Vertical drop

[dmc]

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.

I hear ya... But people get way to caught up in counting days.. But I don't think # of days shows ability...
I'd take one epic POW day over 5 mellow groomer days...

I really don't need any motivation to ride/ski.... If I want to I do - if I don't feel like it - I don't...

It's just my opinion...

 

[Vortex]

I count days and probably care about totals more than most.
I definately don't think it has anything to do with ability.
I use to live in the mountains, I never counted my days back then either. I go as often as I can ,it motivates me to stay empoyed.
I count my hiking days in the Spring ,summer and fall also.
DMC I sent you a PM the other day on your potential Attitash trip did you get it?

 

[dmc]

I count days and probably care about totals more than most.
I definately don't think it has anything to do with ability.
I use to live in the mountains, I never counted my days back then either. I go as often as I can ,it motivates me to stay empoyed.
I count my hiking days in the Spring ,summer and fall also.
DMC I sent you a PM the other day on your potential Attiash trip did you get it?

No - I didnt but I'll check...

 

[Greg]

I definately don't think it has anything to do with ability.

I should clarify. I think the number of days one gets in an average year is a better indicator of ability than the simply the number of years they've been skiing. Obviously, there are many other factors that influence ability like where and how you ski and who you ski with. I also feel some people have more of a built-in aptitude for it than others.

 

[dmc]

I definately don't think it has anything to do with ability.

I should clarify. I think the number of days one gets in an average year is a better indicator of ability than the simply the number of years they've been skiing. Obviously, there are many other factors that influence ability like where and how you ski and who you ski with. I also feel some people have more of a built-in aptitude for it than others.

I guess the way I judge my ability is the fact I actually made it down something that I consider a challenge... And how I did or felt while doing it...

My next challenge of my ability will - hopefully - be "Dodges Drop" and the "Emperess" on Mount Washington this March or April.. Everytime I go they are not rideable.. Too exposed...

 

[Vortex]

I definately don't think it has anything to do with ability.

I should clarify. I think the number of days one gets in an average year is a better indicator of ability than the simply the number of years they've been skiing. Obviously, there are many other factors that influence ability like where and how you ski and who you ski with. I also feel some people have more of a built-in aptitude for it than others.

Greg I was not trying to go at you at all. My point was days out or years can be an indication of skill, but not all people go out as much as they want. There are lost of good turns made by those occasional skiers and riders. On the other side I have skied all but 5 years of my life and I can't ski moguls or the trees.

 

[Greg]

Greg I was not trying to go at you at all.

Oh, I know that. I just wanted to clarify my initial sweeping statement that the number of days solely indicates ability.

 

[Vortex]

Cool. DMC I sent you a PM again let me know if you get it.

 

[dmc]

Greg I was not trying to go at you at all.

Oh, I know that. I just wanted to clarify my initial sweeping statement that the number of days solely indicates ability.

I think level of ability is based upon what kind of terrain you ski comfortably on and not how many times you ski...

 

[ctenidae]

I thought skiing ability was determined by how cool you look.
Have I been focusing on the wrong thing the whole time? You mean I'm actually supposed to ski on those things?

 

[bvibert]

I thought skiing ability was determined by how cool you look.
Have I been focusing on the wrong thing the whole time? You mean I'm actually supposed to ski on those things?

As long as you have all the newest gear and can look good while wearing it you're an expert :beer:

 

[dmc]

I thought skiing ability was determined by how cool you look.

Even the biggest posers become good skiers if they try hard enough...

 

[riverc0il]

When talking about vert in the Northeast Whiteface is by far the best.

indeed. i have never been to whiteface, but my research has indicated that whiteface and sugarloaf are the only two ski areas in the east with enough sustained vertical to hold an official FIS downhill ski race.

 

[thetrailboss]

When talking about vert in the Northeast Whiteface is by far the best.

indeed. i have never been to whiteface, but my research has indicated that whiteface and sugarloaf are the only two ski areas in the east with enough sustained vertical to hold an official FIS downhill ski race.

I don't know much about racing, but I think that they may be able to host certain events that others can't thanks to the terrain. Burke, Sugarbush, and even Pat's Peak have FIS sanctioned terrain as well, but it is for different events.

 

[SAB]

Whiteface and Sugarloaf may be the only places in the Eastern US :flag: that can host an FIS sanctioned downhill event - but Le Massif in Quebec also meets the criteria. Le Massif had major upgrades (like a base lodge and chairlifts!) installed a number of years ago so the Quebec City could make a bid to host the Winter Olympics. :beer:

SAB

 

[ski_resort_observer]

FIS at the Bush

The Bush's well known trail FIS is named so as it was one of the first trails in the US to be FIS sanctioned, at least that is what I was told.

 

[takeahike46er]

WF is always 5 degrees colder than its neighbors across Lake Champlain.

The perception that WF is colder than other northern VT ski areas is unfounded.

The average winter high for Wilmington, NY (the closest town to WF) is 26.2 degrees. The average winter low is 4.4 degrees. Compare that to Stowe, VT.--- 23.9 degrees is the average winter high and 3.0 is the average low. Where is it colder?

Source:

http://realestate.yahoo.com/re/neighborhood/search.html?csz=Wilmington,NY
http://realestate.yahoo.com/re/neighborhood/search.html?csz=Stowe,VT


The vertical at WF is by far the biggest in the east no matter how you slice it. However, just because the mountain is big and the vertical is big does not mean that the resort is big. WF is not a large resort. It does not have a large amount of acres. It also doesn't get very crowded. The amount of terrain reflects that.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

hmmmmmmm

Whether Tin is correct or not I do not know but since I have no proof that he is not I will take his word for it.

Your stats only prove that Wilmington NY is not as cold as Stowe, Vt. The temps from a town several miles away can be very diferent than the temps on mountain.

 

[takeahike46er]

Your stats only prove that Wilmington NY is not as cold as Stowe, Vt. The temps from a town several miles away can be very diferent than the temps on mountain.

I think it is safe to assume from the averages provided that the temperatures at the respective mountain bases aren't as drastically different as some might believe. Likewise, temperatures at similar elevations (summit of little WF/summit stowe) probably do not differ by 5 degrees on average. A five degree average is quite a substantial difference. If a such temperature difference were the case, WF would have gotten a lot more snow earlier in the season when every storm was producing mixed precip. for the entire northeast.

 

[beswift]

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

This can be somewhat deceptive, though. Chamonix has a 9,000 ft. skiable Verticle. However, if you ski it, it is not a very challenging ski. Slope is a measure of the difficulty of a trail in the sense that it can give you a measure of the steepness of a trail. However, they don't publish slope measures except for Golf courses. Another fact about Alpine skiing is that once you take the Cable Car above treeline, it is best to avoid skiing to the bottom until the end of the day. The vast lift systems above the Cable give the real skiing. Austria can have very poor conditions in the lower elevations. However, I recall skiing one wild trail which faced North and brought me down into another village altogether. I had to take a bus back to the original village. If you are looking for steep terrain in the Alps, your best bet is to look for a second Cable Car. Seegrub in the Innsbruch area provides such skiing. However, as I stated, Chamonix has a second cable car which offers either an opportunity for suicide or a rather easy ski. By the way, depending on the exchange rate Europe isn't always more expensive.