Mountain Vertical updates - all New England ski areas

[oakapple]

Who cares. Shut up and ski the damn mountain and enjoy it.

A website devoted to the ski industry claims that "The numbers floating around out there now are simply not accurate," and purports to be putting out something that will "keep them honest."

If you're going to accuse the ski resorts of shading the truth, and then you shade it yourself in another direction, you need to be called on it.

 

[Bumpsis]

Agreed. Someone needs to show MV how to ski Cannon. You can definitely ski from the Tram to the base of Mittersill, so why the arbitrary decision to exclude that route?

MV just lost its credibility in my book.

I wouldn't call myself a Cannon expert but I do know the area fairly well, so I'm really curious. How do you ski from the top of the Tram served top to Mittersill base?
This of course excludes the traditional path down Taft Slalom and the hike over.

If you mean the traverse down Tuckerbrook area, OK, I have not been there for a long time now, but it looks to me (looking at a map) that you'd need to take the Tuckerbrook quad first. So even if there is a direct passage to Mittersill from the base of Tuckerbrook, it's still a major traverse and that's a big part of debunking the vertical claims that ski areas have made.

 

[Puck it]

A website devoted to the ski industry claims that "The numbers floating around out there now are simply not accurate," and purports to be putting out something that will "keep them honest."

If you're going to accuse the ski resorts of shading the truth, and then you shade it yourself in another direction, you need to be called on it.

Does it really matter what the vert is for a mountain.

In the immortal words of the Planet Fitness ad

You go up! You go down!

 

[EPB]

It seems odd that people are making a fuss over the subjectivity of these vertical drop numbers. The project seeks to set up a reasonable set of criteria off which to make vertical drop calculations. For the most part, I cannot say that these numbers are far off. I have not been to Sugarbush in the winter, but those numbers seem a bit perplexing. Admittedly, I wouldn't be one to judge.

I also don't understand why MV has come off as arrogant/wont admit wrong in any way, shape, or form. The guy has been criticized, and not unjustly because this is a subjective topic, and he has explained his thought process in further detail. This is not an exact science, these are measurements based on opinions. Reasonably valid ones if you ask me.

Nothing quantitative in skiing will be able to ensure that you have a good day on the slopes, and no statistical measure will be able to express numerically the extent to which a skier will enjoy a certain area based on their preferences. They are just numbers, and interesting, thought provoking ones at that. Good job- interesting stuff.

 

[jaywbigred]

Frank, I like the site. While there is clearly some subjectivity, I find this a much more meaningful measure of a resort's vert than what is reported by ski areas. For the record, I ski at Sunday River and ski from the top of Oz/Jordan to the bottom of Barker/White Cap at least once per day and enjoy it. However, I still agree that the vert you are reporting for SR is a much more meaningful number.

Exactly!

A website devoted to the ski industry claims that "The numbers floating around out there now are simply not accurate," and purports to be putting out something that will "keep them honest."

If you're going to accuse the ski resorts of shading the truth, and then you shade it yourself in another direction, you need to be called on it.

Come on, seriously? (My understanding is that) the resorts use strict math that in no way paints an accurate picture. Frank uses a heavy dose of human subjectivity to try to paint a more accurate picture, and I think the attempt is laudable and informative in a way that none of the resorts really can claim.

I am shocked at how combative some of you are about it. Does Frank have some agenda that I don't know about? Why so many raw nerves being struck?

To me, it is just like a car review or Consumer Reports. When they rate things like "interior styling" or "Options offered", they obviously make subjective choices about what styles or options they like/value. They rank cars based on those individual criteria (of course, they also use all their micro criteria to make an attempt at "Car of the Year" rankings that attempt to be more macro). Naturally, not all people agree with their subjective ranking of "interior styling" or what have you, just as not all people agree that skiing from Catwalk to Skyeship represents the Killington experience in a way that makes reporting that vertical meaningful to the public.

Consumer Reports and the car magazines hold themselves out to be truth seekers against the back drop of automotive marketing and claims, and I am glad they exist. To me, True Up offers the same sort of review for Vert marketing/claims made by mountains. And, like Consumer Reports, Frank readily publishes his methodology on the website, which is more than you can say for most mountains!

