountains) to better understand the true vertical that can be expected per run. The beginner does not know to question and is more likely to be swayed by big numbers (sometimes called marketing) than the hardcore skier who knows to question the numbers. And the hardcore skier is more likely to look at areas for terrain than vertical (i.e. Magic Mountain, Black Mountain, etc.). E.g. My favorite upper mountain trail pod at Jay has the least amount of vertical (Jet). Etc.

I think more numbers are needed. The only completely bogus number are ski areas that use two different mountains that are not fully continuous to get their vertical. I think we can all agree that areas with two different mountains should use the larger vertical drop between the two mountains as their vertical. For the rest, I think having multiple categories is the way to go: actual mountain vertical, continuous vertical, and largest trail pod vertical. The problem with "true vertical" is you have changed a real statistic (total ski area vertical) into an arbitrary one of your choosing (vertical likely skied by most skiers as defined by Mountain Vertical). 

The objections from the Killington crowd raise legitimate points. At the least, K's true vert is from the summit to the second stage of the Skyeship. Looking at the trail map, I notice that going down to Route 4 does involve some green circle terrain but also a few blue squares and a black diamond are available. I have never skied that lower part of the mountain, but it doesn't look like Kansas at Sunday River.


----------



## catskills (Oct 31, 2010)

Wow!  Windham Mountain lists 1600 foot vertical on their web site.   Mountain Vertical lists Windham as 1400 foot vertical.   That is a huge 200 foot or 14 percent difference.  

Who is right?  

Hunter stats says 1600 foot vertical while Mountain Vertical lists Hunter as 1520.  I am willing to give Hunter the 80 feet or 5 percent extra.   Adding on another 200 feet is a big stretch.


----------



## MV Frank (Oct 31, 2010)

The beginner thing in my post, I wrote down too fast before thinking about what I wrote, so I'll take back that sentence as too broad of a generalization. That's fair.

Reality is for that 99% of resorts, it is extremely cut-and-dry obvious, with 1% where there will be more than one interpretation.

Practically speaking, correcting whistler's "one mile" claim, bringing Sunday river to 1600 from 2300, not letting dozens of ski areas get away with "rounding up" to the next 100, knocking down deer valley from 3000 to 1900. All that is clear as day - no one gonna dispute it. And like I said, its 99% of cases. 

But then in the 1% of cases you got a really weird terrain layout like killington, there has to be an element of both art + science. I mean we're talking about skiability here - which means that there needs an element of evaluation on top of pure technical measurement. It is a necessity. You have to ski it youself (the art) as well as survey the public (I guess this can be the science part). In fact, all you guys are data points...meaning that if there are enough people that have skied the mountain and have a differing interpretation about skiability, then we change it.

I will reiterate again that its literally about 1% of cases. There will always be some controversial cases, but overall we're trying to put something together that is as useful as possible.

This also leads to the last thing I said before which is to eventually include all the details. That is fully transparency into it and gives people a way to see how the stats apply to them. Like eventually for killington, we'd make a ton of extra notes that make it easy for all different types of skiers to get a gauge on how they ski the mtn.

Sound fair?


----------



## MV Frank (Oct 31, 2010)

Actually, I Just talked with one of the other guys who is a part of the site.

For the 1% of controversial cases, we want to provide more than one number if there are multiple ways of reading what it should be. This means that for the few ski resorts with lots shades of gray (like killington), if a lot of people interpret k1 as the one and others see it differently, we provide both, in bold letters and big font, on the site.

What are your thoughts on that?

This site is in its infancy, with the goal of being as useful as possible. We're constantly trying to make it better. We THANK you for your thoughts and opinions, as it helps us evolve as we move forward.


----------



## oakapple (Oct 31, 2010)

MV Frank said:


> Actually, I Just talked with one of the other guys who is a part of the site.
> 
> For the 1% of controversial cases, we want to provide more than one number if there are multiple ways of reading what it should be. This means that for the few ski resorts with lots shades of gray (like killington), if a lot of people interpret k1 as the one and others see it differently, we provide both, in bold letters and big font, on the site.


I think you guys are definitely headed in the right direction.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 31, 2010)

After checking out the eastern resorts on Frank's list it should be pointed out that most of the resorts numbers check out. 

When I went to the central rocky mtn resorts I wanted to check only one resort. I was living and working at JH when we heard on the radio that Big Sky's new lift to the top of Lone Peak put their vert over JH.  Keep in mind that JH's vert was a big marketing thing, for years it was "ski the big one". We knew it was a scam cause to do the vert at BS you had to take a lift up to continue skiing to the bottom. Good job Frank! I wish you were around in circa 1994.  Course, the internet wasn't around just yet either. :lol: BTW Big Sky has been owned by Boyne for many years.

