59 replies to this topic

[CAski]

[Stoned Hippie Voice] Like, Whoa. My world has been rocked.

Just a random statement in a random guide sent me on a random hunt for more information on a random topic:

"Heavenly used to have a 7 mile 4,000 vertical foot run on the Nevada side, but it was skiable so infrequently that the ski area management relocated its lowest Nevada chairlift to a higher elevation."
-Source #1

This led to:

"Heavenly, CA - At one time (early 70's) the Nevada side had the "Wells
Fargo" chairlift, which extended downhill from the current Stagecoach
base area. There were plans to extend another lift down to Hiway 207
where there would be parking and ticket sales. Around 1979 the Wells
Fargo lift was removed and several trails were closed."
-Source #2

"NOT SANFORIZED? - HEAVENLY is shrinking. During our gondola research we discovered that there used to be (mid-70's) another lift ("Wells Fargo") well below the current Nevada side lift complex. The "Galaxy" and "Men's Downhill" runs used to continue down to that lift. Back then the Heavenly brochure gave the vertical drops as Nevada - 4000 ft and CA - 3600. Now it is NV - 2840 and CA - 3500 ft. Maybe that's why Heavenly used to bill itself as "America's Largest Ski Area" - the 4000 ft of vertical. Amazing what a little research reveals!"
-Source #3

"The lowest lift on the Nevada side, Wells Fargo would provide a stunning downhill course and a link toward a possible new Heavenly base area. Wells Fargo was operational by the fall of 1974, but there was no snow that low on the mountain. A pro race planned as the lift's coming-out party had to be re-scheduled to Hunter Mountain. When the lift finally opened in January of 1975, that same pro race was shown on national television "with a special segment devoted to Hunter's snowmaking system." From that moment on, Heavenly became committed to snowmaking."
-Source #4

And finally, a little chart to add further evidence that this chair did indeed exist: Source #5

Wow. What were they thinking?! A little snowmaking and that place would have been great! Well, better than the Southern California resorts at any rate.

This post has been edited by CAski: 03 May 2004 - 07:55 PM

[CAski]

The last site also mentions something about another removed lift.

[Powdr]

I remember the Wells Fargo lift. It was never open due to lack of snow. The lift started somewhere around the 6,000' contour line and if you know Tahoe, that is almost too low to support a natural snow base. Also, it was on the lee side of the moutain, where it picked up even less snow than anywhere else on the mountain. I don't think snowmaking would have helped much since it probably didn't get cold enough, often enough, to make decent snow.

Also, take stats that Heavenly gives you with a big grain of salt. They have always padded their stats. I think they claim something like 4K+ acres of skiing, which is their permited, all inclusive figure. The real skiable figure is probably 25% of that. They also claim to have a 3500+ vert. Thats total BS, since the lifts start at the 6600' contour line and top out at the 9,800' line (3,200' vert). Its also not skiable in one run (lift ride required).

Powdr

[KZ]

So heavenly is only about 1000 acres, i find that funny.

[CAski]

KZ: Ask yourself, "Could Heavenly really be less than half the size of Northstar?" The answer is clearly a resounding "No". Powder is at the very best exaggerating Heavenly's "smallness". At the worst, he is sorely mistaken.

[KZ]

Yea i guess, but it really didnt seem that big when i was there.

[CAski]

Let's see. As far as Vertical goes, the highest point is 10,067 feet. The highest lift-accessed area is approximately 9,950. The lowest point is approximately 6,600. This is according to Topozone.com. That makes for a CONTINUOUS but awkward vertical drop of 3,350 feet. If you include the highest point on the mountain, which is where they are measuring the vertical from, that ends up with a Vertical Drop of approximately 3467+- 50 feet is equal to about 3500 feet of Vertical Drop. Their Vertical Foot claim holds up.

This post has been edited by CAski: 04 May 2004 - 03:35 PM

[KZ]

Yea but they kind of push it when the lift vertical is 3,350; they should have the lift accessed vertical and hike-to vertical. To me it seems squaw is a whole lot bigger when they are 4,000 acres under heavenly's 4,800. I dunno, i just dont like when the resorts "round" their stats becasue most really dont know how to properly round, especially squaw with high camp at 8,200 when in reality is is 8,117' (it says it clearly in the cable car building). Another note as a typo, heavenly includes no elevation markings on their trail map except for the top of milky way bowl noted on the opposite side on the stats.

[CAski]

Squaw has but 2500 feet of Vertical. The 2850 is to the top of Granite Peak. Heavenly is far less guilty of "adding" vertical feet than Squaw! It is all fairly obvious. Just look on each of the trail maps. There are some resorts that add 500-1000 vertical feet to their stats because of hiking trails.

This post has been edited by CAski: 04 May 2004 - 03:52 PM

[CAski]

What is the program that downloads Terraserver images and stitches them together. I might be able to find the area if I can download the image.

[KZ]

Im not sure, vancouverguy had that i believe and he has been "missing".

I know squaw's vertical is hike-to as well, and again i just wish they would label it. Kinda sad when squaw has as little vertical as it does, it seems like it should be a lot more compared to the size of the resort

[CAski]

Found it. A preliminary run showed that Heavenly was no less than 3,000 acres. However, I missed most of Mott Canyon and Milky Way Bowl.

What is the exact length of the Gondola (in feet)? I need it for unit conversion (my measurements are in the wrong scale).

[SkiBachelor]

Here you go CAski: http://skilifts.org/install_na2000.htm

[CAski]

Okay...
This should be fairly accurate...

First, I found the area of the resort in "miles squared".

This turned out to be 0.623 "square miles".

Tell me if my boundry is not accurate.

Attached File(s)

•  Heavenly_Area.JPG (0bytes)
  Number of downloads: 12

This post has been edited by CAski: 04 May 2004 - 06:59 PM

[CAski]

Next, I found the length of the Gondola.

It was 4797 "feet".

Attached File(s)

•  Gondola_Length.JPG (0bytes)
  Number of downloads: 8

[CAski]

Now obviously, though not accurate, these figures are are proportional, so some math comes into play.

There were 12,149 feet per 4797 "feet" on the Gondola. Thus, there are 2.533 feet per "foot". In the same sense, there are 2.533 miles per "mile" (multiply by 5280/5280=1). Thus, per every mile squared, there are 6.414 "miles squared". Since there are 0.623 "Miles Squared" in the resort there are 3.996 Miles Squared in the resort. Multiply by 640 acres per square mile, and there are only 2,557 acres at Heavenly. Hmm...

[CAski]

This process seems to be highly innacurate. The first time I tried, I received a value of 2,927 acres.

[CAski]

And yet, this is extremely frustrating because nothing I come up with could possibly explain why the value is so low. I couldn't have missed that much terrain, and topography couldn't account for everything; with an average slope of 25 degrees across the entire mountain, the area would only be raised ten percent. I can see how I could be off, but I cannot see how I could be over 2,000 acres off. The only conclusion that I come to is that Heavenly is drastically inflating its acreage.

[Powdr]

Whether its actually 25% and 3200' or not is besides the point. The point is that they knowingly pad their stats. BTW, if you count skiable acres to be open areas that you can actually ski (not cliffs or impenetrable trees), then Heavenly comes out far smaller than a place like Squaw. look @ Eastern resorts and see how much smaller in acres they are compared to Western resorts, when they can stretch as far across and tall. I stand by my original statement that there is no way Heavenly is as big as they claim they are.

Powdr

[KZ]

Thats pretty funny. Try it out on squaw.