Does Size Matter

[snoseek]

Terrain, vert, snow ,acerage, and crowding are all more important than vert to me personally. Ton's of great areas can keep you interested and as long as there are some challenging options it's all good. I love Brighton, Ut and most runs would only ski around 1300 or so vert, solitude is similar because of stupid lift placement. Back east Saddleback skis short but doesn't really bother me.

I do like going to Snowbird or Steamboat and skiing 3000+ vert but stick to pods most of the day.

 

[kingslug]

What I like most about monster vert is the time it takes to finaly get to the bottom. I feel like I'm really out there and not just riding lifts. At Panorama, 4000+ vert, it took almost 20 minutes to get down on one particular route, bumps, fields, cat tracks, powder stashes, it had it all.

 

[Warp Daddy]

I think abundant natural snow is also an important factor when determining if a ski areas is good. Snow Ridge (which only has a vertical drop of 600 ft) is probably better than most NH ski areas.

AH yes "The Ridge" a poor man's mini Alta --- i usually hit that a couple times a season and was there during Feb '07 monster storm 114 inches in like a 3-4 day period --------------------needed a snorkel

 

[ERJ-145CA]

Bigger vert is nice but I can have fun skiing any size mountain. I've had as much fun on 270' of vertical as I've had on 1600'.

 

[billski]

Ten hundred Verties and I can entertain myself quite handily.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Yes

 

[Geoff]

Vertical drop doesn't mean squat. One of my favorite ski areas is Monarch in Colorado right on the continental divide 3 1/2 hours from the hoardes in Denver and 2 1/2 hours south from Breckenridge. It's barely 1100 feet of vertical with three distinct trail pods plus some easy hike-to sidecountry. There is snowcat skiing beyond that area. It's center pole double chairs. There's no glitzy hotel & condo sprawl at the bottom of the hill. The customer base is locals and Texans in Longhorns Starter jackets and farmer overalls. There's not much competition for the good terrain. I've skied there 3 days after a 12" storm and the tops of the bumps only had a few pole plant marks in them and you could trivially find untracked. The skiing surface is fantastic and the terrain is short but interesting.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I like long runs and lots of vert..the 1000+ vert at Blue is about as small as I can tolerate..

 

[tjf67]

Dont kid your self size does matter.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

yup, size does matter...I had a day on hill at Boyne Mtn in Michigan this past winter...I'd slit my wrists if that was all I had available to me on a regular basis. So, while vert isn't #1, there's no amount of snowfall that could have made Boyne exciting and with a struggle to get 6 full turns in on the miniscule vert, there's next to nothing you could do to the terrain to make it interesting. So that's the qualifier...but I've had tons of fun on some short, steep sections with the right snow and terrain features so its not all about vert.

 

[deadheadskier]

Dont kid your self size does matter.

Why am I not surprised with this comment coming from a WF skier :lol:

 

[Greg]

A sub-1K' hill could be much more enjoyable than a 2K'+ hill. It all depends on terrain. Of course, I'd rather have a lot of vert and good terrain, and often times the bigger hills do have the better terrain just because they tend to be more expansive, have multiple terrain pods, etc.

 

[Jonni]

It depends, and just like everybody, I will agree with the idea that bigger may not necessarily be better if the terrain on a shorter hill has more character. I will take either short and interesting or tall and relatively boring any day. But then you have Wildcat, were you get both...

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Dont kid your self size does matter.

yup, size does matter...I had a day on hill at Boyne Mtn in Michigan this past winter...I'd slit my wrists if that was all I had available to me on a regular basis. .

I hear ya. I can't keep going up and down the same little hill all the time without getting bored.

 

[hardline]

all i ask for i consistant pitch. that is why i love stowe. it is all downhill from the time you get off the lift to the time you get back on. i also really like las lenas, and Cerro Castor.
Cerro Castor castor is more fun cause you can ride in storms because the have trees. it reminded me a lot of stowe its just a wee bit bigger.

 

[ski9]

I'd rather do laps on the same steep headwall than wind my way around a huge mountain. Something like FIS at Mt. Ellen, which is less than a football field long. I've only skied it when we'd sneak away from early season camp gates on Elbow, so I'm not sure how bumped up it gets once there's more snow.

 

[Phildozer]

I think abundant natural snow is also an important factor when determining if a ski areas is good. Snow Ridge (which only has a vertical drop of 600 ft) is probably better than most NH ski areas.

Funny you should mention Snow Ridge.

Amazing how good a time you can have at an area that'll sometimes receive 24+" of snow in a single night and people don't even blink an eye!

 

[LonghornSkier]

yes to some extent, it can get boring if your skiing 800' feet every run.

 

[gymnast46]

Size

Size only matters at BrokeBack Mountain.

See skibrokeback.com You have to check out the names of the trails on the Trail Map.

Someone has entirely too much time on his hands :idea:

 

[Greg]

Size only matters at BrokeBack Mountain.

See skibrokeback.com You have to check out the names of the trails on the Trail Map.

Someone has entirely too much time on his hands :idea:

That's a better designed Web site than some I've seen for actual ski areas...