Vertical: Advertised vs. Actual vs. True Up

Most mountains report their vertical as the distance from the highest point to the lowest point.  Many exaggerate this number and it's often not the true up descent.  My definition of true up descent is that you need to be able to take consecutive lifts to get to it (one lift after another, no run in between) and no spots where you need to skate or additional lifts to reach the bottom.  For example, Gore's true up vertical is measured as the length of the run from the gondola because skiing anything more requires a skate on either Lower Cloud, Cedars, or Pipeline, and requires taking a full run to reach another lift.  The mountain is listed with the numbers in this order.  

Mountain:  Advertised, Actual, True Up (true up descent explained)

Whiteface:  3430, 3200, 3160 (Lift served vertical)

Gore:  2537, 2500, 1700 (Run served by gondola)

Hunter:  1600, 1570, 1475 (Run served by 6-pack)

Windham:  1600, 1460, 1335 (Run served by main HSQ)

Belleayre:  1400, 1380, 1135 (Run served by HSQ)

Plattekill:  1100, 1030, 1030 (Run served by double)

Killington:  3050, 3010, 2570 (Run served by Skyeship Gondola)

Stowe:  2360, 2355, 2075 (Run served by Fourrunner Quad)

Stratton:  2003, 1890, 1890 (Run served by taking Sunrise Express to Shooting Star)

Okemo:  2200, 2105, 1645 (Run served by Sunburst Six)

Mount Snow:  1700, 1660, 1580 (Run served by Bluebird Express)

"true up descent"

Kid, you should consider a career in politics.

http://mountainvertical.com  For data

So true up is like continuous skiable vertical?

You need to go to Jackson Sno. It really is one of the best skiing mountains in north America.

This knowledge doesn't impact my skiing experience.

raisingarizona wrote

So true up is like continuous skiable vertical?

Yes and no.

I count true up vertical as the maximum vertical skiable off one lift or consecutive lifts.  Consecutive lifts are defined as:  You ride up one lift, get off, and immediately get on another.  There is no additional run that one must ski to get between the lifts.  The Facelift and Summit Quad at Whiteface are consecutive.  You get off Facelift and immediately get on the Summit Quad.  There is no run between them.

True up vertical also means that the run has to be skiable without any long skates.

snoloco wrote

raisingarizona wrote

So true up is like continuous skiable vertical?

Yes and no.

I count true up vertical as the maximum vertical skiable off one lift or consecutive lifts.  Consecutive lifts are defined as:  You ride up one lift, get off, and immediately get on another.  There is no additional run that one must ski to get between the lifts.  The Facelift and Summit Quad at Whiteface are consecutive.  You get off Facelift and immediately get on the Summit Quad.  There is no run between them.

True up vertical also means that the run has to be skiable without any long skates.

So it's the same thing or a quality continuous vertical is the same thing. Or at least off of one lift. Look no farther than the Jackson tram if you want north America's best. Almost any combo run off big red is all killer with no filler.

It's the best skiing mountain in the country imho, if you have the legs that is.

Jackson...get off the tram, ski 4K vertical of actual skiing...a couple spots on the same level in BC too.

I'd love to ski JH one day.  I want to get a lot better before I do though.

shit, i want to get there before i start to suck.

You're a lot older than I am.

snoloco wrote

You're a lot older than I am.

Skiing there makes you good. Skiing groomers all season long does not.

Wow. Been on this planet for 58 years, skiing all but 10 of them, and I had never thought about this before. I believe that I shall continue to not think about it and just ski.

You forgot to cite mountainvertical.com in your original post. Unless it is just a coincidence you are using "true up" vert like you just came up with the term?

raisingarizona wrote

So true up is like continuous skiable vertical?

You need to go to Jackson Sno. It really is one of the best skiing mountains in north America.

I don't think Sno would appreciate Jackson Hole. Yet. It does have a lot of high speed lifts but it really doesn't strike me as the type of skiing Sno does a lot of. But the vertical of Jackson is amazing. And not just big vertical but consistently steep vertical.

It doesn't matter how the vertical is measured. What matters is knowing how to ski the mountain efficiently and how best to utilize the lifts to maximize your best runs.

Multiple lifts to make a great run is completely acceptable. Before Cannon reopened the lift on Mittersill, lapping Mittersill was one of my all time favorite runs. It took three lifts. Othertimes, big top to bottom vert sucks because of flat outs (looking at you Sugarbush North AND South). Lift pods work for me. If it is top to bottom great terrain all the way like Smuggs or MRG, then I am down for breaking out the yard stick. Quite a few resorts don't ski well top to bottom and that isn't a big issue, IMO. I have had some of my best days on trail pods or top to bottom lifts that only cover 500-1000 vert.

I used google earth to come up with the numbers.  mountainvertical.com's true-up values are completely inconsistent and essentially meaningless.  They say that true up vertical means the longest run you can take without a long skate, or the use of a lift or shuttle bus.  They claim that Gore's true-up vertical is 2100 which is completely false.  Taking this run requires a skate on the Lower Cloud Traverse.  Meanwhile they list Killington's true-up vertical as 1,645 feet, even though one can easily ski 2,500 vertical off of one lift without any skating.  They actually think that Okemo has a greater true-up vertical than Killington.  I'd think that anyone who has skied both would say that Killington had more true-up vertical each and every time.

I say that my definition is the longest run skiable without skating, and that it has to be accessed by one lift, or multiple consecutive lifts (one lift right after another, no run in between).  They pulled the numbers out of thin air and they are far from reality.  

And that's why I always loved skiing at Plattekill so much when I was a kid. Quality > quantity.

I was looking at the Magic trail map the other day and I was thinking that it would probably ski better if the lifts were more segmented than top to bottom but I have never actually skied there so I don't know.

raisingarizona wrote

And that's why I always loved skiing at Plattekill so much when I was a kid. Quality > quantity.

When it comes to sustained pitch vs actual vertical, those numbers at Plattekill are identical.  I want to organize an NY Ski Blog event there where we rent the mountain out.  I got a few takers, but not very many.
http://forum.nyskiblog.com/NYSB-Day-at-Plattekill-td4039495.html

Love Plattekill too; headed up there tomorrow. I think the number Sno is looking for should be called "lappable vertical" and I agree its an important part of the equation