Ski resorts with inflated vertical stats

ADKskierADKskier advanced
in NELSAP Forum Posts: 226
What are some ski areas that inflate their vertical? I know that Hunter Mountain is not 1600 and is closer to 1525
~Rich~
«1

Comments

  • Posts: 1,927
    ADKskier said:

    What are some ski areas that inflate their vertical? I know that Hunter Mountain is not 1600 and is closer to 1525


    I know that Crotched and Berkshire East claim at least 100' more vertical than they actually have.
    - Sam
  • obienickobienick expert
    Posts: 853
    Greek Peak, NY is one of the biggest. They claim 952. Main face is 737 per Hall Ski Lifts. To get the full 952 you must go from the top of Virgil Mtn above Chair 4 to about two miles Dow the valley below the base of Chair 5. Actual vertical is closer to 810'. About 18% exaggerated.

    Also Bradford, MA. Claims to be taller than Nashoba but really is shorter.
  • lotsoskiinglotsoskiing expert
    Posts: 666
    Titus used to inflate; have not seen recent claims
  • 4aprice4aprice intermediate
    Posts: 24
    Ok I'm going to stir the pot.   I know a lot of you care about every vertical foot, but it's almost a meaningless stat to me. I mean I'll take Outpost's 500 vert over a lot of other So Vermont pods.  Out west skiing mountains with 3k+ verts, I never ski t2b but stick to pods with much less vertical.  Terrain, challange, and snow conditions are much more important to me. Swing away at me.

    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong, NJ 
  • marcskimarcski advanced
    Posts: 207
    4aprice said:

    Ok I'm going to stir the pot.   I know a lot of you care about every vertical foot, but it's almost a meaningless stat to me. I mean I'll take Outpost's 500 vert over a lot of other So Vermont pods.  Out west skiing mountains with 3k+ verts, I never ski t2b but stick to pods with much less vertical.  Terrain, challange, and snow conditions are much more important to me. Swing away at me.


    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong,
    Alex, are you talking about the Outpost triple on Mt. Snow's North Face? That lift has substantially more vertical than 500'...
  • z1000307470z1000307470 intermediate
    Posts: 85
    For many years, Magic Mountain claimed a vertical drop of 1700 feet with a base of 1150 feet and a summit of 2850 feet. The base is around 1400 feet. This would give Magic a vertical drop of 1450 feet. None of these numbers are on the current Magic site.

    Stratton claims 2003 vertical feet, but the lowest lift is in the Sun Bowl. The Sunrise HS6 (1122 vert feet) out of the Sun Bowl to the Shooting Star HS6 (798 vert feet) adds up to 1920 vertical feet. The Gondola out of the main Stratton base is 1742 vertical feet.

    At Mountain Creek, the Vernon Triple is 942 vertical feet, the Cab is 850 vertical feet, the South Peak Express is 995 vertical feet and the Granite Peak quad is 859 vertical feet. Mountian Creek claims 1040 vertical feet.

    Both Stratton and Mountain Creek are slightly boosting the vertical to get to a magic number. Magic's number is way off.
  • lotsoskiinglotsoskiing expert
    Posts: 666
    Isn't there a website that covers this, or we have had a thread on it? 
  • ski_itski_it expert
    Posts: 1,653

    Yes and we've debated how true-up some of these verticals are on this site.

    http://mountainvertical.com/true-up-vertical.html



    ISNE-I Skied New England | NESAP-the New England Ski Area Project | SOSA-Saving Our Ski Areas - Location SW of Boston MA
  • 4aprice4aprice intermediate
    edited September 5 Posts: 24
    marcski said:

    4aprice said:

    Ok I'm going to stir the pot.   I know a lot of you care about every vertical foot, but it's almost a meaningless stat to me. I mean I'll take Outpost's 500 vert over a lot of other So Vermont pods.  Out west skiing mountains with 3k+ verts, I never ski t2b but stick to pods with much less vertical.  Terrain, challange, and snow conditions are much more important to me. Swing away at me.


    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong,
    Alex, are you talking about the Outpost triple on Mt. Snow's North Face? That lift has substantially more vertical than 500'...
    Outpost at Pico.(Scary old chair lift BTW).  And note I did not say "all" pods.  North Face has some good stuff,likewise Snowbowl @ Stratton etc.  The point is the vertical doesn't matter to me.  I've had some rockin Pow days on that little 500' vertical knob on the side of Pico Peak on the trails and in the woods and never felt I wasn't getting my moneys worth because of lack of vertical.  JMO and stirring the pot.

    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong, NJ


  • Posts: 1,927
    4aprice said:

    marcski said:

    4aprice said:

    Ok I'm going to stir the pot.   I know a lot of you care about every vertical foot, but it's almost a meaningless stat to me. I mean I'll take Outpost's 500 vert over a lot of other So Vermont pods.  Out west skiing mountains with 3k+ verts, I never ski t2b but stick to pods with much less vertical.  Terrain, challange, and snow conditions are much more important to me. Swing away at me.


    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong,
    Alex, are you talking about the Outpost triple on Mt. Snow's North Face? That lift has substantially more vertical than 500'...
    Outpost at Pico.(Scary old chair lift BTW).  And note I did not say "all" pods.  North Face has some good stuff,likewise Snowbowl @ Stratton etc.  The point is the vertical doesn't matter to me.  I've had some rockin Pow days on that little 500' vertical knob on the side of Pico Peak on the trails and in the woods and never felt I wasn't getting my moneys worth because of lack of vertical.  JMO and stirring the pot.

    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong, NJ



    I agree. As long as an area has a pod with 500+ vertical feet with good terrain it is worth skiing to me. Total vertical doesn't matter as much.
    - Sam
  • obienickobienick expert
    Posts: 853
    It's not about the size of the mountain. Yes a 500 foot vertical of good terrain can be a lot more fun that 2000 foot vertical straight flat cruiser boulevards.

    It's about the deceit. If you're inflating your vertical by 18% or whatever, what else are you lying about? How can I trust your snow report?
  • z1000307470z1000307470 intermediate
    Posts: 85
    On the East Coast, vertical really helps define the size of the ski area. The ability to have fun on a 500 foot pod has nothing to do with the size of a ski area. Out West, were even the "small" ski areas are much larger acreage than Eastern ski areas, vertical is less of a defining factor. An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical means you are going to have a lot of short runs, no matter how much fun you are having. If also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit.

    While the Outpost pod at Pico is a fun place, you also have many other options on the 1967 vertical feet at Pico. I am pretty sure you would not drive 4 hours just to ski the Outpost pod.
  • newpylongnewpylong expert
    edited September 6 Posts: 502
    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.
  • Posts: 1,927
    newpylong said:

    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.


    Agreed; look at Whaleback, Dartmouth, & Big Rock for examples of mountains in that vertical drop range with great variety.
    - Sam
  • z1000307470z1000307470 intermediate
    Posts: 85

    newpylong said:

    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.


    Agreed; look at Whaleback, Dartmouth, & Big Rock for examples of mountains in that vertical drop range with great variety.
    3 examples? I stand corrected (sarcasm).
  • newpylongnewpylong expert
    edited September 6 Posts: 502
    Pat's Peak, Bousquet, Blandford plus the above mentioned 3.

    I doubt anyone would drive hours but certainly variety at each.
  • Posts: 1,927

    newpylong said:

    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.


    Agreed; look at Whaleback, Dartmouth, & Big Rock for examples of mountains in that vertical drop range with great variety.
    3 examples? I stand corrected (sarcasm).

    I think the easier list to make would be of areas with 600 to 1,100 vertical feet in New England that don't offer a wide variety of terrain. I think that would only include Wachusett, Butternut, Mohawk, and Quechee.
    - Sam
  • newpylongnewpylong expert
    edited September 6 Posts: 502
    .
  • z1000307470z1000307470 intermediate
    Posts: 85

    newpylong said:

    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.


    Agreed; look at Whaleback, Dartmouth, & Big Rock for examples of mountains in that vertical drop range with great variety.
    3 examples? I stand corrected (sarcasm).

    I think the easier list to make would be of areas with 600 to 1,100 vertical feet in New England that don't offer a wide variety of terrain. I think that would only include Wachusett, Butternut, Mohawk, and Quechee.
    How about every place in PA, minus Blue Knob, 1 run at Denton and maybe Elk; in NJ, Mountain Creek and the former Hidden Valley; most of the areas south and west of Syracuse in NYS; most of the areas in the Laurentians in Canada that are on auto route 15; probably most of the Midwestern areas. I love skiing and I have spent a lot of time at many of these areas. I will always have fun at these areas, but the lack of vertical is a clear limit to the scope of the skiing.

