Vertical drop

[ZAMBNYDRVR]

Thanks guys.... hey what's a vertical drop in comparison to peak hight when I look at mountain stats?

 

[thetrailboss]

Thanks guys.... hey what's a vertical drop in comparison to peak hight when I look at mountain stats?

The vertical drop is defined as the elevation difference between the highest chairlift station and the lowest base area. So for example, Burke's summit chairlift unloads at 3200 feet above sea level and the J-bar at the bottom starts at an elevation of 1200 feet. This is a 2000' vertical drop.

Now summit elevation comes into play in determining how cold or how much snow there is going to be. Pat's Peak has 700 vertical feet with its summit elevation being only 1400 feet while Balsam's Wilderness only has about 1100 vertical feet, which is not much more, but its summit elevation is at about 3000 feet or so. Balsam's has more snow because the ski area is higher up above sea level.

Keep in mind that there are few mountain layouts where one can ski the full listed vertical drop (or where it would be feasible or realistic to do so). Sunday River advertises 2300 vertical feet, but they have rigged it so that one has to ski from one side of the resort all the way to the far end. Is this realistic? No. Now Cannon is roughly in the same ball park for vertical drop (2100 vertical), but one CAN ski from top to bottom here. Are the two mountains the same? Definitely not.

Sugarbush is another example. Mt Ellen boasts a 2600 vertical drop, but I can tell you that that is a loooonnnnnggggggg run and the mountain is such that one would really not want to take such a long run, but rather ski segments of the mountain.

More vertical drop may mean longer runs and possibly more variety. It may also suggest more snow and a longer season :wink:

 

[Greg]

I split this one out as it's a new topic.

 

[dmc]

More vertical drop will mean longer runs and possibly more variety. It may also suggest more snow and a longer season :wink:

Be careful to detremine if it's uninterupted vert...
For instance Big Sky used to say it had the most vert in the US... But it was interupted vert as compared to a place like JH where you can ski from top to bottom without having to take a chair...

 

[riverc0il]

watch out for mountains that give true summit elevations instead of top of the ski area elevations. waterville valley is a terrible offender giving the summit elevation as the summit of mount tecumseh, entirely a true summit elevation, but there's nothing skiable from that elevation. then, they use that elevation for calculating their vertical drop! :evil:

vertical drop is a worthless statistic in a lot of cases. for example, sundar river lists over 2000 vertical drop, but you really can't ski it in one run. more likely, you ski 1200' vert at a time at the river. whereas a place like wildcat is 2000 verts every single run. killington is also laughable in their vertical drop... even though it's a fairly true stat, very rare will a skier go from kpeak down to the lowest possible skiable terrain in a single run. most ski areas with big drops you don't ski more than 1200-1500 verts in a single run which is the same vertical as a lot of small to mid sized mountains that offer up better skiing options.

essentially, summit and vertical can tell you certain things about a ski area, but must be observed with analysis and critical attention if you want to draw conclusions about the mountain from them.

 

[thetrailboss]

watch out for mountains that give true summit elevations instead of top of the ski area elevations. waterville valley is a terrible offender giving the summit elevation as the summit of mount tecumseh, entirely a true summit elevation, but there's nothing skiable from that elevation. then, they use that elevation for calculating their vertical drop! :evil:

I also saw that in their literature and from hiking there this fall, I can tell you that their summit is much lower than the summit of Tecumseh.

 

[ALLSKIING]

killington is also laughable in their vertical drop... even though it's a fairly true stat, very rare will a skier go from kpeak down to the lowest possible skiable terrain in a single run.

I did that a few week ago..That had to be the worst run I have ever been on I think it was greateastern uke: The vert was nice but that trail.

 

[KingM]

Thanks for the info about vertical.

What about those places in Europe that list insane verticals of 6,000 plus? I'd assumed before that this meant you could ski top to bottom in one leg-burning run if you wanted, but based on this thread I'm guessing that there are different segments of the mountain. Anyone been to one of these resorts?

 

[ChileMass]

I've shared this many times on this board so my apologies in advance -

But, the thing about the Alps that is soooo cool is the vert from the bottom of the valleys up to the tops of the peaks. For example, at Zermatt, the village is at 5500' and the top of the Matterhorn, which hangs directly over the village, is just under 14,900'. That makes 9,400' of vertical right above you and the effect is almost overwhelming. I have never seen anything like it. The skiable vert at Zermatt is something like 7,200' (top of Klein Matterhorn tram is 12,700 or so and we skied right into the village). On the drive down from Geneva you pass thru valley after valley with just jaw-dropping vistas and hundreds of mountains rising more than 5,000' above you for the entire route (150 miles). I love CO and UT (and NH, ME, VT and NY), but the Alps blow them away.

A couple of other AZers have recently come back from Chamonix in France which is in the same neighborhood in the Alps and you can check out their posts in here.