If remember a couple of years later Snowmass built a lift to give them greater vert than JH but we all felt that it was legit and I believe JH dropped the "ski the big one" moniker at that time.


----------



## RootDKJ (Oct 31, 2010)

MV Frank said:


> Actually, I Just talked with one of the other guys who is a part of the site.
> 
> For the 1% of controversial cases, we want to provide more than one number if there are multiple ways of reading what it should be. This means that for the few ski resorts with lots shades of gray (like killington), if a lot of people interpret k1 as the one and others see it differently, we provide both, in bold letters and big font, on the site.
> 
> ...



Why not reach out to the ski area in question and ask them to justify their vert claims?


----------



## oakapple (Oct 31, 2010)

RootDKJ said:


> Why not reach out to the ski area in question and ask them to justify their vert claims?



I don't think you would get very helpful responses.

Also, in a pretty significant number of cases, the resorts' claims are technically correct, and MountainVertical.com is making a judgment call that most skiers wouldn't actually ski the whole way, top to bottom, in one run. There's a mixture of cases where it is literally impossible, and those where it is merely unlikely, to varying degrees.


----------



## RootDKJ (Oct 31, 2010)

oakapple said:


> I don't think you would get very helpful responses.


But wouldn't it be interesting :smash:


----------



## oakapple (Oct 31, 2010)

Another example of "truthful fibbing" is the so-called "longest run," such as Killington's Juggernaut, which is practically cross-country most of the way.


----------



## frankm938 (Oct 31, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Agreed, plus lets think about the fact that most resorts in the east whether 1500ft of vert or 3300ft of vert most customers only do about 1500ft of vert in one run.  Whether it's Sugarloaf, Killington, Jay, Cannon, or Sunapee, Magic, or Mt Snow, you are generally going to do about 1500ft of vert on a fair amount of your runs.  So at the end of the day vert has little effect on people, it's what makes up the 1500ft vert that plays a more important roll in what people think of a mountain...



ding ding ding.  i agree, and would add that its not just eastern resorts that you ski 1500 at a time.  its the same with western resorts (at least for the expert terrain).
even heli skiing operations that claim 8000+ vert are only skied 1500-2000' at a time (ive been to the selkirks, monashees and bugaboos and nobody was complaining about run length)


----------



## frankm938 (Oct 31, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Q: What do you call a 2nd day snowboarder?
> 
> A:  An instructor
> 
> ...



is barnibus name James?  because james (the kid with the yellow knee patches who competes in the bmmc) is the best snowboarder ive ever seen at any mtn, not just killington.   wonder if hes the same guy


----------



## Mapnut (Nov 1, 2010)

catskills said:


> Wow!  Windham Mountain lists 1600 foot vertical on their web site.   Mountain Vertical lists Windham as 1400 foot vertical.   That is a huge 200 foot or 14 percent difference.
> 
> Who is right?



Mountain Vertical is correct.  It's easy to verify just by looking at the topo:  http://msrmaps.com/advfind.aspx  You can use the aerial photographs at Msrmaps to locate the tops and bottoms of lifts if not shown on the topo. As I mentioned, there are a lot of areas on Mountainvertical.com where that still needs to be done.


----------



## threecy (Nov 1, 2010)

For me, I think the most useful vertical stat is maximum vertical served by one alpine lift (ie not counting Slidebrook Express).  Beyond that, it seems like there is a lot of opinion involved in coming up with non summit-base numbers.


----------



## oakapple (Nov 1, 2010)

catskills said:


> Wow!  Windham Mountain lists 1600 foot vertical on their web site.   Mountain Vertical lists Windham as 1400 foot vertical.   That is a huge 200 foot or 14 percent difference.


Windham claims that their Chair A, all by itself, is 1550 feet. (The remaining 50 feet would probably be the run-out down to the lodge.) So this is a difference that can't be accounted for by MountainVertical's methodology.



> Hunter stats says 1600 foot vertical while Mountain Vertical lists Hunter as 1520.  I am willing to give Hunter the 80 feet or 5 percent extra.   Adding on another 200 feet is a big stretch.


At Hunter, I am guessing that MountainVertical used the AA chair, top to bottom. The remaining 80 feet probably comes from Hunter One, which I think is at a lower elevation, but isn't part of a continuous run down from the top of Hunter West.


----------



## jaywbigred (Nov 1, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> One example is:
> 
> 
> I think both look at it but it is more likely the beginner than the hardcore that is influenced by it. The hardcore can look at a map, pull up a topo, or just know from experience (i.e. VT areas generally have run outs at most VT mountains) to better understand the true vertical that can be expected per run. The beginner does not know to question and is more likely to be swayed by big numbers (sometimes called marketing) than the hardcore skier who knows to question the numbers. And the hardcore skier is more likely to look at areas for terrain than vertical (i.e. Magic Mountain, Black Mountain, etc.). E.g. My favorite upper mountain trail pod at Jay has the least amount of vertical (Jet). Etc.



I completely disagree with this. Having hosted a dozen or so beginner skiers during last season alone, I can vouch that none of them look at stats like Vertical Feet. You might think trail count would be more important, but they don't look at that either. Really, they just want to know how many and how difficult are the greens. 

The overriding perspective of most beginners is one of complete intimidation. I think if I were to discuss what "vertical feet" meant, my friends would tell me they would probably search for a mountain with a LOW number, because it would be less intimidating. 

And let's be honest, true beginners often stick to bunny slopes and short greens on the lower half of the mountain. Vertical feet, as a metric, is not something beginners look at or care about.

Therefore, I think Frank is right to take the metric and try to translate it into a number from which habitual skiers (i.e., non-beginners) can glean something useful.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 1, 2010)

MV Frank said:


> I remember reading before that historically, there have been collaborative initiatives to standardize resort metrics and even create universal metrics that factored in all types of attributes of a resort. Didn't get anywhere because resorts couldn't agree on it.
> 
> Obviously vert is not the only measure. Skiable acreage too. Obviously, to rate a mountain, everyone has to ski it themselves and form their own opinion. That's why vert won't matter to you if you already have your own impression. But I think that if you've *never* been to a mtn before, these numeric figures serve as a fairly decent proxy for what to expect.
> 
> ...



The problem with your metric is its basically just your opinion on a mountains vertical and who would rather ski it that way. 

As the Killington guys here have proved, plenty of people ski down to the Skyship base. Just because YOU dont think youd ski doesnt mean plenty of other people wouldnt. 

It would be like Jackson Hole only saying they have 3800 vert because you have to traverse out and back a ways in places (aka Hobacks - which involves a pretty boring traverse lift to get out of there as well). We all know that is not the case. 

I dont like your site for this reason. Its basically just a jazzed up blog about what you think is awesome, and what you think isnt. Sweet, join the club. 

You said it yourself, theres no standard metric for this stuff, so I automatically assume its just your opinion. Im not buying alot of it.


----------



## Geoff (Nov 1, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> The problem with your metric is its basically just your opinion on a mountains vertical and who would rather ski it that way.
> 
> As the Killington guys here have proved, plenty of people ski down to the Skyship base. Just because YOU dont think youd ski doesnt mean plenty of other people wouldnt.
> 
> ...



My take-away from all this:   Shut up and ski.


----------



## oakapple (Nov 1, 2010)

jaywbigred said:


> I completely disagree with this. Having hosted a dozen or so beginner skiers during last season alone, I can vouch that none of them look at stats like Vertical Feet. You might think trail count would be more important, but they don't look at that either. Really, they just want to know how many and how difficult are the greens.
> 
> The overriding perspective of most beginners is one of complete intimidation. I think if I were to discuss what "vertical feet" meant, my friends would tell me they would probably search for a mountain with a LOW number, because it would be less intimidating.
> 
> ...



There is a pretty big gulf between bunny-slope beginners and experts. I think most people, if they are going to have any affinity for the sport, pretty quickly get to the point where they are willing to give ANY green a shot. For liability reasons, most ski resorts are pretty conservative with labeling green. Anyone who has learned to make a confident snowplow turn can probably handle the full range of greens without being a danger to himself or others.

I am a mostly green and blue skier. What I generally look for is: how many chairlifts have at least one green route down, as those are the ones I am absolutely positive I will be able to do comfortably, at any mountain. (Blues comprehend a much broader range of difficulty, though I can usually handle them.) I do look for height, because a larger vertical means there is more variety, better scenery, and less time waiting in lift lines.

I do think Frank got Killington wrong, as Great Eastern down to the bottom of Skyeship is a real run that plenty of people consider a worthwhile challenge. Although it is labeled green, it is certainly beyond somebody’s first day off the bunny slopes.


----------



## Mapnut (Nov 1, 2010)

oakapple said:


> Windham claims that their Chair A, all by itself, is 1550 feet. (The remaining 50 feet would probably be the run-out down to the lodge.) So this is a difference that can't be accounted for by MountainVertical's methodology.



