rsmith wrote:To me there's a notable distinction between certain mountains and how they ski, when it comes to 'vertical'. Sustained pitches of a certain length make some mountains unique, ~2000' at 25+ degrees being a reasonable mark (regardless of if you can ski the full length on a single lift ride). Snowbird, Jackson Hole, Squaw (KT-22) and Snowbasin fit this pattern. In a single run you have a relatively large commitment and a sense of exploration you don't get otherwise. Places with steep, but short runs like Kirkwood or Solitude have interesting terrain, but you miss out on the exhausting yet fulfilling lines from the Snowbird Tram or the long, connected GS arcs you can make at Snowbasin. Then there's a whole other class of mountain such as Heavenly, the Park City resorts, and the majority of Colorado which have large actual verticals but relatively little that is sustained beyond ~1000' or so. Again, there is interesting terrain, but the runs are shorter, often requiring long run-outs or disjointed jaunts through the flats. I wouldn't denigrate a resort due to any of these factors - you just have to know what each mountain offers and then take advantage of it...
Geoff wrote:One of the reasons I picked 2,000 feet and 25 degrees was to make a point. KT-22 is only 1800 feet of vertical and doesn't qualify.
rsmith wrote:Geoff wrote:One of the reasons I picked 2,000 feet and 25 degrees was to make a point. KT-22 is only 1800 feet of vertical and doesn't qualify.
Then Alta would also have to be considered a mountain without 'serious vert' since Collins is also around 1800'.
rfarren wrote: I also think it is quite disingenuous to claim 3000 feet.
Geoff wrote:How about this for a metric: One lift with at least 2000 vertical feet and a sustained pitch of at least 25 degrees.
longshanks wrote:And then we should not forget Devils Club, Snow Rodeo and Pitch Black at Revelstoke, running from the top of the Stoke Chair to the Day Lodge...4700' is pretty [censored] long although I'm not sure of the actual pitch or how sustained it is...but regardless, this is some serious terrain man
EMSC wrote:rfarren wrote: I also think it is quite disingenuous to claim 3000 feet.
I understand the direction you're going here, but you can ski top to bottom of over 3,600' without stopping... (unlike say, Big Sky, where the claimed vert requires a chair ride in the middle). I'm not sure how that is disingenuous exactly. By that measure Alta should only publish it's max vert from a single lift and etc... for every resort in the country. That means that Whistler only has a 3800 vertical since that's all you can get from one lift. And on and on.
More over, I would think just re-phrasing to say you weren't fond of the lift and terrain layout is sufficient. I think it had less to do with the actual vert involved.
rfarren wrote:I guess I didn't realize you could ski the summit to the very base. I thought there was that hump in the middle where you have to take the lift up to?
(unlike say, Big Sky, where the claimed vert requires a chair ride in the middle)
Geoff wrote:One lift with at least 2000 vertical feet and a sustained pitch of at least 25 degrees.
EMSC wrote:Whistler only has a 3800 vertical since that's all you can get from one lift.
Geoff wrote:When an area upgrades to high speed quads, it puts too many people up on the hill. Whistler in the 1980's used to be amazing. The peak chair was a triple but everything else was doubles.
Geoff wrote:I have no problem getting my vertical 1000 feet at a time. ...It's terrain and skiing surface that matter.
coldsmoke wrote:Big Sky/Moonlight has the North Summit Snowfields. Tram > Moonlight Six Shooter is 4100+ continuous.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest