• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Vertical, pitch, terrain or snowfall?

Moe Ghoul

New member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,408
Points
0
Location
Philly, PA / Jeffersonville, VT
Being from vertically challenged Poconos, lotsa vertical. Less lift time. If they have that, they prolly have terrain, and if I'm on the hill there's gonna be snow. I can ski in crud with lotsa vertical. Some terrain needs decent conditions for me to consider skiing it.
 

eatskisleep

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,629
Points
83
To me, most good terrain is steep, but most steeps wouldn't qualify as good terrain. So I say terrain, if I can only pick one, then snowfall is a close second.
 

mattchuck2

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
1,341
Points
0
Location
Clifton Park, NY
Website
skiequalsmc2.blogspot.com
Okay, here's my thinking on this:

Can't be snowfall, because if that were the case then we'd all be skiing in the Tug Hill Plateau area of New York (where lake effect snow can dump 150" in only a few days). Meatheads proved that Snow without terrain gets old pretty quick.

Can't be Interesting Terrain because you can have all the narrow new england style trails or open western bowls you want, but if the pitch is 20 degrees, then that's not going to help you out very much on a powder day.

Can't be vertical drop because of the following reason: Elevation change between St. Louis and Denver is 5,280' (approximately), corresponding to a 5,280' vertical drop. Nobody would want to ski that "mountain", though.

So, by default, the answer is Steep Pitch of trails.

Unless you are assuming that all of your "interesting" terrain has a steep pitch, in which case I call shenanigans on the question and pick Interesting Terrain.
 

skimore

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
217
Points
0
Okay, here's my thinking on this:

Can't be snowfall, because if that were the case then we'd all be skiing in the Tug Hill Plateau area of New York (where lake effect snow can dump 150" in only a few days). Meatheads proved that Snow without terrain gets old pretty quick.

No terrain...have you skied Tug Hill. After a lake effect dump, boring it ain't. There is terrain to be had and I have some of my best days on the Plateau. I've had multiple days in row skiing waist deep snow with no competition. I'd rather lap some 300-400ft shots in 3ft of untracked all day than fight the masses where by 10am it's toast.

1463171123_f91cdda6a0.jpg




2375232993_8fcd7ea472.jpg


2376070642_f532fb14be.jpg


1464157646_2d3bfbf7f8.jpg


1464008042_89f9e301bb.jpg


2289070785_5a80d6ae9a.jpg


1463945788_18340e0752.jpg


1463363737_9edc46d71d.jpg


1464130082_882f32c29e.jpg


2210898150_62a6eae301.jpg
 

powderman

New member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
261
Points
0
Location
CT
It can't be snowfall these days. Maybe if it were 1960, it would, but with snowmaking, a good portion of the terrain can be open even when there isn't natural snow. It can't be vertical either. I love high verticals, but it's really about the skiable experience itself, and how does a vertical influence the skiable experience? It also can't be steep terrain. Jiminy Peak has steep terrain, but nothing is interesting there which is why I don't like it there. Catamount on the other hand, has only one steep trail, but the overall terrain is more interesting than Jiminy's terrain which is why I like Catamount more than Jiminy. With that just said, interesting terrain is the winner.
 
Top