EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Fact Summit Elevation has nothing to do with skiing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fact Summit Elevation has nothing to do with skiing.

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

....when comparing areas 1000s of mile apart.

 

Vertical and snowfall are alot bigger indicators and ever then both can be very misleading.

 

Vertical

 

Mount Baker, wa -1500 vertical feet

Snowshoe, Wv  -1500 vertical feet

 

must be equal right

 

Alta, Utah - 2020 feet

MRG, Vt  - 2027 feet

 

the same right?(actually MRG is steeper top to bottom)

 

Top Lift Elevation

 

Alpental, wa  5400 vertical feet

Beech, Nc 5500 vertical Feet

 

Beech has to be the one right?

 

Aleyska, Ak 2750 feet

Hidden Valley, Pa 3000 feet

 

Pa is higher than alaska!

 

Highest Hike to terrain

 

Aleyska, Ak 3900 feet

Stowe, Vt 4395 feet

 

Stowe must be 400 feet better right!

 

 

 

Fact top lift elevation is one of the dumbest thing I have ever heard argued on here.

 

post #2 of 21

Well, that may be true in some instances, but if you're comparing the 5000' summit at Mt. Baker with places that top out at over 10,000 feet in Colorado, then snow quality will be different, generally.  Baker has great terrain that I would compare to anywhere, but the skiing will be different on average because of the elevation.

 

I believe that the snow quality issue is somewhat overblown here on Epic because of the folks who only ski good terrain on vacation, but it exists.

post #3 of 21

this is a regional issue.

take Tahoe and Mammoth. often Tahoe will get rain and Mammoth, only 200 miles away, is getting snow. it can make a big difference in early snowpack and individual storm conditions. The vertical difference is around 2,000' . It's because coastal mountains during certain kinds of systems are right on the edge of the snow/rain line. The difference can be as little as 1,500 feet.

post #4 of 21

The mere fact you are trying to prove your claim that Stowe is higher than Alyeska in the other thread proves that the quantitative value of elevation does in fact mean something to you, and it is subjectively good.

 

 

A long time ago there was a a t-shirt for sale in Jackson, WY that read "10,450 ft... in most states getting this high is illegal"

 

 

Higher is better, until you reach a point.

 

12,000 ft is headaches and incessant urination

 

13,000+ ft is hospital and IV dexamethasone.

 

that 8,000-10000 ft range is money.

post #5 of 21

for a combination of good snow conditions and maximum oxygen to breath the whole 6,000 to 10,000 zone is pretty nice.

for some people skiing at 13,000 is not an easy adaption. what is Aspen?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post

The mere fact you are trying to prove your claim that Stowe is higher than Alyeska in the other thread proves that the quantitative value of elevation does in fact mean something to you, and it is subjectively good.

 

 

A long time ago there was a a t-shirt for sale in Jackson, WY that read "10,450 ft... in most states getting this high is illegal"

 

 

Higher is better, until you reach a point.

 

12,000 ft is headaches and incessant urination

 

13,000+ ft is hospital and IV dexamethasone.

 

that 8,000-10000 ft range is money.



 

post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

for a combination of good snow conditions and maximum oxygen to breath the whole 6,000 to 10,000 zone is pretty nice.

for some people skiing at 13,000 is not an easy adaption. what is Aspen?
 



 



Aspen is not so high (for Colorado) -- about 8,000 base, 11,200 peak. A-Basin is almost 11,000 in the parking lot, a bit over 13,000 at top. Breck is about 10K at base. Hard to sleep there, it seems funny that so many flatlanders like it so much. Vail and Steamboat are much better for tourists.

 

 

 

 

post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 

I am just point out the fallacies of people talking about elevations.

 

I used Alyeska because it is sick place to ski, which has the lowest base elevation of any ski area in the USA.

 

 

post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

I am just point out the fallacies of people talking about elevations.

 

I used Alyeska because it is sick place to ski, which has the lowest base elevation of any ski area in the USA.

 

 


BSmeter.gif

 

 

This world-class resort off the Blue Route has a base elevation of 159 ft.

