• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Mountain Vertical updates - all New England ski areas

tipsdown

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
263
Points
18
I did reference Google Maps terrain. Obviously not the most accurate topo. But even if you took the summit reading down to below the beginner area, it was barely 1800ish as I recall. Could just be that Google Maps Terrain feature is really just that far off. Let's hear from someone with a USGS reading.

Trust me rivercoil, the base level has changed since the new quad went it...The new learning area quad loading area is at 2120 ft. of elevation.
 

oakapple

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
470
Points
0
Location
New York, NY
What percentage of beginners and low intermediates care about a stat like total vert? Maybe what Frank is trying to do, without realize it, is create a meaningful vert stat for people who actually care about things like vert stats...who, I'd bet are high intermediates or better a vast majority of the time. In other words, I'd be surprised if too many of the people that make up the "crowds" on Great Northern gave a darn about total vert advertisements (or even knew what total vert was).

As a person who was (I am guessing) a beginner/low intermediate a lot more recently than you were, I can tell you that you are mistaken. The fact that one can ski that long distance on a green trail is a considerable part of Killington's appeal. There are many mountains where the summit is not available to green skiers. For decades, the fact that every Killington chairlift has a green route to the bottom has been part of their selling proposition.

Even lower level skiers quickly figure out the advantages of higher vertical (better snow cover, longer runs before getting back to the chairlift, etc.). "Vertical" isn't such a deep concept that it takes years in the sport before you're aware of it.

Although I am past the point where I find Great Northern & Great Eastern challenging, I still use them occasionally as a change-of-pace. One of the Mountain Ambassadors there (clearly a strong skier) told me recently that he still enjoys skiing Great Eastern regularly.

And of course, Frank doesn't actually say that his claims are limited to skiers of a particular ability. He says that his statistic, "will limit the measurement based on the vertical that is commonly skied." Great Northern and Great Eastern are clearly commonly-skied runs.

The other thing is, Frank's website basically accuses the ski resorts of lying. He says that the purpose of his site is "to keep them honest." If you're going to accuse people of dishonesty, you need to meet a higher standard. If Frank weren't claiming to be more honest and accurate, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
 

Mapnut

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
644
Points
0
Location
Connecticut
Oh, they lie, all right. As I said, about half of them. Maybe a quarter of them blatantly, by at least a hundred feet, and such that you can easily disprove the claims by just looking at a topo map. There are others you can disprove from the lift installation statistics at skilifts.org. I have looked at practically all the eastern ski areas, and while topo maps may not always be accurate, I have found several dozen areas that overstate vertical compared to topo - and not one that understates it.

Some areas don't actually state their vertical any more, but sites like skitown.com are still using historically-claimed numbers. Berkshire East, for instance, doesn't make any claim but an old, much-too-high number of 1180 is still floating around. I will be interested to see what the installed vertical is for their new triple chair when it's published. The total vertical for the mountain would be a bit higher, since the original summit triple unloads about 10 feet higher (skilifts.org doesn't go back far enough in time to have that installation) and there's a tiny handle tow below the chairlifts.
 

threecy

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,930
Points
0
Website
www.franklinsites.com
I will be interested to see what the installed vertical is for their new triple chair when it's published. The total vertical for the mountain would be a bit higher, since the original summit triple unloads about 10 feet higher (skilifts.org doesn't go back far enough in time to have that installation) and there's a tiny handle tow below the chairlifts.

The newer Poma won't be published in the lift installation survey, as it was a refurbished lift. Neither lift reaches the true summit, though the Summit Triple unloading ramp is almost the same height as the highpoint. The bottom terminal of each triple is not the lowest of the lift served terrain at the mountain. Also, there are some inaccuracies with the USGS map (and thus Google Earth). Certainly there was some generous rounding involved by the Tambussi ownership, however it was not as much as the 7.5 minute topo would suggest. It's certainly legit vertical, though, as there's barely any runout involved.
 
Top