Favorite small to midsize mountains

[tipsdown]

Tipsdown,

I'm going to have kindly disagree with your assessment of Saddleback's vert. I think the trails at Sunday River ski longer than Saddleback because for the most part, I think people don't link the top of Saddleback with the rest of the mountain on a given run. You're either skiing the Kennabago Chair or the Rangely Double for the most part; 960 vert and 1177 vert respectively.

The runs at Sunday River ski quite a bit longer to me. I agree that the 2300 vert claim is a farse, even though you can ski it all if you so chose. That said, a number of Sunday River's pods do afford longer runs over more vertical than Saddleback. Jordan, Barker/Locke and Whitecap all ski longer than the Rangely trail pod.

Deadheadskier,
I can't argue with you there. The outdated lift system at Saddleback hurts the potential for longer runs. I know that's something they plan to address and I'm factoring in the proposed lifts as part of my assessment. But in its current state, you're right, unless people do link the top of the mountain to the base area. If you look at the 10 year plan, they're be doing a lot of development below the Kennebego chair will translate to alot of continueous vertical.

 

[tipsdown]

I was with you till here...



Name of the game is true continuous vert, which is what places like SR, KMart, and Okemo lack.

While by-in-large, 1400 is the vert on 4 of the peaks at SR, if you ski from the top of White Cap to the base, it's a few feet shy of 1600 and it you ski from the top of Locke, which is quite legitimate, with a few good long continuous runs, is 1750. Nonetheless, your other assessments of SR's vert are fair as it's stacked like Killington, which may have over 3000 feet of vert, but continuous doesn't even come close.

As for Sugarloaf, I agree that there is about 400 feet below the base, but 1900 if super-off-base. The SuperQuad itself has 1800 and it starts at the base and terminates far-below the summit. Spillway East alone has over 1400 feet, pretty impressive. Sugarloaf's continuous vert from summit to base is almost 2500. Check it out on Google Earth. Vert below the base is less than 400 feet. Sugarloaf is huge!

jerryg,

Just to make sure you understand my definition of real vertical, I am discounting the last 400 or so ft. above the base area, along with the 400+ below the base area since that's mostly green terrain, but everything else is at least blue (which is what we really all care about). So if you look at my definition, I don't think it's super-off-base. Having said that, I think the SL skies bigger than any ski area in the East, and I think that's its strongest asset. And for the record, it's one of my favorites. I'm just trying to illustrate the misleading numbers and to give a true sense of how the mountain skies, you can't look at the stats…..

 

[jerryg]

jerryg,

Just to make sure you understand my definition of real vertical, I am discounting the last 400 or so ft. above the base area, along with the 400+ below the base area since that's mostly green terrain, but everything else is at least blue (which is what we really all care about). So if you look at my definition, I don't think it's super-off-base. Having said that, I think the SL skies bigger than any ski area in the East, and I think that's its strongest asset. And for the record, it's one of my favorites. I'm just trying to illustrate the misleading numbers and to give a true sense of how the mountain skies, you can't look at the stats…..

I know what you're indicating and in a way I agree with you, but to me, (Just my opinion) continuous vert is continuous vert. I think that the Wiffletree area has some trails that are more than just flat run-offs, think Buckboard, but would agree that trails like Candyslide are pretty flat. But even still, there are a number of route at SL that are on the lower mountain, are green, but aren't flat.

I apologize if I came across as arguementative, it's just that in my opinion I think vert is either continuous or not. What one person thinks of as expert may be intermediuate and so forth. :beer:

 

[deadheadskier]

Deadheadskier,
I can't argue with you there. The outdated lift system at Saddleback hurts the potential for longer runs. I know that's something they plan to address and I'm factoring in the proposed lifts as part of my assessment. But in its current state, you're right, unless people do link the top of the mountain to the base area. If you look at the 10 year plan, they're be doing a lot of development below the Kennebego chair will translate to alot of continueous vertical.

How is the terrain below Kennabago? I know lower tight rope was essentially a fairly flat blue, almost worthy of green status, if I recall correctly. Does the terrain skiers right of the pod afford steeper and more sustained pitch?

Mind you, vert isn't everything to me. I'll take 1000 feet of exciting vert like the Kennabago chair offers any day of the week over 2000 vert of boring terrain.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

jerryg,

Just to make sure you understand my definition of real vertical, I am discounting the last 400 or so ft. above the base area, along with the 400+ below the base area since that's mostly green terrain, but everything else is at least blue (which is what we really all care about). So if you look at my definition, I don't think it's super-off-base. Having said that, I think the SL skies bigger than any ski area in the East, and I think that's its strongest asset. And for the record, it's one of my favorites. I'm just trying to illustrate the misleading numbers and to give a true sense of how the mountain skies, you can't look at the stats…..

to me the superquad at SL is a little bit of nice pitch followed by a long run out....the bottom of hayburner, kings landing, comp hill, etc...all flat and yawn inducing. On days when the wind is blowing...which at SL is frequent, and all that's open is the SuperQuad, the place starts to feel small and crowded quickly. I used to work for ASC and on monday afternoon we'd sit in a conf call and listen to reports from each mtn...there were many a weekend where almost all the lifts at SL were on wind hold but only Jordan and Aurora were on hold at the River...or none at all. If I had to choose between Barker and Locke at SR vs the Superquad, I'll pick SR.

 

[jerryg]

to me the superquad at SL is a little bit of nice pitch followed by a long run out....the bottom of hayburner, kings landing, comp hill, etc...all flat and yawn inducing. On days when the wind is blowing...which at SL is frequent, and all that's open is the SuperQuad, the place starts to feel small and crowded quickly. I used to work for ASC and on monday afternoon we'd sit in a conf call and listen to reports from each mtn...there were many a weekend where almost all the lifts at SL were on wind hold but only Jordan and Aurora were on hold at the River...or none at all. If I had to choose between Barker and Locke at SR vs the Superquad, I'll pick SR.

I wouldn't pick the SuperQuad either, but I love Spillway!

 

[tipsdown]

How is the terrain below Kennabago? I know lower tight rope was essentially a fairly flat blue, almost worthy of green status, if I recall correctly. Does the terrain skiers right of the pod afford steeper and more sustained pitch?

Mind you, vert isn't everything to me. I'll take 1000 feet of exciting vert like the Kennabago chair offers any day of the week over 2000 vert of boring terrain.

Supposedly, there's about 700-800 vert. ft of blue terrain below there. Keep in mind there's a nubble (near the bottom of Muleskinner) which will have some nice terrain and will ultimately increase the vertical since it starts a ways down the main body of the mountain. You're right that lower tightline flattens out at the end (about 3/4 down)but I think that's because it has to naturally traverse back to the base area. If it continued down the natural fall line, which it will with new lifts, there's more vertical to be had out that way…

 

[billski]

Black, NH


I hit them all. Picking the right day for each is key. Equal-opportunity skiing.