That's just a plain old bald-faced lie.  Don't put it past any ski area operator.  The top of the mountain is, at most, 3050 feet.  A 1550-foot drop would put the bottom of the lift at 1500 feet.  You can see on the topo that that elevation only occurs a half-mile past the base lodge, past all the parking lots, across a road and right on the bank of Batavia Kill.

http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=18&X=701&Y=5853&W=3&qs=|windham|ny|

Also:  http://www.skilifts.org/old/install_na1993.htm


----------



## Geoff (Nov 1, 2010)

oakapple said:


> There is a pretty big gulf between bunny-slope beginners and experts. I think most people, if they are going to have any affinity for the sport, pretty quickly get to the point where they are willing to give ANY green a shot. For liability reasons, most ski resorts are pretty conservative with labeling green. Anyone who has learned to make a confident snowplow turn can probably handle the full range of greens without being a danger to himself or others.
> 
> I am a mostly green and blue skier. What I generally look for is: how many chairlifts have at least one green route down, as those are the ones I am absolutely positive I will be able to do comfortably, at any mountain. (Blues comprehend a much broader range of difficulty, though I can usually handle them.) I do look for height, because a larger vertical means there is more variety, better scenery, and less time waiting in lift lines.
> 
> I do think Frank got Killington wrong, as Great Eastern down to the bottom of Skyeship is a real run that plenty of people consider a worthwhile challenge. Although it is labeled green, it is certainly beyond somebody’s first day off the bunny slopes.



An advanced skier or snowboarder can look at a trail map, double check with friends, and trivially filter out all the marketing B.S.   All the superlatives and inflated numbers are targeted at the occasional skier who doesn't have the same word of mouth sanity check on all the hype.   Most of those are intermediates.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 1, 2010)

Geoff said:


> An advanced skier or snowboarder can look at a trail map, double check with friends, and trivially filter out all the marketing B.S.



I agree with this 100%.  I haven't been anywhere new in the passed ten years where I arrived and didn't have a fairly decent expectation of what I was going to ski.  If only slightly, it's been the smaller areas like Mt. Abram and Shawnee Peak that have skied a bit bigger than I expected them to.


----------



## oakapple (Nov 1, 2010)

Geoff said:


> An advanced skier or snowboarder can look at a trail map, double check with friends, and trivially filter out all the marketing B.S. All the superlatives and inflated numbers are targeted at the occasional skier who doesn't have the same word of mouth sanity check on all the hype.   Most of those are intermediates.


Yeah, but the non-advanced and occaisonal skiers do comprise a pretty significant portion of the customer base, and the advanced ones had to GET that way somehow. I am always amazed by how many advanced skiers have no recollection of what it was like to NOT be great at it.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I agree with this 100%.  I haven't been anywhere new in the passed ten years where I arrived and didn't have a fairly decent expectation of what I was going to ski.  If only slightly, it's been the smaller areas like Mt. Abram and Shawnee Peak that have skied a bit bigger than I expected them to.



So true. If anything my opinion of places turns to the better opposed to the worse 90% of the time for this reason. 

I think the one place Ive really been let down is the Vail/Beaver Creek combo. I expected huge variety, big mountains, etc. I was let down with the traverse/moderate groomer fest that they were. Always sunny there though, that is nice for a groomer day.


----------



## legalskier (Nov 1, 2010)

Interesting how Pico has more vert (1967') than Killington (!645'), which owns it. Even though they aren't connected, isn't Killington's true vertical 1967' by virtue of its ownership thereof? After all, you can ski both places on the same pass.


----------



## Riverskier (Nov 1, 2010)

legalskier said:


> Interesting how Pico has more vert (1967') than Killington (!645'), which owns it. Even though they aren't connected, isn't Killington's true vertical 1967' by virtue of its ownership thereof? After all, you can ski both places on the same pass.



Family attribution.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 1, 2010)

legalskier said:


> Interesting how Pico has more vert (1967') than Killington (!645'), which owns it. Even though they aren't connected, isn't Killington's true vertical 1967' by virtue of its ownership thereof? After all, you can ski both places on the same pass.



Hahaha, so Sunday River and Loons vert is actually 2500ft because Sugarloaf?  I only kid.  Sidenote, I love Pico on a powder day.....or just about any day.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 1, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> The problem with your metric is its basically just your opinion on a mountains vertical and who would rather ski it that way.
> 
> As the Killington guys here have proved, plenty of people ski down to the Skyship base. Just because YOU dont think youd ski doesnt mean plenty of other people wouldnt.
> 
> ...



