• 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

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Good points threecy. There's no consistency to how MV subjectively calculates their vertical.
At least with the mountains self reports we know they're all consistently inflated. MV's are all over the place without any objectivity or standards.

hilarious

lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting
 

MEtoVTSkier

Active member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
1,234
Points
38
Location
Aroostook County, ME
hilarious

lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting

All MV's info, is just another opinion, offered to those that can't make an informed judgment on their own.

Oh, I'm also in that club at K-Mart that skis from K-Peak to the Skyeship Base... so maybe I'm already biased against MV's "opinion".
 

Black Phantom

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
2,459
Points
38
Location
close to the edge
hilarious

lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting

Seriously, what is so inaccurate about peak and base elevations and a bit of arithmetic?

Seems to me that lil frankie is trying to be a wannabe Nader in this quest.

And he does not question Greek Peak's vert? They measure their base altitude from the parking lot. Now there is a case for him to examine.
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
I agree with all of the points mentioned about the subjectivity and inaccuracies of all this.

But also, who cares? Seems like a ton of work to nitpick about something no one really cares about. I judge a mountain by a lot of things but reported vertical isn't one of them. Vertical does count, but only in the sense of how it feels, not how it's reported. For example, I have no idea what Wildcat's vertical is or how they report it. I just know that it feels like a lot when I ski it....and I like it. If I only ski the Zoomer lift at Cannon does the mountain's reported vertical matter to me? Whistler has HUGE vert (although I have no idea what it is or how they report it) but who skis it top to bottom? So who cares?
 

threecy

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,930
Points
0
Website
www.franklinsites.com
lets correct a mouontains inaccurate reporting with our own inaccurate and subjective reporting

Seems to me perhaps the most objective way to look at this would be to look at maximum vertical served by one lift. That's certainly something I look at when I'm looking for a place to ski.
 

EPB

Active member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
966
Points
28
Seems to me perhaps the most objective way to look at this would be to look at maximum vertical served by one lift. That's certainly something I look at when I'm looking for a place to ski.

Me too! ;)
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Seems to me perhaps the most objective way to look at this would be to look at maximum vertical served by one lift. That's certainly something I look at when I'm looking for a place to ski.

I agree, but it depends though.

Some mountains it requires two lifts to ski a particular run. The Kidderbrook area at Stratton comes to mind. Great glades out on that part of the mountain, but you need to take two lifts to ski them.
 

dw2

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
13
Points
0
Is that stratton vertical top to sun bowl base, because that's pretty close to the vert they claim.

also, Gunstock i measured cause I was curious. in person, 1390 feet (no, didn't use a tape measure, used a pretty accurate altimeter) - I'll give them the 1400 because pistol is a tiny bit lower than Panorama.
 

kcyanks1

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
1,555
Points
0
Location
New York, NY
I agree. But I would like to see this comparison of mountains:


  • Bathrooms on the first floor
  • Inside ticket purchase

:dunce:

Yes! Also bathrooms on mountain (top, middle) so I don't have to go down to the bottom (for a mountain you don't always ski top-to-bottom, or one where the base lodge is out of the way).
 

oakapple

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
470
Points
0
Location
New York, NY
Unfortunately, Frank has been utterly deaf to the criticisms of his methodology, and what he claims is objective is nothing of the kind.

Probably the best solution is to present several numbers, and let the reader decide what’s important. That would eliminate subjective judgments, like “Nobody skis Killington Peak to Skyeship Base.”
 

marcski

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
4,576
Points
36
Location
Westchester County, NY and a Mountain near you!
It doesn't really matter does it? ....the precise Vertical of a hill. What's been hard, challenging and fun to ski is hard, challenging and fun to ski whether its 200 or 300 feet shorter or longer in vertical than you initially thought.

Also, I think you need to add in average pitch or steepness over the entire length of a lift pod or mountain's vertical in order to get a better barometer and really make sense of the numbers.
 

marcski

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
4,576
Points
36
Location
Westchester County, NY and a Mountain near you!
Also there are definitely some kinks in the site>...

I looked out west at Alta's listing. MV claims 2005 but then goes on to state "Alta height based on total elevation difference is 2528 ft". Now that last sentence leads one to believe that Alta claims that their vert is 2528...which they do not..they claim it is 2020. However, MV's number is close to accurate if you include the hike upto Mt. Baldy.
 

EPB

Active member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
966
Points
28
I agree, but it depends though.

Some mountains it requires two lifts to ski a particular run. The Kidderbrook area at Stratton comes to mind. Great glades out on that part of the mountain, but you need to take two lifts to ski them.

For me, I find little to be more obnoxious about a ski area's layout than having to take two lifts to ski the entirety of a run. It's one of my few complaints with Sugarloaf (which I consider my favorite eastern resort), because most of the goodies off of the summit require two lifts to ski again. They have serious weather issues to combat, but it's still very inefficient. The silver lining, of course, is that said runs are less likely to get abused.
 

EPB

Active member
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
966
Points
28
It doesn't really matter does it? ....the precise Vertical of a hill. What's been hard, challenging and fun to ski is hard, challenging and fun to ski whether its 200 or 300 feet shorter or longer in vertical than you initially thought.

Also, I think you need to add in average pitch or steepness over the entire length of a lift pod or mountain's vertical in order to get a better barometer and really make sense of the numbers.

I actually like to look at a lift's vertical relative to its length. The ratio gives decent insight into average pitch (though isolated pitch can vary dramatically as lift lines get longer), and the length/vertical of a lift are useful for determining how long the runs should last relative to other areas.

The average pitch is far from perfect, though. Consider the Wildcat Summit Express and the FourRunner Quad at Stowe. Wildcat offers 2041 vertical served by a 6616 foot lift. Stowe offers 2040 feet of vertical serviced by a 6280 foot lift. Little distinguishes them until you observe that Wildcat's pitch is as consistent as it comes, while Stowe has more steeps followed by more flats.
 

pro2860

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
102
Points
0
Location
Central New York
Seriously, what is so inaccurate about peak and base elevations and a bit of arithmetic?

Seems to me that lil frankie is trying to be a wannabe Nader in this quest.

And he does not question Greek Peak's vert? They measure their base altitude from the parking lot. Now there is a case for him to examine.


I checked Greek Peak with a garmin etrex handheld gps and found the parking lot to be 1335 Feet and the highest point I found was top of chair 1 at just under 2100 feet....Their stated vertical is 952 ft.....
 

ctenidae

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
8,959
Points
38
Location
SW Connecticut
I agree. But I would like to see this comparison of mountains:


  • Number of Waffle Haus's

[/LIST]

:dunce:

I prefer Waffle Cabin, myself.

100_2012.JPG
 
Top