Sibhusky posted this over on Facebook, so I thought I'd steal her link and post it here. It's a site that offers vertical drop and mountain size comparisons. Really interesting:
https://mountainvertical.com/
https://mountainvertical.com/
-
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.
Vertical Drop Comparisons
- Thread starter ski diva
- Start date
MaineSkiLady
Angel Diva
I saw this on Alpine Zone (I think??), where they are having something of a lively discussion in re: same. Although not altogether too many surprises in the collected data??
Some years ago, DH and I did elevation readings over at Sunday River, from base to summit of each chairlift (that was open that weekday) since the trail map does not list the vertical rise of any of the chairlifts. Interesting day!
Some years ago, DH and I did elevation readings over at Sunday River, from base to summit of each chairlift (that was open that weekday) since the trail map does not list the vertical rise of any of the chairlifts. Interesting day!
sibhusky
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
There's already someone arguing about the data for Copper over on Epic. But, I think the bit about it being runs that are regularly and repeatedly skiable is the important part. I could certainly nab more feet by climbing radio tower hill, but how many times am I (or even someone far more energetic) going to do that?
SkiBam
Angel Diva
It's a pretty neat place. The first time I skied there (season before last), we made the top to bottom run at the end of the day (I can't imagine you'd want to do it otherwise) down to the parking lot. It was late March, so very wintry at the top and very spring-like at the bottom. Last season, though, same time of year, only the top of the mountain was open and a lot of great terrain unavailable. Mind you, there was still very good skiing at the top.
But it makes me wonder if vertical drop is so so important. Mountains love to brag about theirs, but – and I'm speaking only for myself here – if a particular run has close to 2,000 ft. vertical (less if it's a bump run), that's enough to keep me happy. This is why I drive the hour to Tremblant when I can see the ski hill at Morin-Heights from my bed.
I'm even easier to please: I'll be happy with 1000' of CONTINUEOUS drop!
Now, a lot of so-called 1000+ "mountains" are just a collection of 5-600' runs. Or runs that flatten to green or beyond (poling/skating to keep moving!).
So, in general, I look for mountains that have 1000+'. But I look at the trail map to make sure there're significant runs that have 1000' vert!
Any mountain that has over 3000' vert will experience different weather/season at top vs bottom. So for those places, one want to look for enough lifts that serves both the top and bottom half of the mountain. So you don't end up having to ski slush AND ice in EVERY SINGLE run! (I ski in Europe enough to notice that problem!)
