Mountain Vertical updates...Sugarbush and Killington

[MV Frank]

Hey guys - Frank from MountainVertical.com here
Someone told me there was a previous thread here about on this stuff.......very cool to see. Thought I'd register and post about an update we made, spur some discussion

We just released our new exact numbers for Sugarbush and Killington...the green check marks (the previous numbers on the site were general estimates)

http://mountainvertical.com/biggest-skiing-in-new-england.html

Sugarbush
-previously reported...2600 ft
-new Mountain Vertical exact vertical...2552 ft

Killington
-previously reported true vert...1720 ft
-new numbers from us....1645 ft (true vertical) and 3033 ft (max elevation diffference)
It is a big discrepancy, but our judgement is that it accurately represents the ski area as a series of midsized mountains with midsized runs, versus something like cannon which clearly offers 2k of solid, uninterrupted downhill vertical. The 1645 above represents the K1 drop. Yes, we know that k-peak to skyeship is technically doable, but no one goes to killington to make that run, plus you get stuck on launchpad (why is that rated blue anyway?)

Believe it or not, Killington was one of the original example cases that motivated the four of us to make this website.....we thought it was silly that killington claimed 3000, which implies a rocky mountains order of magnitude, but when you actually ski it, it's nothing like that..

Curious to hear thoughts.

gotta post the random plug... we just created our mountain vertical facebook page...join the group/share

 

[xlr8r]

Killington should be measured from top of skye to bottom of skyeship which is somewhere around 2500ft Lots of people ski down to the bottom of skyeship from the top of skye. It might be flat on the lower half but it does add up to a lot of continuous vert.

 

[riverc0il]

I like the idea of two numbers. One for the max typically skied run and another for actual uninterrupted vertical that really is doable in one run. When you refer to "Max Elevation Difference" is that continuous? Or is that the "trued up" vertical number that a resort might use (highest point to lowest point, regardless of continuity)? If it is the latter, I would suggest three sites to ensure your site is not being misleading or disingenuous: Your "True Vertical" number, a "Potential Continuous Vertical" number, and the Max Elevation Difference. The issue most folks take with your True Vertical number is that a limited number of skiers, very likely beginners and their families or the clinically insane, might enjoy doing 3k vert at K.

 

[drjeff]

Hey guys - Frank from MountainVertical.com here
Someone told me there was a previous thread here about on this stuff.......very cool to see. Thought I'd register and post about an update we made, spur some discussion

We just released our new exact numbers for Sugarbush and Killington...the green check marks (the previous numbers on the site were general estimates)

http://mountainvertical.com/biggest-skiing-in-new-england.html

Sugarbush
-previously reported...2600 ft
-new Mountain Vertical exact vertical...2552 ft

Killington
-previously reported true vert...1720 ft
-new numbers from us....1645 ft (true vertical) and 3033 ft (max elevation diffference)
It is a big discrepancy, but our judgement is that it accurately represents the ski area as a series of midsized mountains with midsized runs, versus something like cannon which clearly offers 2k of solid, uninterrupted downhill vertical. The 1645 above represents the K1 drop. Yes, we know that k-peak to skyeship is technically doable, but no one goes to killington to make that run, plus you get stuck on launchpad (why is that rated blue anyway?)

Believe it or not, Killington was one of the original example cases that motivated the four of us to make this website.....we thought it was silly that killington claimed 3000, which implies a rocky mountains order of magnitude, but when you actually ski it, it's nothing like that..

Curious to hear thoughts.

gotta post the random plug... we just created our mountain vertical facebook page...join the group/share

Nice work on the cool web site. And FB liked complete!

 

[RootDKJ]

Nice work on the cool web site. And FB liked complete!

+1. Keep the updates coming!

 

[deadheadskier]

cool website


so, who is going to tackle the challenges of true trail counts and true acreage

 

[thetrailboss]

Frank--

I'll take a look, but why the change for Sugarbush?

