Results 1 to 25 of 50
-
12-01-2010, 11:30 PM #1rider
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 30
Whats the "True" Vertical of your favorite mtn on Mountainvertical.com?
Not spam - this is a cool site i saw to see how all the big mtns compare to each other...minus the bullshit of ski resorts inflating their stats. it is interesting to look thru:
http://Mountainvertical.com
My local fave is Sugarbush at 2552 ft
Where does your mountain stand...?
-
12-02-2010, 03:21 AM #2
I don't get it. Whats the point?
-
12-02-2010, 03:31 AM #3
Moose mountain has 1300' vert... Damn.... What with the terrestrial trams and all
Its not that I suck at spelling, its that I just don't care
-
12-02-2010, 06:59 AM #4
i always thought kirkwood skied a lot shorter than the 2000' they claim....actually 1600
picador
-
12-02-2010, 07:23 AM #5
Their "true vertical" definition seems pretty lame. A ski area basically has to have a top-to-bottom run in order to qualify all their vert. It's plenty easy to ski Loveland from the top of the Ridge to the base, but because there aren't defined runs from top to bottom it doesn't all count??
If this site's target demo is overly-anal accountants planning their next family vacation, it's probably right on target.
-
12-02-2010, 07:32 AM #6
Kind of a cool metric I think.
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!! What a ride!"
"We been runnin' these goddam hills for dang near, huh?"
Sturgis Uncensored
-
12-02-2010, 09:26 AM #7
Revelstoke highest Vert...... Ha,ha,ha,ha......
What if you take out the real-estate runs at the bottom and only count the good stuff??
-
12-02-2010, 09:32 AM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- large triangle
- Posts
- 278
Hike to terrain doesn't count? hilarious.
-
12-02-2010, 09:40 AM #9
Waterville Valley NH has more vert than Alta
I bet Alta would win if they measured how far you have to traverse to ski vertSecurity is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. -Helen Keller
-
12-02-2010, 09:49 AM #10rider
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 30
-
12-02-2010, 10:06 AM #11
Cool site
another variable is how many lifts does it take to go top to bottom. One thing I love about hte bird is 3k verticle from the tram - one lift. Most of these I know require at least two top to bottom.
-
12-02-2010, 10:07 AM #12
My hill has just enough to make it back to the bottom.
Johnny's only sin was dispair
-
12-02-2010, 10:20 AM #13
-
12-02-2010, 10:23 AM #14"A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles."
— Edward Abbey (Desert Solitaire)
-
12-02-2010, 10:30 AM #15
This thread reeks like gapic ski. Who cares who has more vert? At most places you can't lap it anyways.
Originally Posted by Odin
-
12-02-2010, 10:35 AM #16
Bridger Bowl is wrong -- I can definitely ski all the way from the top of Schlasman's all the way to the base, which is like ~2600 vert.
Not I would want to, but I could.We heard you in our twilight caves, one hundred fathom deep below, for notes of joy can pierce the waves, that drown each sound of war and woe.
-
12-02-2010, 10:50 AM #17
I think this is a worthwhile stat. Yes, obviously it doesn't tell you everything, but it is cool that you can ski a peak to creek run at Whistler if you want to, or that you can actually lap the tram at Jackson if you want to.
-
12-02-2010, 11:28 AM #18
my low is 248' at Bradford!! whoohoo!
jh for the high
-
12-02-2010, 11:43 AM #19
This stat is relevant for the first two or three laps on a powder day, I guess. The real stat is how much continuous vert that is offtrail and at least an intermediate pitch. No points for connecting groomers, cattracks or bunny slope. Targhee is pretty lame, only 1600 feet for the best line and 800-1200(with traversing) is more the norm. But divided by the POW factor X, true vertical forms a ratio in inverse proportion to the powder stash metric. And, it is axiomatic that the powder stash metric correlates to the sum of shit-eatin-grins at a higer frequency than does the quantity of true vertical.
-
12-02-2010, 12:33 PM #20
Grew up here
Boston Mills Brandywine Ski Resort, Ohio
240 vertical feet
can anyone beat that low
SKI ALTA now 2005 ft
-
12-02-2010, 12:35 PM #21
-
12-02-2010, 12:41 PM #22
Most vert? Pffffft. Lots of people here have skied the mountains with the most vert.
...but how many here can claim to have skied A. In Alabama B. At the hill with the least vert in the US and Canada:
http://mountainvertical.com/ski-hill...-drop.html#134
Be sure to bring your beacon, shovel, probe and camouflage
-
12-02-2010, 04:08 PM #23
-
12-02-2010, 04:10 PM #24rider
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 30
The "big ones" in the EAST have around 750 acres of terrain
If you have 750 acres of terrain in the WEST, you're one of the little guys
the difference in scale is pretty ridiculous
biggest I've been in the west...WHISTLER.
5234 ft vertical and over 8000 acres - that terrain is more than 10 killingtons in one spot!
-
12-02-2010, 04:10 PM #25
Bookmarks