I think his site is more geared to numbers geeks (like me) and people intrested in a closer look at more realalistic numbers for those of us who don't care about kiddie slopes, drawn out cruisers, etc.  I don't think he ever stated his metric as fact and posts both sets of vert, his vert based on his metric and the metric used by the ski resort.  Also for 99% of the vistors to his site, they both can read and decipher the reasons for his numbers.  Also I doubt you are going to find many casual skiers visiting his site, kind of like most casual skiers (day or two skiers) are going to visit the various blogs/sites we visit.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 1, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> I think his site is more geared to numbers geeks (like me) and people intrested in a closer look at more realalistic numbers for those of us who don't care about kiddie slopes, drawn out cruisers, etc.  I don't think he ever stated his metric as fact and posts both sets of vert, his vert based on his metric and the metric used by the ski resort.  Also for 99% of the vistors to his site, they both can read and decipher the reasons for his numbers.  Also I doubt you are going to find many casual skiers visiting his site, kind of like most casual skiers (day or two skiers) are going to visit the various blogs/sites we visit.



This is definitely true. Cant argue against the passion. 

Everyones metric is different as well, which was my overall point if you exclude the brash, ignorant, blanket statements I tend to throw around often. 

I geek out on trailmaps, so I can see the benefit of sites like his.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 1, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> I geek out on trailmaps, so I can see the benefit of sites like his.



ditto!


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Wow Whiteface is a giant.


----------



## oakapple (Nov 5, 2010)

For what it’s worth, if you are trying to keep the ski resorts honest, you should include anything that’s a “real ski run,” and by that definition Killington Peak down to Skyeship Base is legitimate. Great Eastern isn’t just a traverse or a connector trail. 

I can understand excluding: A) Non-lift-serviced territory; B) Connections that are truly impossible; C) Flat traverses that literally have no other function except to connect two otherwise separate mountains. But I don’t think you should exclude runs that really do go downhill, just because you think some skiers would find them too easy.

Alternatively, perhaps you could go with several columns:

1) Highest lift-serviced point to lowest lift-serviced point, even if you could never do the whole thing in one run

2) Longest possible continuous lift-serviced vertical, even if it includes traverses or connecting paths

3) Longest possible continuous run by difficulty (black, blue, green)


----------



## skiadikt (Nov 5, 2010)

oakapple said:


> For what it’s worth, if you are trying to keep the ski resorts honest, you should include anything that’s a “real ski run,” and by that definition Killington Peak down to Skyeship Base is legitimate. Great Eastern isn’t just a traverse or a connector trail.
> 
> I can understand excluding: A) Non-lift-serviced territory; B) Connections that are truly impossible; C) Flat traverses that literally have no other function except to connect two otherwise separate mountains. But I don’t think you should exclude runs that really do go downhill, just because you think some skiers would find them too easy.
> 
> ...



agreed, great eastern is nothing to sneeze at. remember back in '75 or so, when i was a newbie skier, we came to k just to ski the 5-mile great eastern run that we'd heard about and it's sister trail, the blue square 4-mile trail. it's certainly real vertical to a young kid, novice or low intermediate skier.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 5, 2010)

This website is pretty absurd, and I'm going to take a wild guess that the guy who runs it isn't a very serious skier.

Killington's full vert is continuously skiable.  If you don't like it, tough cookies.

Very rarely are you going to ski full vert at most areas anyway.  Certainly not at Sugarbush.  Not at any mountain that has upper and lower mountain trail pods.  There only a few places I can think of where you would ski full vert on a regular basis:  MRG and Stowe.

Vertical drop as a statistic combined with the acreage, it gives a very good idea of the scope of the ski area.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 5, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> This website is pretty absurd, and I'm going to take a wild guess that the guy who runs it isn't a very serious skier.
> 
> Killington's full vert is continuously skiable.  If you don't like it, tough cookies.
> 
> ...




Dont forget whitface the giant.  I ski full vert runs a couple times a day.


----------



## jaywbigred (Nov 5, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> Dont forget whitface the giant.  I ski full vert runs a couple times a day.



The whole day at Mount Snow too. Don't know how the Vert of the Main Face vs. the North Face compares though.

I love how insulted the Killington lovers get! Hilarious!

It's like George talking about shrinkage with Jerry

"Yes! I mean, if she thinks that's me she's under a complete

misapprehension. That was not me, Jerry. That was not me"


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 5, 2010)

jaywbigred said:


> The whole day at Mount Snow too. Don't know how the Vert of the Main Face vs. the North Face compares though.
> 
> I love how insulted the Killington lovers get! Hilarious!
> 
> ...



the water was COLD.  HAHA


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 5, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> Dont forget whitface the giant.  I ski full vert runs a couple times a day.



