Midwest and beyond

[num]

So far, I've only skied close (3-4 hours) to home, and I'm heading to Boston in March, planning to hit a few places in the area, and I may be going to Tahoe in April.

I was wondering about the differences between runs in the midwest, and east and west, as far as steepness goes. I know that trail ratings vary from hill to hill, but are there any overarching standards that hold at a particular hill, or within a region (green runs are about x angle, blues are about y, etc)?

Just out of curiosity, when you're at the top of a run, do you feel like you have a good idea of how steep it is? I'm wondering the second part because personally, I have no idea how steep anything I'm skiing on is, I just know if it's steeper or flatter than another run.

The main thing I'm looking forward to is longer runs, and with how short the runs I'm used to are, I get the feeling that wherever I go, I'll be able to find longer

 

[Lori_K]

There's a couple discussions over on Epicski right now about steepness, if you're really interested... ;)

That said, I've skied the midwest (many years ago), the Northeast, and a bit here in the West. All the ratings, green/blue/black are for THAT particular hill only. You can't compare ratings between hills, even in a region. The biggest differences you'll find will be in regards to vertical feet. Midwest, you get 500 vertical feet (if you're lucky). In the Northeast, that will generally range from 750 to over 2000 vertical feet. Out west, you get 1500 vertical feet and up.
You definitely feel the legs start burning when you double your vertical feet!
Also, the ski areas in the midwest and northeast tend to be smaller, acreage wise-- they have a tendency to cram a bunch of trails onto a small hill. The ski areas out west are spread out more.

Here's a great website that's just been updated. https://3dskimaps.com/
Even includes a couple of the big Northeast ski areas now, and the color codes are more representative of trail ratings. (Greens & light blues= beginner & intermediate; red and yellow= expert trails).

If you aren't sure about a particular ski area, you can ask other people what it is like. Some hills have a reputation for being beginner friendly, others are oriented to more advanced skiers.

I think more important than steepness is the snow conditions. I'd rather ski a steeper slope with good fluffy snow on it than a lesser pitch trail that is covered with hardpack or ice!

 

[SnowHot]

Num,
I had never skied outside Michigan until I went to Stowe last December.

I know the experience I had at STowe is limited, but I can say I was pleasently surprised at how well my midwest skiing had prepared me for the extra vertical feet offered at Stowe, and how well I kept up with those who'd had more ski experience on Bigger Stuff than I had.

Another option for info on this type of stuff is to go see Thatsagirl on their new web site

www.Letsplantrips.com
They may have some recreational perspective on your question.
She is very accessible here too if you want to send her a PM.
She grew up in Michigan and has traveled all over skiing anything and everything!

 

[num]

Thanks for the link, Lori. The 3d map site is cool. I just wish they had something like that for the tiny Wisconsin hills, so I could have an idea of how they stack up.

Snowhot, I'm glad to hear that your midwest skiing had you prepared Did you feel like the standard for steepness went up, or was it mostly just the extra vertical?

Aside from trips, I've just been wondering about steepness in general. It's added itself to the list of things to ponder that runs through my head all day. Answers and ideas come on their own for lots of those things, but for the ski related ones, I get to bug you guys

 

[SnowHot]

It is difficult for me to compare my skiing steep interpretation because the terrain at Stowe was limited due to lack of snow. The slopes open at Stowe were similar to some of the intermediate runs here. Maybe black/blue, but not really black.
I saw some stuff there that appeared to be significantly steeper, but couldn't tell for sure as it was a distant view and had no snow cover.

Going from 380 is vert to 2000 was the biggest difference I noticed, and yet I didn't have any difficulty meeting the challenge.

 

[Quiver Queen]

I only have the West and New England to compare run ratings, but I think, in general, the ratings in the West are a big notch above New England's. In other words, I'll ski anything black and double black in New England (and tend to spend the majority of the day on blacks) but on mountains in the West I tour the mountain first, ski some blues to get the feel for the place, then go to the blacks. To be perfectly honest, there have been quite a few mountains in the West where their blues were very challenging; at those mountains their blue-blacks tend to be my favorites and I rarely, if ever, go on their double blacks. In my experience the ratings are based on the range of terrain offered within a given area. In trying to get an idea of the mountain's ratings I've given up on asking locals or anybody who works there--their frame of reference is so different from mine. Instead, if I really want the scoop, I've relied upon opinions of people who ski my home New England mountains and who have also skied various places in which I'm interested and I check the trail maps on-line. If you have questions about any particular mountain, I'm sure that any of us on Ski Diva who have been there would love to offer an opinion.