 

[jaywbigred]

It seems odd that people are making a fuss over the subjectivity of these vertical drop numbers. The project seeks to set up a reasonable set of criteria off which to make vertical drop calculations. For the most part, I cannot say that these numbers are far off. I have not been to Sugarbush in the winter, but those numbers seem a bit perplexing. Admittedly, I wouldn't be one to judge.

I also don't understand why MV has come off as arrogant/wont admit wrong in any way, shape, or form. The guy has been criticized, and not unjustly because this is a subjective topic, and he has explained his thought process in further detail. This is not an exact science, these are measurements based on opinions. Reasonably valid ones if you ask me.

Nothing quantitative in skiing will be able to ensure that you have a good day on the slopes, and no statistical measure will be able to express numerically the extent to which a skier will enjoy a certain area based on their preferences. They are just numbers, and interesting, thought provoking ones at that. Good job- interesting stuff.

Ding ding ding. EPB ftw!!!

 

[Puck it]

I thought size does not matter!!!

 

[tjf67]

I thought size does not matter!!!

They are being nice. :beer:

 

[Puck it]

They are being nice. :beer:

You mean the mountains or my wife?

 

[oakapple]

I am shocked at how combative some of you are about it.

I actually agree with you that what Frank is attempting to do is laudable. It is because it is so laudable that his inaccuracies are so unfortunate.

To me, it is just like a car review or Consumer Reports. When they rate things like "interior styling" or "Options offered", they obviously make subjective choices about what styles or options they like/value.

I think the difference is that everyone realizes Consumer Reports is a subjective judgment, albeit one that is prepared by experts. But Frank is purporting to publish something factual, when (for many mountains) he is really just substituting one form of subjectivity for another.

His work, as good as it is, could be so much better if he debunked the real inaccuracies, and then made the subjective part of it abundantly clear. That's what Consumer Reports does.

 

[Mapnut]

I'd like to speak up in defense of Frank, who's done publicly what I've been doing privately for years - checking vertical drop on topo. (I have mentioned a few results on Snowjournal. ) I agree with almost all his numbers, disregarding his decisions to drop vertical feet that aren't really worth skiing (I side with the Killington 3,000ers on that). I've found that roughly half of all ski areas lie about their vertical drop (more than just rounding up) and it's good to call them out. By the way, little ski areas are generally worse liars than big ones - and NELSAP areas were the worst!

But I think both Frank and Riverc0il are making the same mistake on Saddleback. I agree with Frank's number from the top of the summit quad (El. 4020, 100 feet below the true summit) to the base lodge. For the overall vertical, I'm guessing you're both looking at Google Earth. It shows the old T-bar novice area below the base lodge. I can't find a map which shows the bottom of the present South Branch quad, but Skilifts.org lists its length as 2760 and its vertical as 346. That's vertical below the base lodge. The base lodge is about 2460 so the lowest elevation is about 2120. If you allow them the 100 hike-up feet to the summit, they get the 2000. I'd call that an acceptable stretch, not a lie.

Excuse me, Tipsdown, I missed your post where you already pointed out the difference in the lower lifts at Saddleback.

 

[threecy]

Part of the problem is that this seems to be billed as an objective professional project when in fact it is objective personal research.

And, like Consumer Reports, Frank readily publishes his methodology on the website

Not quite...I don't see any references to what the source material for the measurements is.

It certainly can't be the USGS maps, as they don't offer measurements down to the foot for most of these ski areas.

Thus, what is it? Using a cursor in Google Earth?

 

[tipsdown]

I'd like to speak up in defense of Frank, who's done publicly what I've been doing privately for years - checking vertical drop on topo. (I have mentioned a few results on Snowjournal. ) I agree with almost all his numbers, disregarding his decisions to drop vertical feet that aren't really worth skiing (I side with the Killington 3,000ers on that). I've found that roughly half of all ski areas lie about their vertical drop (more than just rounding up) and it's good to call them out. By the way, little ski areas are generally worse liars than big ones - and NELSAP areas were the worst!

But I think both Frank and Riverc0il are making the same mistake on Saddleback. I agree with Frank's number from the top of the summit quad (El. 4020, 100 feet below the true summit) to the base lodge. For the overall vertical, I'm guessing you're both looking at Google Earth. It shows the old T-bar novice area below the base lodge. I can't find a map which shows the bottom of the present South Branch quad, but Skilifts.org lists its length as 2760 and its vertical as 346. That's vertical below the base lodge. The base lodge is about 2460 so the lowest elevation is about 2120. If you allow them the 100 hike-up feet to the summit, they get the 2000. I'd call that an acceptable stretch, not a lie.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[ceo]

I wouldn't call myself a Cannon expert but I do know the area fairly well, so I'm really curious. How do you ski from the top of the Tram served top to Mittersill base?
This of course excludes the traditional path down Taft Slalom and the hike over.

As I noted above, you can get to Mittersill base from Peabody base via the Fleitman Trail, but it requires a fair amount of poling.

 

[Puck it]

As I noted above, you can get to Mittersill base from Peabody base via the Fleitman Trail, but it requires a fair amount of poling.

Now, that we have come full circle. Let's go around again.

 

[jaywbigred]

But Frank is purporting to publish something factual, when (for many mountains) he is really just substituting one form of subjectivity for another.

I guess it boils down to me disagreeing with this statement. I don't think Frank purports to publish anything factual, if by "factual" you mean "resultant from scientific study". I think it is pretty clear from his published description of the methodology used that what he is doing is subjective, and not the product of a science experiment. In describing it, he uses words like "commonly skied", "skiability", "skier's perspective" that make it obvious subjectivity is involved, at least imo.

 

[jaywbigred]

Part of the problem is that this seems to be billed as an objective professional project when in fact it is objective personal research.




Not quite...I don't see any references to what the source material for the measurements is.

It certainly can't be the USGS maps, as they don't offer measurements down to the foot for most of these ski areas.

Thus, what is it? Using a cursor in Google Earth?

Okay, I'll agree with that. I was referring to his lopping off whole sections of mountains, not so much that derivation of the data. Maybe he can speak to the method to getting measurements down to the foot...

 

[oakapple]

I don't think Frank purports to publish anything factual, if by "factual" you mean "resultant from scientific study". I think it is pretty clear from his published description of the methodology used that what he is doing is subjective, and not the product of a science experiment.

Oh really? Read the following (from his site), and try to tell me it doesn't go to great lengths, to try to persuade you that the site is reporting facts. Even the label, "True-Up Vertical," creates the impression that other statistics are false.

About MountainVertical.com Verification of Stats
It should all be about accuracy:
MountainVertical.com is seeking to independently verify every single metric that every ski resort out there claims – to keep them honest. We've spent thousands of hours to conduct deep analyses and independently calculate the key stats for every resort: vertical drop, true-up vertical, and skiable area.
Our aim is to be the most reliable independent resource on the web for ski and snowboard mountain metrics. . . .

A rigorous process to make sure our numbers are accurate:
What is our method? Verify, verify, verify. For every single resort, we independently analyze and calculate numbers for vertical drop, true-up vertical drop, and skiable acreage. We're able to do this by using external mountain data to perform our own independent topographic analysis of what the numbers should be, and draw our own conclusions. We can understand everything there is to know about a ski resort’s mountain topography, and report it accurately on this site.

MountainVertical.com Verified


In every single place where you see the MV-verified check mark on a resort listing, that means we have undergone a full analysis to verify vertical drop and skiable acreage metrics. You can trust that those figures will be accurate and correctly represent the mountain.

 

[campgottagopee]

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.

You leave Greek Peak outta this....it's all about Sundown around these parts :razz:

 

[bobbutts]

What is our method? Verify, verify, verify. For every single resort, we independently analyze and calculate numbers for vertical drop, true-up vertical drop, and skiable acreage. We're able to do this by using external mountain data to perform our own independent topographic analysis of what the numbers should be, and draw our own conclusions. We can understand everything there is to know about a ski resort’s mountain topography, and report it accurately on this site.

MountainVertical.com Verified

In every single place where you see the MV-verified check mark on a resort listing, that means we have undergone a full analysis to verify vertical drop and skiable acreage metrics. You can trust that those figures will be accurate and correctly represent the mounta

Here's the statement from the site.