Jeez, we get it.  Man you got a woody for Whiteface. 


 Me personally I would take very good/great snow over huge vertical anyday.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 5, 2010)

Quality of Quantity is what all the ones say with short verts! 

And if he thinks only MRG and Stowe are the ones with continous vert he is incorrect. Where as rarely does anyone ski Stowe all the way down the Toll road to Toll House. Cannon and Wildcat as stated before. Let's kick that horse one more time.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 5, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Jeez, we get it.  Man you got a woody for Whiteface.
> 
> 
> Me personally I would take very good/great snow over huge vertical anyday.



Have you been to Whiteface?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 6, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Have you been to Whiteface?



Nope, why?


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 6, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Jeez, we get it.  Man you got a woody for Whiteface.
> 
> 
> Me personally I would take very good/great snow over huge vertical anyday.



I sure do. Big Vert=Big Wood. 

You have never been here so how do you know.  I love you guys that have only gone to a few big hills in the North East and start thowing shit out as if you can really compare.


----------



## catskills (Nov 6, 2010)

oakapple said:


> Windham claims that their Chair A, all by itself, is 1550 feet. (The remaining 50 feet would probably be the run-out down to the lodge.) So this is a difference that can't be accounted for by MountainVertical's methodology.



Interesting that the SAM Magazine listed the Windham 1993  HSQ install as 1320 vertical feet.  These lift Installation numbers from SAM are usually very accurate.  



oakapple said:


> At Hunter, I am guessing that MountainVertical used the AA chair, top to bottom. The remaining 80 feet probably comes from Hunter One, which I think is at a lower elevation, but isn't part of a continuous run down from the top of Hunter West.



Here is the Hunter Mtn 1987 HSQ installation which is listed as 1471 vertical feet by SAM Magazine.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 6, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> I sure do. Big Vert=Big Wood.
> 
> You have never been here so how do you know.  I love you guys that have only gone to a few big hills in the North East and start thowing shit out as if you can really compare.



First, at least you can admit it.

Second, how do I know what?  That it doesn't get the snow like Jay, Killington, Sugarbush etc?  Other than that what did I say that takes me actually going there?  Not to say I might not visit there someday in the future.


----------



## Geoff (Nov 6, 2010)

I think this thread is useless since vertical is a pathetic way to rate a mountain but I'm pretty sure that Whiteface is the only lift-serviced in the east that can hold a World Cup downhill, right?   It's completely off my radar.   I was there for one day during the 1980 Olympics.   I had a pass at Stowe at the time and the surface and terrain at Stowe were a lot better.   I imagine Whiteface, like anywhere else, skis really well when it has lots of fresh snow.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 6, 2010)

Geoff said:


> I think this thread is useless since vertical is a pathetic way to rate a mountain but I'm pretty sure that Whiteface is the only lift-serviced in the east that can hold a World Cup downhill, right?   It's completely off my radar.   I was there for one day during the 1980 Olympics.   I had a pass at Stowe at the time and the surface and terrain at Stowe were a lot better.   I imagine Whiteface, like anywhere else, skis really well when it has lots of fresh snow.



Totally agree, and I guess that it what I had been attempting to get across....aka snow, and what the vertical consists of are more important to me than lets say pure top to bottom vert.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 7, 2010)

At least a couple years ago when I was a passholder at Whiteface, they claimed a 220ish" seasonal average, compared to 250" claimed at Killington. (These are marketing totals from each mountain respectively). 

Compared to the 250" inches at Killington were talking a drop in a bucket here, and nothing compares to Jay in terms of snowfall on the East coast, so I guess I dont get your point here UV. Sugarbush gets, what maybe a couple more inches than Killington. 20" does not determine a great mountain. Thats less than 10%. I highly doubt you could tell the difference between the two hills midwinter. 

And if you had been, youd realize that Whiteface is a true balls to the wall 3100 hundred vert, compared to Killingtons substantial, but we all agree traverse filled and long way home style run down to Skyship. Its still legit vert, but definitely different in terms of scale and intensity. 

This is why Whiteface regulars are so vocal on the boards here. People like you come on spewing complete bulltsh"t, and keep on getting away with it. 

To be fair, within the last 5-7 years Whiteface has made leaps and bounds with its snowmaking effort, so those who had gone back in the day I understand, but UV, you admitted you've never been near the place, so I guess the question is, do you need assistance getting your foot out of your mouth?