 

spring mtn.jpg

 

post #9 of 21

Since we're talking about low elevation places, check out this thread:

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/93754/what-is-the-lowest-elevation-chair-lift-in-north-america

post #10 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

I am just point out the fallacies of people talking about elevations.

 

I used Alyeska because it is sick place to ski, which has the lowest base elevation of any ski area in the USA.

 

 



Alyeska also happens to be in Alaska. I'm having trouble trying to think of any coastal (ie, right on the ocean) areas in the states that would have reliable enough temperatures/snowfall to operate a ski resort. Maybe up in Maine? Not really the most apt comparison in my opinion.

post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamadam View Post



Alyeska also happens to be in Alaska. I'm having trouble trying to think of any coastal (ie, right on the ocean) areas in the states that would have reliable enough temperatures/snowfall to operate a ski resort. Maybe up in Maine? Not really the most apt comparison in my opinion.



Cypress, Grouse, and Seymour. How far away is fair? Mt. Washington, 30 minutes to the water. Whistler Blackcomb,  an hour from Squamish. As the crow flies, Stevens, Baker, Alpental, and Crystal aren't all that far. Hurricane Ridge. Outside the US? fAll ski areas in Japan are only 10-40 miles from a coast. 

post #12 of 21

I'm curious as to who ever claimed altitude was important irrespective of other factors. Some considerations which are co-factors with altitude/vertical for determining your snow quality: 

 

Temperature variations: swinging above and below 0 is bad, hence the issue with skiing in the east. But some western resorts are more prone to this phenomenon than others, and the swings affect snowpack and avalanche formation

Vertical versus freezing point: if you have 5000' vert but 4000' is below the freezing line, that's not really impressive

Snow wetness: west coast powder is often measured in cementimeters

volume/interval of snow: frequent dumps are better than rare dumps. Although if temperatures don't vary much, some mountains keep good snow for weeks on end. 

 

Plus more obvious considerations like terrain acreage, difficulty, grooming if you're into that, etc. 

 

But when a few of the factors become fixed, then elevation starts to become more important. I'd much rather ski at Whistler's higher elevation than at Seymour's much lower elevation. Also, generally temperatures are lower at higher altitudes, so it's not a bad starting point (barring inversions). 

post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post



Cypress, Grouse, and Seymour. How far away is fair? Mt. Washington, 30 minutes to the water. Whistler Blackcomb,  an hour from Squamish. As the crow flies, Stevens, Baker, Alpental, and Crystal aren't all that far. Hurricane Ridge. Outside the US? fAll ski areas in Japan are only 10-40 miles from a coast. 


Cypress, Grouse and Seymour are all right on the water, but the skiable terrain is up in the El. 1000 m range. Those are the only ones you mentioned that are within sight of the ocean, and even with the elevation, snow conditions can be pretty unreliable. Last year, the north shore mountains had a 6+ m base, but some years they never even get the entire mountain open.

 

post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamadam View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post



Cypress, Grouse, and Seymour. How far away is fair? Mt. Washington, 30 minutes to the water. Whistler Blackcomb,  an hour from Squamish. As the crow flies, Stevens, Baker, Alpental, and Crystal aren't all that far. Hurricane Ridge. Outside the US? fAll ski areas in Japan are only 10-40 miles from a coast. 


Cypress, Grouse and Seymour are all right on the water, but the skiable terrain is up in the El. 1000 m range. Those are the only ones you mentioned that are within sight of the ocean...

It may seem like splitting hairs, but you can see the Straight of Juan de Fuca and across to Victoria from Hurricane Ridge.  It seems like you could fall into it.

 

Another correction that probably doesn't need to be made is that this little conversation started with adamadam saying he couldn't think of any coastal areas in THE STATES.  I guess Alaska doesn't count as a state?

 

 

 

 

post #15 of 21

Hey, Dwight Schrute, 

 

Take this goddamn inferiority complex and shut the hell up.

post #16 of 21

post a beef with me

 

love an expert blah blah blah bottom (post a beef derivative)

 

east coast sucks

 

this here thread we're in (east coast sucks derivative)

 

Your strong suit is contributing stoke.  It's also nice that you push the epicski community to think a little more outside of their box of what is good and acceptable skiing.  