Worth the long, expensive trip, in my humble opinion.....

 

[Tin Woodsman]

The vertical drop is defined as the elevation difference between the highest chairlift station and the lowest base area. So for example, Burke's summit chairlift unloads at 3200 feet above sea level and the J-bar at the bottom starts at an elevation of 1200 feet. This is a 2000' vertical drop.

Now summit elevation comes into play in determining how cold or how much snow there is going to be. Pat's Peak has 700 vertical feet with its summit elevation being only 1400 feet while Balsam's Wilderness only has about 1100 vertical feet, which is not much more, but its summit elevation is at about 3000 feet or so. Balsam's has more snow because the ski area is higher up above sea level.

Keep in mind that there are few mountain layouts where one can ski the full listed vertical drop (or where it would be feasible or realistic to do so). Sunday River advertises 2300 vertical feet, but they have rigged it so that one has to ski from one side of the resort all the way to the far end. Is this realistic? No. Now Cannon is roughly in the same ball park for vertical drop (2100 vertical), but one CAN ski from top to bottom here. Are the two mountains the same? Definitely not.

Sugarbush is another example. Mt Ellen boasts a 2750 vertical drop, but I can tell you that that is a loooonnnnnggggggg run and the mountain is such that one would really not want to take such a long run, but rather ski segments of the mountain.

More vertical drop may mean longer runs and possibly more variety. It may also suggest more snow and a longer season

Yes and no.

All things being equal, the higher the mountain, the greater the snowfall. However, it is rare that all things are equal. Balsams doesn't get more snow b/c its summit is higher above sea level. It gets more snow b/c it's in a more climatologically favorable region to receive it. To put it simply, the 1400' elevation near the Balsams receives more snow than the summit of Pat's Peak. If your statement were true, then Whiteface, with a summit elevation of 4,800', wouldn't receive less snow (180"/yr) than the 3,300' Okemo does (200"/yr). Okemo's location in the heart of Vermont's snow belt enables it to overcome the 1,500' difference in elevation.

As for Mt Ellen at Sugarbush, it's claimed vertical of 2,600' (not 2750) is pretty consistent and enjoyable to ski, with the exception perhaps of the run out on the bottom 400' of vertical. If Mt Ellen had a lift that ran from bottom to top, I'd do laps on it in a heartbeat. As it is, most skiers do laps of between 1600 and 2200 vertical feet due entirely to the lift sytem layout. Can't say that for a hill like Killington where 1500-1600' is the most vert you'll get in any single trail pod.

Finally, a large vertical drop can often suggest more snow and a longer season, but there are many exceptions. Wold Creek in Colorado has a vertical of only 1,600' whereas Keystone has something near 2,800'. But Wolf Creek gets over 400" per year b/c it's at the top of a mountain pass while Keystone (with a taller summit mind you) gets only 275" b/c it is surrounded by the high peaks of Summit County.

 

[dmc]

The Alps are nice... But I prefer interior British Columbia and Alberta....
The Bamff area reminds me of the Alps... But it's closer...

I've shared this many times on this board so my apologies in advance -

But, the thing about the Alps that is soooo cool is the vert from the bottom of the valleys up to the tops of the peaks. For example, at Zermatt, the village is at 5500' and the top of the Matterhorn, which hangs directly over the village, is just under 14,900'. That makes 9,400' of vertical right above you and the effect is almost overwhelming. I have never seen anything like it. The skiable vert at Zermatt is something like 7,200' (top of Klein Matterhorn tram is 12,700 or so and we skied right into the village). On the drive down from Geneva you pass thru valley after valley with just jaw-dropping vistas and hundreds of mountains rising more than 5,000' above you for the entire route (150 miles). I love CO and UT (and NH, ME, VT and NY), but the Alps blow them away.

A couple of other AZers have recently come back from Chamonix in France which is in the same neighborhood in the Alps and you can check out their posts in here.

Worth the long, expensive trip, in my humble opinion.....

 

[KingM]

You guys really make me want to go to Switzerland. My wife spent a summer there back in her college days and always talks about how beautiful it is. I only wish it weren't so expensive. We had some people from Germany last month who said it was cheaper to fly to the U.S. to ski than to drive the hundred miles to the Swiss resorts and ski and stay there.

Edit: Looks like I just garnered my second mountain. :beer:

 

[thetrailboss]

Thanks for the info about vertical.

What about those places in Europe that list insane verticals of 6,000 plus? I'd assumed before that this meant you could ski top to bottom in one leg-burning run if you wanted, but based on this thread I'm guessing that there are different segments of the mountain. Anyone been to one of these resorts?

Yes, I've been to Zermatt and it was incredible even if it I was skiing in MAY 8) . The glacier was great and the total vert, when the full place is open, is something like 7000 feet! But much like Sugarbush North, one skis different portions of the area using upper mountain lifts. The final run I took was from the summit of Klein Matterhorn all the way below Trockener Steg, which I think was about 3-4000 vertical feet or something like that. It was an INSANELY awesome day and the views were incredible!

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Thanks guys.... hey what's a vertical drop in comparison to peak hight when I look at mountain stats?

When talking about vert in the Northeast Whiteface is by far the best. When you get off the summit quad you have 3200+ feet of sustained vert. They advertise 3430 ft., but The Slides have to be open to get that. When you get off the summit quad you can stand at the edge of Skyward and look right down to the parking lot. I've seen intermidates actually be afraid of being so high up. ex. wife yelling at husband for bringing her to the top.

Hell, when you get off the gondi on Little WF you have 2500+ feet of vert to ski. You can count on on one hand the number of mountains in the Northeast that exceed "Little Whiteface" for their top vert.

Jiminy Peak fan - it's 3 of you
Hunta fan it's 2 of you
Stowe fan - Little WF measures up to you (in vert only)

I know this is an obnoxious post, but I mean it in fun. I am kinda proud of WF's vert.

 

[dmc]

Some of the best places I've ridden don't have a big vert...
I mean really - who gives a crap about something like that... It's all about what terrain is a vailable... People that base their trips on places that claim huge vert are the same people that count days to be excellent...

Take Fernie or Sugarbowl for instance... Not huge places - but you set your sites on certain areas where the terrain suits you... Having to go all the way to the bottom would be a waste of time...
Or Jackson... the only time I waste my turns on the lower mountain is when I going to the Mangey Moose at the end of the day...
Blackcomb too... I download so I don't have to ride the bottom of the mountain..

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Some of the best places I've ridden don't have a big vert...
I mean really - who gives a crap about something like that... It's all about what terrain is a vailable... People that base their trips on places that claim huge vert are the same people that count days to be excellent...

Take Fernie or Sugarbowl for instance... Not huge places - but you set your sites on certain areas where the terrain suits you... Having to go all the way to the bottom would be a waste of time...
Or Jackson... the only time I waste my turns on the lower mountain is when I going to the Mangey Moose at the end of the day...
Blackcomb too... I download so I don't have to ride the bottom of the mountain..

You have a point, vert isn't everything, but it's nice to have. Some people must give a crap about it because mountains that have it advertise it. What does count days to be excellent mean?

 

[dmc]

You have a point, vert isn't everything, but it's nice to have. Some people must give a crap about it because mountains that have it advertise it.

People that know mountains don't really care about total vert.. It's all about what the mountain has to offer... Let them advertise it.. thats cool.. Whatever keeps the business running...

What does count days to be excellent mean?

I have more days then you - so I must be a better skier or had a better season

 

[Tin Woodsman]

When talking about vert in the Northeast Whiteface is by far the best. When you get off the summit quad you have 3200+ feet of sustained vert

True enough, but Whiteface is lacking in so many other important facets that it makes the vert almost meaningless. First of all, no one skies the bottom of the mountain on the flats. You do laps on Little WF and off the Summit Quad. So the effective vert isn't much different from other large Eastern ski areas. More importantly, the snowfall, weather and terrain can't hold a candle to what's available in VT. WF is always 5 degrees colder than its neighbors across Lake Champlain. It gets barely half as much snow. And the terrain in VT is unrivaled. The Summit Quad doesn't do much for me at WF b/c you've got only Cloudspin, Skyward, and Parrons Run. Not enough terrain to handle all the people from a quad chair. At Jay, Stowe, SB and elsewhere, you generally have many more options on the upper mountain. Anyway, WF is a solid hill, no doubt about it, but it's vert is very misleading in terms of its overall quality.

 

[loafer89]

I am partial to Sugarloaf to satisfy my vertical drop needs. If you ski off the top of the Timberline quad you can ski Tote Road Ext - Upper Tote Road - Lower Tote Road which is about 2,600' of no bull continuous vertical and a leg burner.
The mountain has a total vetical of 2,820' which they claim is the most continuous vertical drop in New England.

The mountain does have its drawbacks, it's far from most major cities, being 4,237' tall it can be brutally cold and lately the place is suffering from a snow drought, but so is alot of far northern New England/New York. When the weather and snow conditions are right, the backside of the snowfields are really fun.

IMO it is the most beautiful looking mountain in the east.

 

[Greg]

What does count days to be excellent mean?

I have more days then you - so I must be a better skier or had a better season

I don't think there is anything wrong with counting days. After all it's not the number of years you've skied that indicates your ability, it's the number of days. I classify a good year based on how many days I get out and I do keep track. I guess if you're a 50+ days skier and have been doing that for 20 years, it really doesn't matter, but for me a 20 day season is a strong one (my best was last season at only 16). I'm up to 9 so far this season and I'm looking at 25+ with trips that are already planned. I set seasonal goals (this season was 20) which I think is a good motivator.