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 7, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Totally agree, and I guess that it what I had been attempting to get across....aka snow, and what the vertical consists of are more important to me than lets say pure top to bottom vert.



And you draw this conclusion bases on your experience or lack off?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 7, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> At least a couple years ago when I was a passholder at Whiteface, they claimed a 220ish" seasonal average, compared to 250" claimed at Killington. (These are marketing totals from each mountain respectively).
> 
> Compared to the 250" inches at Killington were talking a drop in a bucket here, and nothing compares to Jay in terms of snowfall on the East coast, so I guess I dont get your point here UV. Sugarbush gets, what maybe a couple more inches than Killington. 20" does not determine a great mountain. Thats less than 10%. I highly doubt you could tell the difference between the two hills midwinter.
> 
> ...


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 7, 2010)

Foul language is offensive.  I don't take offense I just point out your ignorance.  No need to get so nasty.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 7, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> Foul language is offensive.  I don't take offense I just point out your ignorance.  No need to get so nasty.



True, sorry for the language.


----------



## AndyEich (Nov 7, 2010)

Geoff said:


> ...I'm pretty sure that Whiteface is the only lift-serviced in the east that can hold a World Cup downhill, right?...



Narrow Gauge at Sugarloaf can, as well.
________
Live Sex Webshows


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 7, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> Foul language is offensive.  I don't take offense I just point out your ignorance.  No need to get so nasty.



Quick question for you, how often are the slides open (on average) would you say, is it along the lines of a month or a couple months like the snowfields at Sugarloaf or more or less?  Just curious.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 7, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Quick question for you, how often are the slides open (on average) would you say, is it along the lines of a month or a couple months like the snowfields at Sugarloaf or more or less?  Just curious.




Average 10 days a year.  Could be open more but this is NY.  Slide one has been skied this year.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 7, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Quick question for you, how often are the slides open (on average) would you say, is it along the lines of a month or a couple months like the snowfields at Sugarloaf or more or less?  Just curious.



I will also add the snowfields seem like a gimmick to me.  As soon as you start skiing them you have to start skiing to the left to get back to the trails.  Been down through the woods and came out on timbuckto and it still does not compare.   I have never been able to ski off the front side of them which may be better.  Sugarloaf has the best skier cross course track that I have been on.  that thing is a blast.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 7, 2010)

Slides at Whiteface are a bit more high consequence than the snowfields at Sugarloaf, and patrol is pretty lame about their definition of gold/silver rating and how they see it. With these elements they are not open as often as the snowfields at the loaf. 

Snowfields are shorter, and you do have to basically half traverse the whole time. However, outside of slide 1, you're traversing a bunch in and out as well, especially those far slides.  

Burnt mountain is pretty sweet though, Whiteface wont have that type of large, gladed area ever, although I havent been into that area of the Wilmington trail yet. 

Whiteface is still the vert king though and its addictive. Its something you dont think you want, but once you have it, you need it.


----------



## crank (Nov 7, 2010)

There seems to be a Whiteface phenomenon that anytime someone shows no love for the place those that do have a fierce love for WF feel compelled to jump to her defense.

So I've skied it maybe 6 times over the past 25 years and that makes me familiar with it, but far from an expert. In my purely incidental experience , admittedly prejudiced towards the type of skiing I like best, which includes powder, trees and moguls in that order,  I find WF boring and wearing.  Steep?  Well steepish yes.  Overly groomed?  It is for me anyway.  Amount of snow?  I have canceled reservations there twice because big storms dropped a whopping 3" on WF and at least 4x that amount at Jay.

All I'm saying is that WF is a great area for some skiers and a not so great for others.  As far as continuous vertical goes, I would rather ski a challenging and interesting 1600 foot vert than carve down 3000 feet of groomers.  

Having said all that I do want to get to WF to try the new terrain they added last year and I have never skied the Slides.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 7, 2010)

crank said:


> There seems to be a Whiteface phenomenon that anytime someone shows no love for the place those that do have a fierce love for WF feel compelled to jump to her defense.
> 
> So I've skied it maybe 6 times over the past 25 years and that makes me familiar with it, but far from an expert. In my purely incidental experience , admittedly prejudiced towards the type of skiing I like best, which includes powder, trees and moguls in that order,  I find WF boring and wearing.  Steep?  Well steepish yes.  Overly groomed?  It is for me anyway.  Amount of snow?  I have canceled reservations there twice because big storms dropped a whopping 3" on WF and at least 4x that amount at Jay.
> 
> ...



