Mountains that ski bigger or smaller than their vert suggests...

[Greg]

We've sort of had a thread like this before, but that one was more about mountains that ski bigger than they look from the lot. Let's discuss mountains that ski bigger or smaller than you would expect based solely on their vertical drop (or rise, if you prefer ) statistic...

 

[marcski]

SLOkemo. I always felt that it skis like a tiny mtn (vert.wise).

 

[Tin Woodsman]

SLOkemo. I always felt that it skis like a tiny mtn (vert.wise).

I always though that Haystack skied smaller than its vertical. My runs there were over in 3 minutes and bored the heck out of my on the way.

I'd reiterate my feelings on K-Mart in this regard, but then people would think I'm just piling on to ASC. Still - only one lift with more than 1700 verts (Skyeship) at an area with a total of 3100'? Not so good. And you can't even do real laps off that one.

 

[tree_skier]

smaller - Haystack, Pokemo, Gore, Whiteface, k-mart, Waterville, loon, cranmore, Someday bigger, slumapee, gunstock

Bigger - MRG, magic, Dartmouth, cannon, snow ridge

Places that ski smaller mainly are broken up into pods, where they may have 2000+ listed vertical but the majority if not all the lifts could be half the area's vert and the trails are broken up around those lifts.

Wheras places that ski bigger you get the entire vert in one shot and they tend to be steeper/less groomed so the skiing is more difficult or there is alot different trails/slopes on a more limited vert, ie snow ridge.

 

[marcski]

smaller - Haystack, Pokemo, Gore, Whiteface, k-mart, Waterville, loon, cranmore, Someday bigger, slumapee, gunstock

Bigger - MRG, magic, Dartmouth, cannon, snow ridge

Places that ski smaller mainly are broken up into pods, where they may have 2000+ listed vertical but the majority if not all the lifts could be half the area's vert and the trails are broken up around those lifts.

Wheras places that ski bigger you get the entire vert in one shot and they tend to be steeper/less groomed so the skiing is more difficult or there is alot different trails/slopes on a more limited vert, ie snow ridge.

I tend to agree. Especially about MRG. I mean you can be on hte mtn skiing in the woods all day there and only take 4 runs. (esp on the weekend with long liftlines )

 

[kickstand]

Places that ski smaller mainly are broken up into pods, where they may have 2000+ listed vertical but the majority if not all the lifts could be half the area's vert and the trails are broken up around those lifts.

agreed....

I think Sunday River fits the bill perfectly. For such a big place, the runs seem to be over in no time, except for the Jordan-to-Barker (or White Cap) traverse. That takes forever.

Places that ski bigger than the vert suggests - I'm throwing Wildcat into the ring.

 

[wintersyndrome]

Smaller than its vert- KMART, OKEMO

BIGGER-Ascutney (nice pitch), the Bush, Whiteface

 

[AHM]

check this one out..................

For those who have a hankering for some new terrain on their annual ski vacation. Try Red Mt (Rossland BC), Whitewater(Nelson, BC) and Fernie (Fernie BC). These three will provide some pretty big skiing. Whitewater has 1300 verts and two lifts (Fixed doubles), but the Silverqueen goes right to the top of Ymir ridge and the huge lines that await are just choice (front side or back side). Red has some big vert (2600), but the single motherload lift and tiny base makes Red seem like a small hill. But once you start skiing the 360 that can be had, you begin to realize, Red is a big hill. Finally, Fernie is a major hill, but still not widely popular with the US. Fernie can dish up some huge lines, especially with a pushing beyond the gates into places like Fish and Cabin.

The last would be Kicking Horse. Although it has received ample press with big vert etc (> 4000). The huge potential that lies outside of the KH boundary's is truely amazing. There is so much terrain there some of which is potential walk away, that you just have to experience it.AHM

 

[freeheelwilly]

smaller - Haystack, Pokemo, Gore, Whiteface, k-mart, Waterville, loon, cranmore, Someday bigger, slumapee, gunstock.

Ok you all know I'm partial to Whiteface but I call a big BS on that one.

You can ski 2500 vert off the gondola and if you take Face Lift (high speed quad) from the base it drops you right at the start of chair 6 which takes you to the summit off of which are 3100 honest to goodness vertical feet. Face Lift is 6 minutes and Chair 6 is another 8-10.

Whiteface doesn't ski "smaller" than its vert or, for that matter, "larger" than its vert: It skis as adVERTised.

 

[Powdr]

West, Too

I know this an Eastern Board, but the same discussion can be had about Western resorts:

Smaller:

- Deer Valley
- PCMR
- Solitude
- Heavenly
- Squaw
- Kirkwood (really has ~1,500' vert vs. the advertised 2,000')
- Winter Park
- Breckenridge
- Beaver Creek
- Big Sky

Taller:
- Alta
- Snowbird
- Sun Valley
- Snowmass
- Jackson Hole
- Grand Targhee
- Copper
- Mammoth
- Snowbasin

Same observation as someone else above: places that have pods or are broken up in chuncks tend to ski shorter. Places that serve up the vertical all in one batch tend to ski taller.

Powdr

 

[Big Game]

Smallest: No doubt its got to be K. Nothing else is as close to have a technical vert of 3k, but an actual vert of stuff you actually are going to ride of half of that.

Otherwise, Capt. Obvious says:
More groomers = shorter it feels.
More bumps and trees = longer

 

[SkiDog]

I know this an Eastern Board, but the same discussion can be had about Western resorts:

Smaller:

- Deer Valley
- PCMR
- Solitude
- Heavenly
- Squaw
- Kirkwood (really has ~1,500' vert vs. the advertised 2,000')
- Winter Park
- Breckenridge
- Beaver Creek
- Big Sky

Taller:
- Alta
- Snowbird
- Sun Valley
- Snowmass
- Jackson Hole
- Grand Targhee
- Copper
- Mammoth
- Snowbasin

Same observation as someone else above: places that have pods or are broken up in chuncks tend to ski shorter. Places that serve up the vertical all in one batch tend to ski taller.

