• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

How steep is steep?

Ringrat

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Good question. I haven't skied Aspen, so I can't speak to High Rustler, but I *think* I remember Lenin being a bit steeper up top, then mellowing. Maybe @Skisailor can refresh my memory? The whole short steep section thing is suspicious to me, because if we went by that then every bump run would be rated 70 degrees, right?

Lenin was definitely steeper than Liberty, but not shockingly so. As I recall. YMMV. Etc. I just feel like if it had been 48* I would have *noticed*, by which I mean freaked the hell out - because we were skiing something that to my tender Colorado sensibilities was pretty close to boilerplate. Boilerplate + steepest thing I've ever skied? I would have remembered that. @Ringrat was also skiing that same run at the same time ...

I remember the top being steeper than the bottom, and one of the runs I did over there (Lenin or Marx, can't remember) I did pick a steeper entry, but I didn't find it to be anything out of the ordinary for me. So probably not the 48* spot. On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea what the typically steep stuff I ski is. I only ever pull out the inclinometer in the backcountry, and I'm definitely not skiing 48* there. Even then, I rarely do since it's such a spot check.

Nah, not boilerplate at all. I can't ski on anything approaching ice (a scraped off groomer rapidly becomes a nightmare of skidding to me) but I found it perfectly edgeable. I don't remember any skittering sideways on that run...some of the groomers before the sun hit them in the morning, absolutely!
 

bounceswoosh

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Nah, not boilerplate at all. I can't ski on anything approaching ice (a scraped off groomer rapidly becomes a nightmare of skidding to me) but I found it perfectly edgeable. I don't remember any skittering sideways on that run...some of the groomers before the sun hit them in the morning, absolutely!

Man, if Lenin had been as slick as some of those groomers ... yikes!
 

RuthB

Angel Diva
I'm surprised that the hobacks are listed as 40 for two reasons. They don't feel 40 at all. There may be some sections that are 40. And the hobacks covers a lot of area, there are dozens of lines through there.
 

Moonrocket

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
These are interesting. While a ton of fun I didn't think highlands bowl or Pallivicini were that steep vs. Birds of Prey. Maybe it's just the thoughts of racers downhilling on it or the nets 40' in the air to catch them. I would have figured it was steeper than called out.

i wonder if it was that my first time on the first two was on alpine skis and the first time I did Birds of Prey I was on tele skis or that I was trying to ski it really fast because that's what you do ;-)
 

bounceswoosh

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
These are interesting. While a ton of fun I didn't think highlands bowl or Pallivicini were that steep vs. Birds of Prey. Maybe it's just the thoughts of racers downhilling on it or the nets 40' in the air to catch them. I would have figured it was steeper than called out.

i wonder if it was that my first time on the first two was on alpine skis and the first time I did Birds of Prey I was on tele skis or that I was trying to ski it really fast because that's what you do ;-)

Think about how fast you can get going on a groomer - not an injected ice surface like a race course, but just a groomer.
 

Skisailor

Angel Diva
Man, if Lenin had been as slick as some of those groomers ... yikes!

Yup. You can slide a long long way if you miss a turn in those conditions. Definitely need to wear pole straps and know your self arrest technique !

But I agree with Ringrat - if those runs are truly not edgeable, patrol won't open them.
 

bounceswoosh

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I was also on pretty soft skis that day, and they'd never been tuned.
 

WaterGirl

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Thanks for the stats. Now I know that my first time on "Daves" last year was probably via some part of "Huevos Grande" -- no snow on that side of the mountain for several years = I never skied it. DH and I "tried" it last year on a "windy" not perfect viz day no one else around-- probably the only time I actually had some real adrenaline going just looking down .... b/c of great early season snow have done Dave's already this year seemed easy so thinking we probably dropped in the wrong way....Cornice, Scotty's np. I think Cornice is only tough b/c too many people scrape the top and its always icy and a bit crowded - Scotty's is fun, seems steeper longer than Cornice imho... Dave's is also nice been getting the benefits of windbuff past few weeks :smile:

Here are the stats from the link above
1 CA Mammoth (Hangman's) (slope) 55°
2 CA Mammoth (Huevos Grande) (slope) 52°
3 CA Mammoth (Phillipe's ) (slope) 50°
4 CA Mammoth (Wipeout 2) (slope) 47°
5 CA Mammoth (Daves) (slope) 45°
6 CA Mammoth (Climax) (slope) 45°
7 CA Mammoth (Dropout 2) (slope) 44° (now called drop 3)
8 CA Mammoth (Cornice Bowl) (slope) 40°
9 CA Mammoth (Scotty's) (slope) 40°
10 CA Mammoth (Wipeout 1) (slope) 40°
11 CA Mammoth (Dropout 1) (slope) 40° (now called drop 2)
12 CA Mammoth (Paranoid 1,2&3 not 4) (slope) 40°
 

Ringrat

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@bounceswoosh , Firehole at Moonlight is listed at 40*, we both skiied that on different days (my poor skis...) That sounds a bit more reasonable. But none of the parts of Lenin that I skiied were 8* steeper than that!
 

