An interesting web project is trying to find that out:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... -Vertical/
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... -Vertical/
Agree, should not be included in "brochure quotes." Telluride for example should say, "We have an additional 580 vertical feet of controlled terrain above the lifts."additional vertical drop created by terrain accessible solely by hiking
There's already a definition here, "continuous vertical." Big Sky ought to say, "We have 4,346 vertical feet of which 3,619 are continuous," but we know that will never happen. No surprise by this definition Deer Valley falls from 3,005 to 1,910 vertical. Given a one number choice (and trust me this is what the print media insists upon) I would reluctantly go with the full lift served.without taking a lift ride in between
I'm not buying this one. It's a highly subjective definition. For example, the author removed the slightly lower base of Baby Thunder below the main Gad Valley base at Snowbird even though it's a fairly straightforward ski route. I have no idea why he took 122 feet off Sun Valley, which is about as continuous a vertical mountain as it gets.long catwalk or traverse connecting the two.
"Continuous vertical" should be whatever you can ski in a single run, even if it takes multiple lifts to get to the top of the continuous bit. If you use the metric of needing to take more than one lift to artificially reduce the vertical, you leave out a lot of the big mountains - eg: Whistler and Blackcomb, Big Sky, et al.Tony Crocker":337nty5a said:There's already a definition here, "continuous vertical." Big Sky ought to say, "We have 4,346 vertical feet of which 3,619 are continuous," but we know that will never happen. No surprise by this definition Deer Valley falls from 3,005 to 1,910 vertical. Given a one number choice (and trust me this is what the print media insists upon) I would reluctantly go with the full lift served.without taking a lift ride in between
Marc_C":2k530pxx said:"Continuous vertical" should be whatever you can ski in a single run, even if it takes multiple lifts to get to the top of the continuous bit. If you use the metric of needing to take more than one lift to artificially reduce the vertical, you leave out a lot of the big mountains - eg: Whistler and Blackcomb, Big Sky, et al.Tony Crocker":2k530pxx said:There's already a definition here, "continuous vertical." Big Sky ought to say, "We have 4,346 vertical feet of which 3,619 are continuous," but we know that will never happen. No surprise by this definition Deer Valley falls from 3,005 to 1,910 vertical. Given a one number choice (and trust me this is what the print media insists upon) I would reluctantly go with the full lift served.without taking a lift ride in between
And acres are much better?Tony Crocker":1oxbggcq said:This exercise does illustrate that vertical is not that great a single indicator of ski area quality. Some areas' vertical "is more equal than others," Jackson Hole for example (right, Patrick? :stir: ).
That is exactly the definition I had in mind. At Big Sky you have to ride the Andesite lift after skiing the 3,619 from Lone Peak in order to ski to the separate and lower Thunder Wolf base area.MarcC":1lcceiku said:"Continuous vertical" should be whatever you can ski in a single run
Agree here.Tony Crocker":13eejgem said:That is exactly the definition I had in mind.MarcC":13eejgem said:"Continuous vertical" should be whatever you can ski in a single run
Tony Crocker":13eejgem said:With regard to Patrick's comments:
I suspect Blue Mountain is flatter than a mainstream 4-1 lift ratio.
Jay Peak's 385 acres is strictly trails. Counting lift accessible glades pushes it to at least 1,000.
Sutton, while smaller than Jay, I suspect has similar topography within boundaries.
With regard to vertical, Jay has 2,150 and Alta only 2,000. Over to you, Patrick. :snowball fight:
The Mountain
Peaks: 2
Miles of skiable terrain: 50+
Skiable Acreage: 385+
Acres for off-piste skiing: 100+
Base Elevation: 1,815 feet
Vertical: 2,153 feet
Exposure: Northeast
JSpin measured Stowe's acreage within boundaries is some detail as being about 2,500 acres. With 485 acres of trails that's about 2,000 in the trees. Even this wimpy western wide-spaced tree skier is willing to credit Stowe with 1,000 acres of tree skiing. So Eastern expert and advocate Patrick is going to say with a straight face that Jay has only 100 acres of tree skiing????The Mountain
Peaks: 2
Miles of skiable terrain: 50+
Skiable Acreage: 385+
Acres for off-piste skiing: 100+
Base Elevation: 1,815 feet
Vertical: 2,153 feet
Exposure: Northeast
I didn't check, but technically, if you're splitting semantic hairs, a tiny hike is required to reach the top-most skiable point. Also, is the base of West Mtn lift below the main base? 'Cause from there you can't ski back to the main base, so I can see how someone might eliminate that little bit of vert.icelanticskier":28nujl5u said:i find it interesting that the loaf didn't get credit for the whole 2820 vert.
Marc_C":3u1ybfdm said:I didn't check, but technically, if you're splitting semantic hairs, a tiny hike is required to reach the top-most skiable point. Also, is the base of West Mtn lift below the main base? 'Cause from there you can't ski back to the main base, so I can see how someone might eliminate that little bit of vert.icelanticskier":3u1ybfdm said:i find it interesting that the loaf didn't get credit for the whole 2820 vert.
Yep! Forgot all about that one, as it basically services condos and the Sugarloaf Inn.Patrick":3v8jt7bl said:Marc_C":3v8jt7bl said:I didn't check, but technically, if you're splitting semantic hairs, a tiny hike is required to reach the top-most skiable point. Also, is the base of West Mtn lift below the main base? 'Cause from there you can't ski back to the main base, so I can see how someone might eliminate that little bit of vert.icelanticskier":3v8jt7bl said:i find it interesting that the loaf didn't get credit for the whole 2820 vert.
There is a chairlift below the main base, no?
I was pretty sure there was (never took it or seen it running, mid you I've always skied Sugarloaf midweek or Spring), so the actual vertical is probably pretty close to the real vert in Sugarloaf case.Marc_C":3i2u0qwi said:Yep! Forgot all about that one, as it basically services condos and the Sugarloaf Inn.
Patrick":3ouv8raw said:I was pretty sure there was (never took it or seen it running, mid you I've always skied Sugarloaf midweek or Spring), so the actual vertical is probably pretty close to the real vert in Sugarloaf case.Marc_C":3ouv8raw said:Yep! Forgot all about that one, as it basically services condos and the Sugarloaf Inn.