Mountain Vertical updates...Sugarbush and Killington

[catskills]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?[/QUOTE

10-4, jesus you are such a tool. I must stop as I feel like I am getting drawn into a political arguments or similarly stupid argument red sox /yankess........it's fucking skiing you tool. For the most part I was only replying back because tjf67 kept posting these little comments, and you, you're just a troll. You two keep taking offense to the fact that Whiteface doesn't get tons of props on here, but really nobody said the place sucks, but if they haven't been there why would they really comment on it all the time? No reason. So go crawl back into you're hole. Oh and explain what comment I need to get out of my mouth? 10 year averages, 252, 200, you are right not much and not enough to keep me away from someday going to Whiteface, heck 100 inches wouldn't keep me away from at least going to a place. Afterall if I am riding it's a good day.

 

[tjf67]

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

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Frank101]

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]

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