EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › Actual skiable vertical resource
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Actual skiable vertical resource

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

For those wondering what the actual vertical is of most hills, here is a great link:  http://mountainvertical.com/

post #2 of 20

That's nice vert information. By comparison, I was surprised to see Nakiska in Alberta had almost the same vertical as Copper Mountain. I skied one PM at Nakiska and maybe I went down the wrong runs or something but there was no way I would have thought it had a vert drop nearly equivalent to Copper's.

post #3 of 20

 Snowmass is not accurate.   You can ski the total 4406.  It would entail a lot of traversing, but it can be skied.   

 

 

Edit:  Their metric leaves some open some discussion on what is commonly skied and fully continuous?  Apparently the cirque poma doesn't count?

 

True-Up Vertical Drop is a new ski metric created by MountainVertical.com, and is intended to be a more meaningful ski resort statistic for skiers and snowboards researching mountains. In a nutshell, it represents the most vertical distance at a resort that can be achieved on commonly skied, lift-served, full continuous runs.


Edited by SHREDHEAD - 10/25/10 at 2:54pm
post #4 of 20
Thread Starter 

I'm sure they would appreciate your views and be willing to explain their version.  But, it it's tough to get to the true summit, I can see where they left it out.  They are measuring "commonly skied".  If most people don't go through whatever is entailed to get to wherever you are talking about, then that's why it's adjusted.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post

 Snowmass is not accurate.   You can ski the total 4406.  It would entail a lot of traversing, but it can be skied.   

 

 

Edit:  Their metric leaves some open some discussion on what is commonly skied and fully continuous?  Apparently the cirque poma doesn't count?

 

True-Up Vertical Drop is a new ski metric created by MountainVertical.com, and is intended to be a more meaningful ski resort statistic for skiers and snowboards researching mountains. In a nutshell, it represents the most vertical distance at a resort that can be achieved on commonly skied, lift-served, full continuous runs.

post #5 of 20

I see some discrepancies.  Since they say they don't count vertical in the case of:

 

"The solitary trail that inflates the vertical drop, but adds little to your ski experience"

 

How could Solitude then be over 2000ft?  In my quest for the 2000ft run, I took the Honeycomb Canyon runout last year, and it was miserable to say the least.  

 

The 2712ft at Park City looks suspect too.  I want my money back!!!!!!  

post #6 of 20

its nice to see Deer Valley brought back down to size smile.gif.

post #7 of 20

A lot of those numbers should still be reduced, just by correcting the summit and base elevations claimed by the resorts.  Stratton, VT is one example.  The base elevation they claim to geet 2,000 vertical feet is 100 feet too low, as you can tell from topo maps and Google Earth.  There are many others.

post #8 of 20
Thread Starter 

Well, you should tell this place.  I think it would be great to have it more accurate.

post #9 of 20

Moonlight's isn't accurate either.  It really is the 4,150' that's claimed on the trailmap.  That's from the top of the North Summit Snowfield to the bottom of Six Shooter.  Once you drop off the summit, that's the only place you'll end up.  Or, rather, that's only place you want to end up.

post #10 of 20
Thread Starter 

I hope everyone who differs will write to them and see what they say about their metrics:  contact@mountainvertical.com

post #11 of 20

Wow there is a lot of mountains on this list I've never heard of!  I have a lot of work to do...

post #12 of 20

I like it

post #13 of 20

Good list, but not exhaustive.  I can think of a bunch of ski areas that aren't on the list. 

 

For the trivia buffs, how about the one that probably qualifies as having the world's shortest quad with 130' vertical and only 8 chairs in front of you when you load.... haa haa (it actually breeds some pretty good slalom racers)

Answer... Springhill Winter Park  www.springhillwinterpark.com


Edited by exracer - 10/27/10 at 10:32pm
post #14 of 20

They got Sun Peaks vertical wrong, I think they quoted from the top of the mountain to the village instead of the Burfield chairlift base. Mind you most skiers only ride the Burfield chair once since it takes 22 minutes from bottom to top and is mostly black diamond and double black.-- just means more pow for me to ski. I emailed them.

post #15 of 20

 

hey - Frank from mountainvertical.com here (heard about this thread...and registered here to respond)
 
thanks for pointing this out with sun peaks. yes it was the height from the peak to the village previously reported. we checked the data and changed the numbers to reflect the drop to the burfield lift base. New vertical is 2881 ft.
 
With hundreds of resorts to cover, once in a while we'll miss some small things like this.
if there is anytime you think a figure is off, definitely email us and we'll double check.
 
FYI we're giving away free lift tickets... take a look
 
cheers
post #16 of 20
Question... has anyone see their comments result in anyone updating the site? I was just wondering if it's worthwhile sending anything in... like my previous post about Solitude.
post #17 of 20

Park City's true vertical is nowhere near 2700.  It's the most disjointed/discontinuous terrain I can remember skiing.  The true vertical there is simply equal to the longest vertical of a specific chairlift (not sure which one).  Killington was punished for this trait, why not Park City?

post #18 of 20

I'd love to see the European resorts listed, just to see the really big numbers.

 

For example, I was in Alagna a couple of weeks ago, and they've got a black that transitions into a red that covers about 1750 m (5740 ft) in total in one run.


Edited by CerebralVortex - 3/1/11 at 5:34am
post #19 of 20

CB, spot-on, I know I have skied at least one "Red Run" in Zurs which was steeper than many Black runs in Utah and it was a long way down, more vertical directly on one run, no runouts etc, and this TR by a gentleman who knows the "most consistently steep mountain in North America : Snowbird" (I am quoting eminence of JH, Bob Peters I think, or one of the genuine experts on this forum) , the TR author also wrote the Wiki for Snowbird I think : Read his comments on runs in Zurs, I have a feeling the same runs I skied on (And I was a novice then, mildly improved now) but anyway...here is his TR on the Arlberg and he feels the crap about Lech-Zurs being an intermediate's mountain is just that, crap..

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/101032/st-anton-this-week

 

It would definitely be great to see someone collect that info .... from Europe, Asia etc.

post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MV-Frank View Post

 

hey - Frank from mountainvertical.com here (heard about this thread...and registered here to respond)
 
thanks for pointing this out with sun peaks. yes it was the height from the peak to the village previously reported. we checked the data and changed the numbers to reflect the drop to the burfield lift base. New vertical is 2881 ft.
 
With hundreds of resorts to cover, once in a while we'll miss some small things like this.
if there is anytime you think a figure is off, definitely email us and we'll double check.
 
FYI we're giving away free lift tickets... take a look
 
cheers

 

Sun Peaks still shows 2682' and not the top to the bottom of Burfield: 2,894' real vertical (according to their website)... I guess it should be between Mammoth and Breckenridge on the list...

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › Actual skiable vertical resource