Mountain Vertical updates...Sugarbush and Killington

[ski_resort_observer]

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]

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]

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]

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

Hopefully not in that order.

 

[tjf67]

Whiteface is a Giant!!! haha

 

[mondeo]

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...

Whiteface is a Giant!!! haha

 

[tjf67]

Speaking of egos...

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

 

[EPB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

impressive

dropping the pythagorean theorem

 

[jaywbigred]

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?

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]

Pitch matters in the calculation

Obviously.

 

[KevinS]

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]

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.

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.