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

[darent]

jay skis real big, been there three times and was lost the whole time with zero vis.all I saw was trees!!

 

[riverc0il]

its funny because i was sitting here thinking jay skied short of their advertised vert, the flat under the ridge really changes the flow, we ski longer sustained pitches at burke, but connecting all the woods lines at jay is the fun of it anyway, so vert shmert

Vertically, Jay skis WAY short. Vertically, Jay feels about 20% less than advertised due to layout and run outs. Horizontally, Jay skis big since you can essentially ski almost anything. But in regards to vertical, Jay may be the tallest mountain in its class that skis the shortest. Who bothers to ski the Tram any ways? That is the only way to max the vertical, otherwise you are skiing 1000ish vertical sections with a run out at the bottom.

 

[riverc0il]

When you here Big mountains being compared in the east they usually inlcude. Jay, Stowe, Sugarbush, Killington, Sugarloaf, Whiteface. IMO the best in the East. I cant include NH cause I never skied there.

all of them have considerably more vert that jay but I never notice it when I am on the hills

To me, New Hampshire mountains ski and feel much bigger for vertical compared to their Vermont comparatives. Most Vermont ski areas suffer from run out. Cannon, Wildcat, and Loon in NH for example really maximize all 2k vertical. Much harder to do that in Vermont. Stowe is a pretty rare exception.

 

[klrskiah]

I agree that jay skis real short if you stay on trail. IMO Saddleback also skis wayyy shorter than the 2k vertical suggests... only about 1k of real terrain.

both are two of my favorite mountains though so i guess vertical dosen't matter all that much. its what they pack into that vert that matters!

 

[ajl50]

As somebody mentioned a while back I'd say that Alta skis way bigger than it's 2k of vert. maybe it's all the open faces and bowls and myriad of lines to take or the traverses that make it feel way taller than 2000 feet.

Oh and there is no way that whiteface skis small. That's just absurd. I'd wager it skis bigger than most resorts anywhere in the east or west.

 

[nycskier]

Killington skis way shorter than it's listed vertical because they count the vertical from the Killington peak to the bottom of Skyship Gondi on Route 4. Most people at Killington never ski that top to bottom.

Also the mountain is a bit "chopped" up making shorter runs. But if you know where you are going there are some really great long runs at Killington with long verticals on them. For example skiing from the top of K1 to the Skyship mid station is a really long run. Only problem is when you get to skyship no way to get back to K1 peak easily if Northridge trip isn't running.

 

[nycskier]

Hunter to me runs bigger than it's vertical indicates. I think it is because there are a lot of wending trails there.

Whistler without a doubt has the biggest vertical!!! It's vertical is just sick. It runs bigger only because it is so big you got to save up enough to make it back down at the end of the day!!!!

 

[Newpylong]

I think Mount Sneaux seems bigger. I think they publish 1700 vertical but people have looked at maps and done math to make it come out to even less than 1600! Each run on the front top to bottom is around a 1 1/4 mile long, so I think it seems bigger. The North Face seems like more vert I guess than around 1000.

 

[snoseek]

As somebody mentioned a while back I'd say that Alta skis way bigger than it's 2k of vert. maybe it's all the open faces and bowls and myriad of lines to take or the traverses that make it feel way taller than 2000 feet.

Oh and there is no way that whiteface skis small. That's just absurd. I'd wager it skis bigger than most resorts anywhere in the east or west.

i agree with the whole alta statement. i could ski the supreme lift for many consecutive days without getting bored. that lift is only 1000 vert +-.

 

[bigbog]

....

Everything skied bigger with my previous boots! :lol:

 

[Zand]

I think Mount Sneaux seems bigger. I think they publish 1700 vertical but people have looked at maps and done math to make it come out to even less than 1600! Each run on the front top to bottom is around a 1 1/4 mile long, so I think it seems bigger. The North Face seems like more vert I guess than around 1000.

Don't know if it's been stated here, but every map I've seen of Berkshire East definitely makes it out to be around 700-800 feet, not the 1,050 (or something like that) that they advertise. Some mountains really like blowing up their verts.

 

[56fish]

its funny because i was sitting here thinking jay skied short of their advertised vert, the flat under the ridge really changes the flow, we ski longer sustained pitches at burke, but connecting all the woods lines at jay is the fun of it anyway, so vert shmert

:beer:

Nailed it for the NEK pair! Pitch/light crowds/grooming at Burke can create some pretty serious top-to-bottom speed. Popping out of the sparsely populated woods-across a crowded groomer (look both ways) -back into the woods at Jay

Check out my Klein Reve 4 sale in gear.

 

[Greg]

Don't know if it's been stated here, but every map I've seen of Berkshire East definitely makes it out to be around 700-800 feet, not the 1,050 (or something like that) that they advertise. Some mountains really like blowing up their verts.

Haven't looked at any topos, but Berkshire East definitely skis like a 1K+' vert mountain.

 

[Greg]

Don't know if it's been stated here, but every map I've seen of Berkshire East definitely makes it out to be around 700-800 feet, not the 1,050 (or something like that) that they advertise. Some mountains really like blowing up their verts.

Haven't looked at any topos, but Berkshire East definitely skis like a 1K+' vert mountain.

Interesting. The highest point at the summit I can see in Google Earth is about 1,509'. The bottom of the bunny slope is at about 604' so according to Google Earth, the total top to bottom vert is about 905''! :blink: Looks like the vertical rise of the triple is only about 870'. Wow. It skis bigger than that.

 

[LonghornSkier]

I think Ragged skis bigger than it looks on the map maybe due to 2 peaks and interesting glades.