Mountain Vertical updates...Sugarbush and Killington

[ski_resort_observer]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

....... 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]

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]

What an easy request!

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

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

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]

The Kevin S version of the Sugarloaf logo. Better?

 

[MV Frank]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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


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


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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.