EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › How much vertical do you need?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How much vertical do you need? - Page 2

post #31 of 49
The answer to the question is None. If you are a real skier, that is.
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
The answer to the question is None. If you are a real skier, that is.
Good one, AT! I never did much cross-country skiing. I'm not sure a skier needs to do it to be real though.

I skied a ropetow for a whole season that might have had 50 feet of vert. It took me that long to learn to turn and stop. Ski patrol tested for basic skills before allowing one to use the the T-bar and the full 450 vertical. 50 feet was fun, but the rope was more difficult than the wedged schuss. I could barely lift it when I was the only one on it.
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
If I get any more vertical than skiing the snow pile in the K-Mart parking lot I'm ecstatic...

....Ott

I'm right there with you. Anything over 300 is a bonus.LOL
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Skier 1330
I'm right there with you. Anything over 300 is a bonus.LOL
Yup, the ski area I have done most my improving at is 180' I think. The longest run is just a shade over a quarter mile.

It's the kind of spot where you really want the whole thing to ice over just so it is as challenging as possible and you really get a lot of learning mileage out of those turns. The bulldozer made the moguls sideways last year, so they were really gnarly and difficult to ski. 180' of icy bumps is plenty if you can't ski them perfectly yet.
post #35 of 49
I suppose Feallen touched on it but it depends on a number of factors with the most fundamental skill in skiing applying the most (imho of course) BALANCE... if one is a never-ever and taking ones first lesson, vertical does not matter. In fact the smaller and less crowded the better... If the Mt is crowded it seems like the huge verticals are again at a disadvantage if one is trying to avoid the crowds as the crowds are attracted to huge verticals and one finding solitude at such a place will not necessarily be where the best snow conditions are altitude-wise... I'm not saying I dont like huge verticals, I do!

But ski the smaller areas such as www.skiwhitepass.com on a weekday or even a non-holiday weekend and 1500' seems like plenty, you have groomers, tree-runs, trails, bumps, steeps, and park terrain. and unlike the drunken frenchman of Mary Jane, it won't leave you dialing 911 on your cell hoping you have a signal!
post #36 of 49
I have worked at small, medium and mega resorts. Bigger is better for so many reasons.
post #37 of 49
i think the vertical in most resorts is a bit misleading and i agree with most people that terrain is more important, the reason it can be misleading is bcus for instance to enjoy whistlers FULL vertical u have to ski top to bottom, that means take 3 lifts up, ski down nice bowls, then some nice terrain and then all this beginner crap at the bottom, i prefer a mountain where ther is one lift like kicking horse mountain resort where ther is 4000' vertical all accesible with one lift and the terrain at the bottom isnt that bad, in the east, my favourite mountain is le massif 2750' vertical all with one lift and the terrain is amazing , ther is even a national training center ther with a hill that has a 66% pitch at one point and the run is so wide and a so FAST!!!! its called le charelevoix in case anyone was wondering, ive only had the oppurtuinity to ski the whole thing twice in my 4 visits ther as that run is rarely opened as they are constantly preparing it for races.... but that doesnt mean u cant sneak on and have some fun at the end of the day and then get ur ticket clipped and say "thankyou" lol!!!!
post #38 of 49
i got my pass this year at heavenly cuz its close to my house. 3550 of vert and 5500 acres its not too hard to avoid the crowds and we have tons of sweet ass trees where theres always most likely some pow to find.
americans not understanding big vert? not always true. last year was so huge with most areas getting 600+ inches that we were regularly riding from the top of Mt Rose ski area down to old rt 395 by washoe lake. close to 6000vert...
post #39 of 49
I speak think I speak for midwesterners everywhere when I say


"They make 'em that big?"
post #40 of 49
maybe closer to 5000 i guess i meant
post #41 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
Good one, AT! I never did much cross-country skiing. I'm not sure a skier needs to do it to be real though.

I skied a ropetow for a whole season that might have had 50 feet of vert. It took me that long to learn to turn and stop. Ski patrol tested for basic skills before allowing one to use the the T-bar and the full 450 vertical. 50 feet was fun, but the rope was more difficult than the wedged schuss. I could barely lift it when I was the only one on it.
My cousins who grew up in Montpelier had a pretty steep hill in their back yard. They are all excellent downhill skiers. As to cross-country, if you live in the flats you should take it up. It can be quite challenging but easy to pick up.
post #42 of 49
I always want alot of vert. I don't need alot of vert to enjoy myself. Resort layout is key. I can have fun skiing a place like Keystone, which has no steeps and is all groomed runs but only on weekdays. I like Winterpark because the layout makes it easier to get around the mountain. I really get frustrated with Brecks layout sometimes because you have to hit so many lifts to get to the good stuff. I can only say that as far as vertical footage is concerned my want is more powerful than my need. The fact that has a far bigger impact on my enjoyment is the layout, how accessable the mountain is, how the steeps blend into the rest of the mountain.
post #43 of 49
The more vert the better. Ski Jackson from Rendevous through the Hobacks, and you will know what I mean.
post #44 of 49
We can have fun on little hills. I learned to ski and race on 'em.

But, bigger mountains are so much better. Even the smaller vertical mountains around here I have found to need augmentation after a couple years' of season pass skiing...

Any skiing is great skiing, though, and so it's all relative. We take what we can get.
post #45 of 49
My local hill has ~3000' of vertical, but I rarely find myself skiing all of it on every single run.

I prefer to do laps on my favourite lift, or combo thereof.

One of the lifts takes about 23 minutes to go from the bottom to the top.
post #46 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcwop
The more vert the better. .
Too much is not condusive to race training. Not only is is hard to yo-yo the course, the racers are off having fun rather than training. If it without gates I would have been bored to death on the small hills I learned on.

Buck Hill Minnesota is about the right vert for young racers.
post #47 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesj
Agree that anything is better than nothing, but 2000' or more really does it for me. 4000'+ gets in the adventure mode and can include fun variables in weather and surface conditions.
This thread contains links to photos of Mt. Washington ski area in British Columbia and a few other "seaside" ski areas: http://www.dcski.com/ubbthreads22/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB1&Number=16334&Searchp age=1&Main=16334&Words=mt.+washington+british+JimK &topic=&Search=true#Post16334
James, I'm trying to get my bearings. Would that slope at the top, pictured almost directly behind the skier's head but a little to the right be powder face?
Thanks.
post #48 of 49
It makes no difference to me. Anything from flat to monster. I just adapt what I want to do. Snow conditions don't make a hell of a lot of difference either.
post #49 of 49
Thread Starter 
When I posted the question, part of what I had in mind was that given a choice, I would rather ski laps on runs with one lift ride than take multiple lifts to extend my vertical. I know there are trams and gondolas that may give more than 1500 or 2000 vertical from a single lift, but from my experience, that is not the norm. In addition, when trams or gondolas providing more vertical are in the mix, the wait times often diminish the benefit. Throw in the common condition differences in from top to bottom of mountains with large verticals and I'm of the opinion that big vertical is more about resort promotion than truly being a skier's benefit.
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 › How much vertical do you need?