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Thanks for the stats. Now I know that my first time on "Daves" last year was probably via some part of "Huevos Grande" -- no snow on that side of the mountain for several years = I never skied it. DH and I "tried" it last year on a "windy" not perfect viz day no one else around-- probably the only time I actually had some real adrenaline going just looking down .... b/c of great early season snow have done Dave's already this year seemed easy so thinking we probably dropped in the wrong way....Cornice, Scotty's np. I think Cornice is only tough b/c too many people scrape the top and its always icy and a bit crowded - Scotty's is fun, seems steeper longer than Cornice imho... Dave's is also nice been getting the benefits of windbuff past few weeks :smile:

Here are the stats from the link above
1 CA Mammoth (Hangman's) (slope) 55°
2 CA Mammoth (Huevos Grande) (slope) 52°
3 CA Mammoth (Phillipe's ) (slope) 50°
4 CA Mammoth (Wipeout 2) (slope) 47°
5 CA Mammoth (Daves) (slope) 45°
6 CA Mammoth (Climax) (slope) 45°
7 CA Mammoth (Dropout 2) (slope) 44° (now called drop 3)
8 CA Mammoth (Cornice Bowl) (slope) 40°
9 CA Mammoth (Scotty's) (slope) 40°
10 CA Mammoth (Wipeout 1) (slope) 40°
11 CA Mammoth (Dropout 1) (slope) 40° (now called drop 2)
12 CA Mammoth (Paranoid 1,2&3 not 4) (slope) 40°

I knew Mammoth had some good steeps. Cornice Bowl would make my panties wad up every time I did it so it's good to know that it's pretty steep (and about as steep as I'm comfortable skiing!) I love how you can watch people ski most of those runs you listed from either the gondola or chair 23. Such a fun mountain!
 

bounceswoosh

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@bounceswoosh , Firehole at Moonlight is listed at 40*, we both skiied that on different days (my poor skis...) That sounds a bit more reasonable. But none of the parts of Lenin that I skiied were 8* steeper than that!

Firehole was much scarier to me due to all that exposed rock. I'd like to get back there in a good snow season ....
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
Turns out there is a website called Hillmap that let's you map any path and get a profile of the elevation change, together with the slope along the path based on data in Google Earth. Was created more for hiking, but with many ski trails in Google Earth it's pretty easy to play around for well known trails. I think the data is based on summer data but still is probably more info than only one slope measurement for an entire trail or even an average slope number.

I played around mapping the trails at Massanutten. Takes a little while to get the hang of interpreting the graph to spot a headwall when it's really short (>50 ft). What I've learned from Mnut L3 instructors in recent years is how to make use of short, steep sections to practice skills that are useful for my adventure skiing in ungroomed terrain at big mountains.

Here's what a Profile for Lenin looks like. Clearly only very steep at the very top (low point on the red graph).

Screen Shot 2015-12-13 at 10.21.29 AM-min.png
 

Fluffy Kitty

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Turns out there is a website called Hillmap that let's you map any path and get a profile of the elevation change, together with the slope along the path based on data in Google Earth.
That site is awesome! Thank you for posting it.
 

pinto

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
^^Yeah it's a great site. I think its main function is to help backcountry route planning; at least that's how I learned about it. You can isolate a route and highlight areas that are prone to avalanches (ie, direct it to show all slopes above, say, 28°).

Caveat: I have heard that it isn't totally accurate, but surely it's close, and pretty cool to be able to do this.
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
Turns out there is a website called Hillmap that let's you map any path and get a profile of the elevation change, together with the slope along the path based on data in Google Earth. Was created more for hiking, but with many ski trails in Google Earth it's pretty easy to play around for well known trails. I think the data is based on summer data but still is probably more info than only one slope measurement for an entire trail or even an average slope number.

I played around mapping the trails at Massanutten. Takes a little while to get the hang of interpreting the graph to spot a headwall when it's really short (>50 ft). What I've learned from Mnut L3 instructors in recent years is how to make use of short, steep sections to practice skills that are useful for my adventure skiing in ungroomed terrain at big mountains.
Ack! I meant "<50 ft" as in really, really short or enough for 2-3 turns at most.
 

Skisailor

Angel Diva
^^Yeah it's a great site. I think its main function is to help backcountry route planning; at least that's how I learned about it. You can isolate a route and highlight areas that are prone to avalanches (ie, direct it to show all slopes above, say, 28°).

Caveat: I have heard that it isn't totally accurate, but surely it's close, and pretty cool to be able to do this.

All the runs off Lone Peak are true "bowls" - that is, they are steepest at the top and the slope gradually lessens as you head down - which is captured nicely in the Lenin profile posted above.

Not sure the objective numbers in the profile are entirely accurate though - particularly if you enter via the rollover.
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
All the runs off Lone Peak are true "bowls" - that is, they are steepest at the top and the slope gradually lessens as you head down - which is captured nicely in the Lenin profile posted above.

Not sure the objective numbers in the profile are entirely accurate though - particularly if you enter via the rollover.
The software can only report based on the data it has, which I think is based on summer terrain. With a wide bowl it's really hard to mark a path that's really specific. Since I'm a statistician who's used to any numerical answer having a variance of plus/minus some number, I look more at overall range, and the general trend. More interested in comparing a path I haven't done to one that I have experience with.
 
Last edited:

marzNC

Angel Diva

Skisailor

Angel Diva
Interesting article - but again, the numbers are very suspect from what I know of the runs they describe. Considering other recent errors I have seen in Ski Mag regarding terrain descriptions, I'm taking the numbers part with a grain of salt.

Overall - interesting though.
 

snow addict

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Interesting article - but again, the numbers are very suspect from what I know of the runs they describe. Considering other recent errors I have seen in Ski Mag regarding terrain descriptions, I'm taking the numbers part with a grain of salt.

Overall - interesting though.
It does sound exaggerated a bit.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,235
Messages
497,602
Members
8,503
Latest member
MermaidKelly
Top