Powdr

Wow aside from the few I have yet to hit...i'd say this above list is RIGHT ON for out west...although it seems A-BASIN has been ommitted from the "TALLER" list....that TALLER list is DEAD ON...and the smaller list is right on at least the onse i've skied...

NICE JOB... ;-)

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I know this an Eastern Board, but the same discussion can be had about Western resorts:

Smaller:

- Deer Valley
- PCMR
- Solitude
- Heavenly
- Squaw
- Kirkwood (really has ~1,500' vert vs. the advertised 2,000')
- Winter Park
- Breckenridge
- Beaver Creek
- Big Sky

Taller:
- Alta
- Snowbird
- Sun Valley
- Snowmass
- Jackson Hole
- Grand Targhee
- Copper
- Mammoth
- Snowbasin

Same observation as someone else above: places that have pods or are broken up in chuncks tend to ski shorter. Places that serve up the vertical all in one batch tend to ski taller.

Powdr

No offense, but it looks like you took the places you don't like and put them in smaller and the ones you like and put them in bigger.

For example, Breck sure isn't my favorite in CO, but the place has vert. Winter Park? The terrain on MJ makes the place ski real big because all those steep bump trails and glades can wear you out. I love Copper, but why does it ski bigger, it is what it is.

It's cool that you have alot of West experience, but your long list is a little too subjective for me.

 

[SkiDog]

No offense, but it looks like you took the places you don't like and put them in smaller and the ones you like and put them in bigger.

For example, Breck sure isn't my favorite in CO, but the place has vert. Winter Park? The terrain on MJ makes the place ski real big because all those steep bump trails and glades can wear you out. I love Copper, but why does it ski bigger, it is what it is.

It's cool that you have alot of West experience, but your long list is a little too subjective for me.

Maybe I didnt see enough of the mountain, but i didnt think brek skied all that great or "big"....Copper I thought skied pretty big...it "is what it is" and thats big.. ;-)

the rest I still thought were dead on.

M

 

[tree_skier]

Ok you all know I'm partial to Whiteface but I call a big BS on that one.

You can ski 2500 vert off the gondola and if you take Face Lift (high speed quad) from the base it drops you right at the start of chair 6 which takes you to the summit off of which are 3100 honest to goodness vertical feet. Face Lift is 6 minutes and Chair 6 is another 8-10.

Whiteface doesn't ski "smaller" than its vert or, for that matter, "larger" than its vert: It skis as adVERTised.

Ok I haven't been there since the gondola was added but skied whiteface quite a bit in the mid 80's and if my memory serves me it was pretty much 3 pods and although it was possible to ski top to bottom it took at least 2 lift rides to get the 3100' of vert of which half of it was great and the other half was like skiing at okemo (which was great ripping of the top half at about 80 on some 223's).

Anyway I stand by my statement that Whiteface skiis smaller then the vertical. I am not saying its a bad place or I wouldn't ski there, in fact I would love to spend a few midweek days there.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

although it was possible to ski top to bottom it took at least 2 lift rides to get the 3100' of vert

True, but you can ski right down the ramp of the Face lift about 20 yards right onto the Summit quad. My point is, you don't have to ski from one section of the mountain to another to get back to the top.

 

[skibum]

For example, Breck sure isn't my favorite in CO, but the place has vert. .

May have changed by now, but when I lived in Breck (95) the longest loop on one lift was peak 10 @ 1500'. To do the full 3000'+ (whatever it is) required multiple lift rides, a hike, and a loooong flat boring run into the town/condos

 

[riverc0il]

It's cool that you have alot of West experience, but your long list is a little too subjective for me.

LOL HPD!!! this thread was intended to be subjective! :lol:

not sure why haystack is being voted for feeling like it skis smaller than its vertical. haystack doesn't have much vertical to begin with only 1400. fairly comperable to magic without the runout in terms of vertical. to me, magic actually skis smaller than its vertical would indicate exactely because of that long run out at the bottom. pico also doesn't feel like 2k even though it is in that ball park due to (you guessed it) the run out. long run outs make ski areas seem less than their vertical would indicate. same with jay peak.

obviously, kmart gets top consideration for the smaller than vertical with sunday river running a close second.

 

[Powdr]

No offense, but it looks like you took the places you don't like and put them in smaller and the ones you like and put them in bigger.

Well, that's why it's MY list

Also, I quite like a few of the oens that made the 'small' list:

PCMR, Deer Valley, Squaw, K'wood & Big Sky

It's just that they don't offer those long, last forever runs that the 'tall' list has.

For example, Breck sure isn't my favorite in CO, but the place has vert.

Admitedly Breck is my least favorite CO resort, but that place does NOT ski tall. largest sustained vert may be 1,500', at best.

Winter Park? The terrain on MJ makes the place ski real big because all those steep bump trails and glades can wear you out.

Winter Park skis really long when you access Vasquez Ridge, all the way down to Pioneer, or Mary Jane. Ditto Copper from Storm King down to Alpine or SuperBee.

It's cool that you have alot of West experience, but your long list is a little too subjective for me.

I don't understand this. How can a personal list not be?

Powdr

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I don't understand this. How can a personal list not be?

Powdr

Yeah, My bad. I went back to Greg's first post and reread the original question

. Let's discuss mountains that ski bigger or smaller than you would expect based solely on their vertical drop (or rise, if you prefer ) statistic...

and I was wrong to reply as I did. Sorry Pow.