 

[mister moose]

Ski-able Vertical, interesting concept. Sorta like was introduced here and on K-zone over 3 years ago. When can I expect royalty checks to start?

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=82626&highlight=season+pass
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=34398&highlight=season+pass
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=25211&highlight=season+pass&page=2

http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30436&hilit=season+pass
http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27635&hilit=season+pass
http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21742&hilit=season+pass
http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17216&p=237999&hilit=season+pass#p237999

 

[Geoff]

Hey guys - Frank from MountainVertical.com here
Someone told me there was a previous thread here about on this stuff.......very cool to see. Thought I'd register and post about an update we made, spur some discussion

We just released our new exact numbers for Sugarbush and Killington...the green check marks (the previous numbers on the site were general estimates)

http://mountainvertical.com/biggest-skiing-in-new-england.html

Sugarbush
-previously reported...2600 ft
-new Mountain Vertical exact vertical...2552 ft

Killington
-previously reported true vert...1720 ft
-new numbers from us....1645 ft (true vertical) and 3033 ft (max elevation diffference)
It is a big discrepancy, but our judgement is that it accurately represents the ski area as a series of midsized mountains with midsized runs, versus something like cannon which clearly offers 2k of solid, uninterrupted downhill vertical. The 1645 above represents the K1 drop. Yes, we know that k-peak to skyeship is technically doable, but no one goes to killington to make that run, plus you get stuck on launchpad (why is that rated blue anyway?)

Believe it or not, Killington was one of the original example cases that motivated the four of us to make this website.....we thought it was silly that killington claimed 3000, which implies a rocky mountains order of magnitude, but when you actually ski it, it's nothing like that..

Curious to hear thoughts.

gotta post the random plug... we just created our mountain vertical facebook page...join the group/share

There are an awful lot of 8 year old children who would disagree with your point of view. Killington peak lodge to Skyeship base is a life changing event if you're in a wedge skiing your first truly long run.

If you want to talk sustained vertical that would interest an advanced skier, it's certainly not 1645 feet. You'd be hard pressed to find more than 1,000. Outer Limits gives you that. I guess you could say that walking up to Catwalk and skiing to the base of the Canyon Quad is the longest sustained vertical but you hit intermediate in the middle of anything off the Superstar Quad or K1 Gondola.

I find the whole thing laughable. Whistler, the biggest in North America, gives you 5,000 feet but you ski it 1,500 to 2,000 at a time. The monster resorts in Europe give you 7,000 but you rarely ski the bottom part. I've been to Tignes a bunch of times. I've been to La Grande Motte at the top a bunch of times but I've never bothered to ski all the way down to Bas Tignes. My favorite mountain in the US is Monarch. 1000 feet of vertical and center pole double chairs. Vertical is the most over-rated statistic ever and I don't understand why anyone would zero in on it.

 

[mister moose]

There are an awful lot of 8 year old children who would disagree with your point of view. Killington peak lodge to Skyeship base is a life changing event if you're in a wedge skiing your first truly long run.

Vertical is the most over-rated statistic ever and I don't understand why anyone would zero in on it.

When you grow up at Blandford, Otis Ridge and Sundown, Vertical has meaning, trust me.

 

[Highway Star]

Killington
-previously reported true vert...1720 ft
-new numbers from us....1645 ft (true vertical) and 3033 ft (max elevation diffference)
It is a big discrepancy, but our judgement is that it accurately represents the ski area as a series of midsized mountains with midsized runs, versus something like cannon which clearly offers 2k of solid, uninterrupted downhill vertical. The 1645 above represents the K1 drop. Yes, we know that k-peak to skyeship is technically doable, but no one goes to killington to make that run, plus you get stuck on launchpad (why is that rated blue anyway?)

YOU = FAIL.

If you can't ski killington top to bottom and have fun doing it, you're doing something wrong.