 

But this recent bout of defensiveness that you bring upon yourself, serves not to promote your ideas, but only to lessen your perceived expertise.  People begin to not listen anymore.  You become a liability to your cause.  Without a doubt, your trolling results in long threads, mainly with clueless newbs that fall for your bait.  Sometimes there are debates(?) with more tenured posters, but usually those folks are contrarians that would happily keep debating in the previous thread where the disagreement started.  Of course they'll follow you to your new defensive thread, but at some point, you should ask yourself, "am I really that worried about winning this argument on epicski?"

 

Certainly we can all fall victim to a desire to win and to prove other's wrong.  We've all had our less than shining moments if we've spent much time here or on TGR or any other forum, ski or otherwise.  But yours seems chronic.  Like a chain-smoker, you create threads with a passive-aggressive, "woe-is-me" title that reek of indignation and self-righteousness from some previous thread that serve only to prove some self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

I like you.  More than many, if not most or even all of your detractors.  But seriously dude.  You need to reel it in a little bit.

 

 

post #17 of 21


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post

The mere fact you are trying to prove your claim that Stowe is higher than Alyeska in the other thread proves that the quantitative value of elevation does in fact mean something to you, and it is subjectively good.

 

 

A long time ago there was a a t-shirt for sale in Jackson, WY that read "10,450 ft... in most states getting this high is illegal"

 

 

Higher is better, until you reach a point.

 

12,000 ft is headaches and incessant urination

 

13,000+ ft is hospital and IV dexamethasone.

 

that 8,000-10000 ft range is money.


Skiing above the tree line is a very desirable feature.  That's what many people think of when they think about skiing "Out West".  As for the thin air, I believe it enhances the euphoria.  I agree there is such a thing as too high for some.

 

post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Posaune View Post

It may seem like splitting hairs, but you can see the Straight of Juan de Fuca and across to Victoria from Hurricane Ridge.  It seems like you could fall into it.

 

Another correction that probably doesn't need to be made is that this little conversation started with adamadam saying he couldn't think of any coastal areas in THE STATES.  I guess Alaska doesn't count as a state?

 

 

 

 


Don't forget Camden snowbowl as well. Base elevation 150'. Less than 3 miles from Penobscot Bay, and a fine view of the bay as well.

 

Snow%20Bowl%20Pictures%20from%20Maurice%20Payson%20069.jpg

 

Josh, statements like "I used Alyeska because it is sick place to ski, which has the lowest base elevation of any ski area in the USA." are exactly what I was referring to in the other thread when I pointed out that you post stuff you can't back up. You seem to want some cred, but you keep shooting your mouth off.

 

By the way, I have skied Alyeska, Hurricane Ridge and Camden Snowbowl. All three suffer from their low elevation. When they were building Alyeska the plan had been to put the ski area further up on Winner Creek, which would have moved the elevation up and improved the snow quality. They didn't have the money to put the road in, so they settled on Alyeska peak.

 

post #19 of 21

Here's some fun footage from last winter, from a city that lies at sea level and 55 degrees north:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlZ9oE4OfTM

post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Posaune View Post

It may seem like splitting hairs, but you can see the Straight of Juan de Fuca and across to Victoria from Hurricane Ridge.  It seems like you could fall into it.

 

Another correction that probably doesn't need to be made is that this little conversation started with adamadam saying he couldn't think of any coastal areas in THE STATES.  I guess Alaska doesn't count as a state?

 

 

 

 



Fair enough, meant to write continental states, but left out that important qualifier. And Hurricane Ridge, never even heard of that place, where is it? Olympic Peninsula somewhere I guess?

post #21 of 21

Hurricane Ridge is south of Port Angeles in the Olympic National Park. It is one of the last, if not the last, ski areas in a NP. One platter and two rope tows. A single wide ticket office and a beat up old groomer. Keeping it real.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Fact Summit Elevation has nothing to do with skiing.