Ski Summit Height Inflation

[ScottySkis]

I care about this because if a ski area fibs about the vertical drop, are they also more prone to exagerate about conditions & inflate snowfall amounts?

Besides that another reason to be on here, truth in snow reports from a zoners.

 

[steamboat1]

Just get out there & ski. Often the conditions aren't as good as reported but just as often they're better.

 

[dlague]

Just get out there & ski. Often the conditions aren't as good as reported but just as often they're better.

Like I said earlier - a ski report is read and understood differently by differing abilities. In other words, a beginner to lower intermediate vs vs intermediate vs advanced all have different perspectives!

So I am with you steamboat1.

 

[Breakout12]

I meant to post when this was just a few posts old. I haven't read the whole thread and don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but this is my opportunity to plug Mountain Vertical. They tackle this issue very well :http://mountainvertical.com/true-up-vertical.html#about-true-up-vertical

There was a thread a few years ago that got kind of ridiculous with some of the posters getting pretty pedantic. Here it is: http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...ski-areas?highlight=mountain+vertical+true+up

I can't praise that site enough. It is totally logical and organized.

 

[from_the_NEK]

I meant to post when this was just a few posts old. I haven't read the whole thread and don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but this is my opportunity to plug Mountain Vertical. They tackle this issue very well :http://mountainvertical.com/true-up-vertical.html#about-true-up-vertical

There was a thread a few years ago that got kind of ridiculous with some of the posters getting pretty pedantic. Here it is: http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...ski-areas?highlight=mountain+vertical+true+up

I can't praise that site enough. It is totally logical and organized.

I remember reading that thread. Not sure why I never contributed.
Not sure how they came up with the 1928’ vert for Burke. Did they just stop measuring at some random spot on the lower mountain that they determined was the end of the “continuous fall line”? I’m not sure where that place would even be to get such a number. If anything, Burke should at least be credited with 1999’ (I could see stretching that to 2000’ ) based on the elevation numbers from the Ginn Act 250 trail expansion map found here http://www.anr.state.vt.us/imaging/planning/7C0206-13/Burke.Act250app.Exhibit1E(d)-1.PDF. Roughly 3220’ at the top of the Toll Road loop where the Mid-Burke quad now tops out. 1221’ next to the base of the Sherburne quad. That full vert is easily continuously skiable without any traverses Upper/Lower Willoughby to Binney Lane being the most obvious route. Note: If Burke ever puts in an East Bowl lift. The plans had it topping out just below/beside the TV/Radio building (3243.7' on the linked plans above) which would add an extra 10-15 feet to the get the 2011' of vert Burke claims.

 

[from_the_NEK]

And I wish that website put an A, B, and C on each resorts trail map to show where they feel the Top (A), bottom of "continuous fall line" (B), and lowest elevation (C) are located. Similar to what they provide in their example maps that describe their "process".

 

[from_the_NEK]

And Jay should have a 1967' vert according to MountainVerticals's own example. The top of the tram to the bottom of the tram is (3827'-1860'). This is according to the elevation points on their Act 250 Master Plan map (http://www.anr.state.vt.us/imaging/...hibit P43 - Concept Master Plan Version 5.pdf). The full vert from the actual summit (3856.7') to the bottom of the Village Double (1838.4) is 2018.3'. Still 135' shorter than Jay's claimed vert.

 

[Smellytele]

It is not the length it is what you do with it that counts so say the places with small lengths.

 

[BeefyBoy50]

Living in Philadelphia, PA, I always thought it a little ridiculous when my dad wanted to pack up the family for a trip to Windham for two days. The snow was rarely any better quality than what we have in the Poconos and his "short 3 hour drive" would often become a four and a half hour slog. Sure the mountain seemed better than anything we have here in PA, but is it worth bouncing off New Yorkers when Vermont/ the ADK aren't much farther away?
Windham seemed roughly comparable in size to Blue Mountain PA (1082 feet vertical) yet Windham's 1600 feet should make it almost 1.5 times the size. Sure enough, Google Earth showed me that Windham has less than 1400 feet (3080 to 1685) of true vertical. A little pedantic I know but it annoys me when a ski area embellishes by this much, especially to us PA skiers who need to go so far to find ski areas with more than 1000 feet anyway.
On a different note, I also found out that Elk mountain, 2 hours from my house, really only has about 940 feet of vertical instead of the 1000 it claims and in comparison to the 1080 or so that Blue (1 hour away) has. The snow at elk is so much better, the trails are laid out well, the crowds are smaller, and the mountain skis in such a different way than Blue (which reminds me of a trash heap because of the way the customers treat it) that I don't care too much about the vertical because a mountain can make up for that in other ways.