    There is a reason most of us laugh when Holiday Valley and Seven Springs find their way into Eastern ski area top 20 lists while places like Gore, Burke, Pico, Bromley and the Eastern Township areas in Quebec never get a sniff of the top 20. If you have 5 hours to drive are you headed to Holiday Valley and its max 700 vertical feet or do you drive 5 hours  to Gore with its 2538 max vertical feet? In fact, I would drive to any of the places I just mentioned before I would drive to Holiday Valley - and you can add Magic to that list.
  • slathamslatham advanced
    Posts: 121
    Magics historical 1,700 is well know to be inflated. New England Ski History has the installs of both Red and Black at 1,500, which seems more reasonable, though both can't be that number as Red is slightly lower and higher. But that's splitting hairs - it's a solid 1,500 and it's got great terrain in that 1,500'!!!!
  • Posts: 1,927

    newpylong said:

    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.


    Agreed; look at Whaleback, Dartmouth, & Big Rock for examples of mountains in that vertical drop range with great variety.
    3 examples? I stand corrected (sarcasm).

    I think the easier list to make would be of areas with 600 to 1,100 vertical feet in New England that don't offer a wide variety of terrain. I think that would only include Wachusett, Butternut, Mohawk, and Quechee.
    How about every place in PA, minus Blue Knob, 1 run at Denton and maybe Elk; in NJ, Mountain Creek and the former Hidden Valley; most of the areas south and west of Syracuse in NYS; most of the areas in the Laurentians in Canada that are on auto route 15; probably most of the Midwestern areas. I love skiing and I have spent a lot of time at many of these areas. I will always have fun at these areas, but the lack of vertical is a clear limit to the scope of the skiing.

    There is a reason most of us laugh when Holiday Valley and Seven Springs find their way into Eastern ski area top 20 lists while places like Gore, Burke, Pico, Bromley and the Eastern Township areas in Quebec never get a sniff of the top 20. If you have 5 hours to drive are you headed to Holiday Valley and its max 700 vertical feet or do you drive 5 hours  to Gore with its 2538 max vertical feet? In fact, I would drive to any of the places I just mentioned before I would drive to Holiday Valley - and you can add Magic to that list.

    The lack of terrain variety in that area is not because of the lack of vertical, it is because those mountains simply don't have as much interesting terrain. Even at Veterans Memorial, with less than 300 vertical feet, there is a huge amount of variety.
    - Sam
  • riverc0ilriverc0il advanced
    Posts: 252

    newpylong said:

    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.


    Agreed; look at Whaleback, Dartmouth, & Big Rock for examples of mountains in that vertical drop range with great variety.
    3 examples? I stand corrected (sarcasm).
    How about we add Middlebury, Black NH, Black ME, Abram, and Balsams (assuming it reopens). All have a lot of variety and can keep everyone from a first timer to a bark chewing expert happy. In fact, I'd rather ski any of these areas than big resorts like Okemo, Mount Snow, Loon, Waterville, Stratton, etc.
  • ADKskierADKskier advanced
    Posts: 226
    I am a big fan of Gore Mountain, but a lot of that resort is pod based skiing. To get the full 2538 there is a lot of run outs and flat areas. 
    ~Rich~
  • lotsoskiinglotsoskiing expert
    Posts: 666

    newpylong said:

    "An Eastern area with a 800 foot total vertical....It also means that you will not enjoy much variety during your visit. "

    Huge and incorrect assumption imho.


    Agreed; look at Whaleback, Dartmouth, & Big Rock for examples of mountains in that vertical drop range with great variety.
    3 examples? I stand corrected (sarcasm).

    I think the easier list to make would be of areas with 600 to 1,100 vertical feet in New England that don't offer a wide variety of terrain. I think that would only include Wachusett, Butternut, Mohawk, and Quechee.
    How about every place in PA, minus Blue Knob, 1 run at Denton and maybe Elk; in NJ, Mountain Creek and the former Hidden Valley; most of the areas south and west of Syracuse in NYS; most of the areas in the Laurentians in Canada that are on auto route 15; probably most of the Midwestern areas. I love skiing and I have spent a lot of time at many of these areas. I will always have fun at these areas, but the lack of vertical is a clear limit to the scope of the skiing.