 

[mondeo]

When you grow up at Blandford, Otis Ridge and Sundown, Vertical has meaning, trust me.

It's diminishing returns, though. 500ft to 1000ft is a big deal, 1500ft to 2500ft doesn't mean nearly as much.

But if you're counting the bottom 300ft of the K-1, why not count K-1 to Bear base? Again, not going to ski it all day, but if Jug Handle is good and South Ridge isn't running, it might be worth a few runs.

 

[drjeff]

There are an awful lot of 8 year old children who would disagree with your point of view. Killington peak lodge to Skyeship base is a life changing event if you're in a wedge skiing your first truly long run.

If you want to talk sustained vertical that would interest an advanced skier, it's certainly not 1645 feet. You'd be hard pressed to find more than 1,000. Outer Limits gives you that. I guess you could say that walking up to Catwalk and skiing to the base of the Canyon Quad is the longest sustained vertical but you hit intermediate in the middle of anything off the Superstar Quad or K1 Gondola.

I find the whole thing laughable. Whistler, the biggest in North America, gives you 5,000 feet but you ski it 1,500 to 2,000 at a time. The monster resorts in Europe give you 7,000 but you rarely ski the bottom part. I've been to Tignes a bunch of times. I've been to La Grande Motte at the top a bunch of times but I've never bothered to ski all the way down to Bas Tignes. My favorite mountain in the US is Monarch. 1000 feet of vertical and center pole double chairs. Vertical is the most over-rated statistic ever and I don't understand why anyone would zero in on it.

I'm guessing for the generally male population that seems to care about it, it's the age old ego driven "mine is bigger than yours" mentality :lol:

 

[Edd]

YOU = FAIL.

If you can't ski killington top to bottom and have fun doing it, you're doing something wrong.

Hello MV Frank. Introducing Highway Star. He's very glad to meet you.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

cool website


so, who is going to tackle the challenges of true trail counts and true acreage

That's easy, divide by three.....:smile:

 

[gmcunni]

That's easy, divide by three.....:smile:

oh 3? i thought it was the number of people in the marketing dept that you used as the divisor

 

[jaywbigred]

This thread is hilarious.

 

[Geoff]

I'm guessing for the generally male population that seems to care about it, it's the age old ego driven "mine is bigger than yours" mentality :lol:

Hey, I'm one of the people who skis Breakaway when the South Ridge lift isn't running. You get about 400 vertical feet sustained on a superb skiing surface. Total flats to get there. Total flats to get back to a lift. I care about the skiing surface and how interesting the terrain is.

When Whistler is socked in, I tend to ski the short tree runs off the endless traverse to the 7th Heaven lift. Everybody ignores them since it's an endless traverse to get to them, an endless traverse to get out, and two lifts to get back to midmountain. I do Blackcomb's Outer Limits on the other side for the same reason. Most people won't ski it because it dumps you into the infinite traverse out from the Blackcomb glacier. I think there's a sign that says the lift is 3 miles.

 

[Mapnut]

Frank, I suggest you review some of the summit and base elevations claimed by areas that have good top-to-bottom skiability, just not quite that much. For instance the claimed summit elevation of Jay Peak is 100 feet too high, the claimed base elevation of Stratton is 100 feet too low (roughly). I agree with what you got for Sugarbush North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Peak_(Vermont)
http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=18&X=838&Y=5966&W=1&qs=|stratton|vt|

 

[vonski]

I will make top to bottom runs at Ellen/Sugarbush on a regular basis, but generally off the Northridge chair, not the peak.. The Killington run to the bottom of the Skyeship was always a once a day event for me when I skied there. It was either a middle of the day run or the last run out if parked at the skyeship parking lot on rte. 4.

I think the verticle should really be based off what one can get off of one single lift. This would give Stowe a big advantage, but for the weekend warrior I like the verticle obtained off the Northridge chair at Sugarbush. I am just getting tired particularly early season! just my 2 cents.

Thinking Snow and Cold.