I don't get whining comment.  I don't whine.

25 years ago is a long time.  Much better today with grooming,tree skiing,terrain parks.  

Using your logic.  I have been to Stowe 6 to 10 times in the last ten years.  I have NEVER caught on a good day.  The trail that you could ski were groomed flat and race ready.  I can see what is there if they only had the conditions and It would be sour grapes to knock them.

If you are saying Whiteface steeps are only somewhat steep, well that because they were groomed flat.  Furthermore if you can't see that the terrain is bad ass I can't help you.  We don't get the snow numbers.  If we got three hundred inches a year everyone would know.  We don't even get close to that.  We make do with nicks in our skiis until we get dump and then we all look at each other and know why we ski 2hitefa@ce


----------



## crank (Nov 7, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> I don't get whining comment.  I don't whine.
> 
> 25 years ago is a long time.  Much better today with grooming,tree skiing,terrain parks.
> 
> ...



I never used the word "whine" nor even alluded to it.  I said "Jump to her defense."  I think that is accurate.

I was at WF 3 or 4 years ago... I said about 6 times over a period of 25 years, meaning the first time was 25 years ago and the others were spread out over the years.  Every time save for one it has been groomed flat.  The one time it wasn't groomed it had soft snow and we skied the whole mountain and had a good time but it wasn't what I call really steep.  Overall there is a definite and very consistent steepness, but there is nothing that stands out as really effing steep.

And why does every trail need to be groomed "race ready"?

Hey if I were a racer or a carving fanatic I would be a WF regular and love it like you do.  I'm not though and I don't.  I think it's a good mountain and I will ski there in the future.  When someone slags Jay for having crappy trails or crappy lifts I don't say anything because it's true. If you want to be the defender of WF go ahead and defend.  I was just pointing out the defenders of phenomenon.  I think WF is the only area that has such staunch loyalists.... well maybe Ski Sundown too... oh and Kmart...


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 7, 2010)

I would love to know what mountains in the east you think provide more consistent, steep, fall line skiing than Whiteface.


----------



## Frank101 (Nov 7, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> I would love to know what mountains in the east you think provide more consistent, steep, fall line skiing than Whiteface.



I think the point is that he doesn't care. It's not his type of mountain. Is the conversation not over at this point?


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 7, 2010)

This is an internet message board. Conversations ending is bad for business.


----------



## Frank101 (Nov 7, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> This is an internet message board. Conversations ending is bad for business.



But it's no longer anywhere near the original post. 

Maybe you should start another post more relevant to what you guys are talking about.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 7, 2010)

Thanks message board police with 20 posts.


----------



## Frank101 (Nov 7, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Thanks message board police with 20 posts.



I'm not board police. I just don't like to see posts turn into fights.


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 7, 2010)

Frank101 said:


> I'm not board police. I just don't like to see posts turn into fights.



Frank, some people come here just to fight.


----------



## crank (Nov 7, 2010)

Not really much of a fight...more of a disagreement I'd say.

But Frank is correct.  I just don't care.  WF is not my type of mountain.  I enjoy it but it is far from one of my favorites.  Does it have the longest consistently steep vertical lift served skiing in the east.  Maybe it does but I still find it boring and wearing.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 7, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Thanks message board police with 20 posts.


Post counts have nothing to do with quality of posts. Some folks like Frank101 don't have many posts but have already contributed positively. Other folks rack up the post counts but not many of them contribute positively.


----------



## AdironRider (Nov 7, 2010)

I doubt you could say Im a post whore. What with 1k posts in 5 years? 

Relax folks. Just like real life conversations, internet conversations can change course and flow as well. Thats what makes them interesting.


----------



## Frank101 (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm just excited to get the ski season going.....


LETS SKI


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 7, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> I doubt you could say Im a post whore. What with 1k posts in 5 years?
> 
> Relax folks. Just like real life conversations, internet conversations can change course and flow as well. Thats what makes them interesting.



I don't think rivercoil was suggesting you are a post whore.  Just pointing out that folks with low post counts can still have valuable contributions and their opinions shouldn't be discredited because they don't post often and/or are new members.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 6, 2011)

Hey Frank, congrats on the Globe article!

What's up with no plug for alpinezone.com though? 


http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/skiing/articles/2011/01/06/a_measured_response/


----------



## mister moose (Jan 6, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Hey Frank, congrats on the Globe article!
> 
> What's up with no plug for alpinezone.com though?
> 
> ...



Not to mention no recognition of previously published concept and work on the subject.

I have been charting "Skiable Vertical" since 2007.


----------