    There is a reason most of us laugh when Holiday Valley and Seven Springs find their way into Eastern ski area top 20 lists while places like Gore, Burke, Pico, Bromley and the Eastern Township areas in Quebec never get a sniff of the top 20. If you have 5 hours to drive are you headed to Holiday Valley and its max 700 vertical feet or do you drive 5 hours  to Gore with its 2538 max vertical feet? In fact, I would drive to any of the places I just mentioned before I would drive to Holiday Valley - and you can add Magic to that list.

    The lack of terrain variety in that area is not because of the lack of vertical, it is because those mountains simply don't have as much interesting terrain. Even at Veterans Memorial, with less than 300 vertical feet, there is a huge amount of variety.
    Agreed- just funny to see how some places push it for marketing. The couple-hundred vert at NE Slopes was more fun than I have had at many much larger places (ice, crowded trails and lodge, lift lines, etc).
  • z1000307470z1000307470 intermediate
    edited September 7 Posts: 85
    ADKskier said:

    I am a big fan of Gore Mountain, but a lot of that resort is pod based skiing. To get the full 2538 there is a lot of run outs and flat areas. 

    I never talked about skiing the whole vertical, only that it indicates the size and scope of a mountain. I have skied the entire Gore vertical in one run and it took about 12 minutes. There was some poling needed below the North Quad.

    Each pod at Gore has more vertical than Hidden Valley. The big vertical at Gore gives you many options to find great, uncrowded skiing and avoid variable weather and snow conditions. These options do not exist at 600-800 vert feet ski areas.


  • ski_itski_it expert
    Posts: 1,653
    SJ regulars know vert doesn't matter much to me, especially in my advanced age. However, I'm not a fan of big inflations.
    ISNE-I Skied New England | NESAP-the New England Ski Area Project | SOSA-Saving Our Ski Areas - Location SW of Boston MA
  • ADKskierADKskier advanced
    edited September 8 Posts: 226
    I think its more of a personal preference than anything. I have had amazing days at small places with just 500-700 vertical, and I have had terrible days at places over 2000 vertical. That's not the question, the question was just naming places with inflated verticals. I'm going to ruffle some feathers with this one though but take Stowe, VT and Jay Peak, VT for example. I get it the Jay cloud yada yada or lone mountain theory, but how does two ski resorts only 44 miles from one another receive a difference of 116 inches. The Green mountain spine at least the northern part all receive the same type of orographic lift off Lake Champlain. Same applies for resort that cheat the reported vertical for marketing reasons. Its deceiving. 
    ~Rich~
  • ski_itski_it expert
    Posts: 1,653
    Ah, so we need another discussion, Ski resorts with inflated yearly snowfalls, etc, etc...
    ISNE-I Skied New England | NESAP-the New England Ski Area Project | SOSA-Saving Our Ski Areas - Location SW of Boston MA
  • ADKskierADKskier advanced
    Posts: 226
    Fire it up Ski it lol. (Was really just an example) The grinds my gears, haha. 
    ~Rich~
  • ciscokidciscokid expert
    Posts: 1,378
    4aprice said:

    marcski said:

    4aprice said:

    Ok I'm going to stir the pot.   I know a lot of you care about every vertical foot, but it's almost a meaningless stat to me. I mean I'll take Outpost's 500 vert over a lot of other So Vermont pods.  Out west skiing mountains with 3k+ verts, I never ski t2b but stick to pods with much less vertical.  Terrain, challange, and snow conditions are much more important to me. Swing away at me.


    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong,
    Alex, are you talking about the Outpost triple on Mt. Snow's North Face? That lift has substantially more vertical than 500'...
    Outpost at Pico.(Scary old chair lift BTW).  And note I did not say "all" pods.  North Face has some good stuff,likewise Snowbowl @ Stratton etc.  The point is the vertical doesn't matter to me.  I've had some rockin Pow days on that little 500' vertical knob on the side of Pico Peak on the trails and in the woods and never felt I wasn't getting my moneys worth because of lack of vertical.  JMO and stirring the pot.

    Alex

    Lake Hopatcong, NJ



    Agree, I can have just as much fun skiing raked glades at 427' Nubs nob with my grandsons as I used to in my prime try to go 4139' contiguous without stopping at JH
    Now as far as the views..
Sign In or Register to comment.