15 replies to this topic

[DetroitSkier]

In the Lutsen MN topic in the Technical section, an interesting point was brought up: how did Lutsen calculate its vertical drop, since the top elevation (1688') and the vertical drop (1088') would put the base elevation at 600', which is about the level of Lake Superior.

I have been thinking about this recently as well, as I have been checking out a lot of topo maps on TerraServer of ski areas. Are Midwest ski areas telling the truth in their advertised verticals?

I understand that it's quite important from a marketing standpoint to have as large a vertical drop as possible. However, if in fact these ski areas are fibbing, it's creating an artificial inflation of stats. If all areas told the truth, then in comparison to one another, they would be roughly in the same position. The only place they would suffer in comparison would be versus areas out West or East, where this problem at least seems to be much less prevalent.

I will not go so far as to say that ski areas are lying. My main sources for my thoughts are (along with the limitations):

1. Microsoft TerraServer - The ability to overlay aerial photos and topo maps is great. The synchronization between the two views is spot-on. However, the photos are slightly dated, and the topo maps are usually much moreso. This creates doubt of the accuracy of the analysis. The maps will not reflect any earthmoving, which is fairly common among small Midwest areas, as well as lift realignment or new lift installation. I don't have Google Earth right now, but if anybody thinks that or another source are more up to date/accurate, let me know.

2. Skilifts.org and SAM Installation Data - So far, the most accurate source of lift vertical data (see other threads - sorry, I don't know how to link to other threads yet).

3. Ski Area Trail Maps - Mainly for a clarification of lift locations, ski area boundaries, etc.

Many Midwest areas seem to list their verticals on very round numbers, like 500', 450', 300', etc. Coincidence? I think not. I have found discrepancies of up to 100' (or even more, it's been awhile), and I find this frustrating.

Can anyone tell me if my theory rings true about some ski areas embellishing their stats for marketing purposes? Are my sources just too outdated? To be honest, I'd rather have them tell the truth and have a few people choose other places to ski than dupe EVERYBODY into thinking their verticals are higher than they are and have them be disappointed once they get there. I, for one, am one skier who doesn't care about vertical as long as the snow conditions are as good as the ski area can make them (I live outside of Detroit, what do you expect?). I just visited an area in Michigan that worked their butts off once the weather cooperated, and I had a very nice MLK weekend trip. I appreciate highly those of you in the industry who maintain/run/build the lifts and other facilities, so I hope I don't offend anyone by this line of questioning. I also don't want to say all Midwest areas do this...I just see it as a widespread problem.

Can anybody clarify the situation? THANKS!

[nathanvg]

As a big midwest skier, I too have found that ski area vertical drops do not match with the fedral numbers. The federal numbers are often 20 years old for some areas but I find them much more likely to be true. Therefore I'd have to say that many midwest ski areas' lie. Not all lie and the degree of the lie varies as well. At one point I calculated the vert of just about every ski area in MI, MN and WI to help me decide where to ski next. With few exceptions, most midwest ski areas have about 100' less vert than they list. From memory (not 100% accurate) some of the exceptions to the 100' rule:

Accurate:
Granite peak
Mt bohemia
Porkies
boyne H (but it's requires lift riding to ski full vert)

Inaccurate:
Big powderhorn (off by 200)
Lutsen (what you can ski is off by 200+) (also note that they only got more vertical when the taller bohemia opened)
most down state ski areas

[skier691]

You think??? But to defend Lutsen, they did (I never skied it) have a trail that led from the Moose Mt area down to the original resort area on the lake shore, thus making up some of the difference you see. Other areas.... Well, we should be on the list, not the right one though. The lift survey don't lie, our marketing team does though. Of the larger areas in the region, I would say only Nubs Nob tells the truth (411')

[afski722]

I agree there is always some of this rounding and padding of the stats in the Midwest. You can even see some of this in the Eastern / Mid-Atlantic areas, but the Midwest is definetely the prime culprit as they like to stretch the truth.

That said, like the above person Nub's Nob has no issue about reporting their honest vertical of 427 ft, and they don't really mind being in 3rd place in that regard behind the Boynes in terms of vertical. Crystal Mt. either doesn't mind saying they only have 375 ft. They aren't pretending to have more than they do. Both of these make up for that in other ways such as snow, grooming, & customer service.

The Boynes I question a little bit, but they can't be too far off. Boyne Mt. used to report somewhere around 450 ft a few years ago, that somehow made it up to 500 ft. Its interesting that over time, the reported vertical drop has changed at some of these places, without them making any changes. (Unlike Schuss Mt. who dumped dirt on top of the hill a few years ago. I also question Mt. Holly as I really don't see the 350 ft vertical. I'd say maybe 275 ft at best.

Sometimes I think the newspapers mess it up when they write articles. Like the ski report in the Detroit Free Press over the weekend, saying Boyne Mt. has 36 trails on a 6 inch base and Nubs Nob with 46 trails on a 10" base.

[nathanvg]

Based on the USGS, crystal is adding about 50' too. By my math, 328' vertical. Nub's is accurate. Boyne's 425'.

[liftmech]

It's not just the midwest. Crystal Mt (WA) claims a 3100' vertical, which is true if you go off elevation of highest and lowest points. You cannot, however, ski from the highes to the lowest points. Top of Silver King is 7012', and the base lodge rests at 4400', making the actual skiable vertical from the top 2612'. The lowest point is the Northway Shuttle pickup at 3910', and the tallest point you can ski from to reach the shuttle stop is 6796' (Grubstake point above the top terminal above chair 3). That vertical drop equals out to 2886'. For those not familiar with Crystal, the topography is such that skiing from Silver King forces you into a drainage that drops out at the base lodge on the valley floor. If one were to ski to the lower shuttle stop to attain the advertised vertical, one would have to traverse two-and-a-half miles alongside the access road.

[skier2]

Top to bottom on Moose Mountain is 840 feet. Top to lake is about 1088...although much of that trail is uphill

[hyak.net]

liftmech, on Jan 23 2007, 07:26 AM, said:

It's not just the midwest. Crystal Mt (WA) claims a 3100' vertical, which is true if you go off elevation of highest and lowest points. You cannot, however, ski from the highes to the lowest points. Top of Silver King is 7012', and the base lodge rests at 4400', making the actual skiable vertical from the top 2612'. The lowest point is the Northway Shuttle pickup at 3910', and the tallest point you can ski from to reach the shuttle stop is 6796' (Grubstake point above the top terminal above chair 3). That vertical drop equals out to 2886'. For those not familiar with Crystal, the topography is such that skiing from Silver King forces you into a drainage that drops out at the base lodge on the valley floor. If one were to ski to the lower shuttle stop to attain the advertised vertical, one would have to traverse two-and-a-half miles alongside the access road.

I've always thought that ski area vertical should be counted from the top of lift servicable terrain to the bottom of ski lift terrain. The fact that Crystal does this goofy counting of the lower BC return route (a bus brings you back, when it is running) is rediculous. Also as noted, you can't ski from the high point to the low point. It would be like The Summit at Snoqualmie taking its high point of Alpental and low point of Hyak and using that as its total veritical (2,820'). A shuttle bus does take you from one area to the other, so what's the difference?

[Allan]

We claim 2900 feet, adding the vert's from Silverlode and Motherlode, we get 2834 feet... However the bottom of Red chair is lower than Silverlode by a bit - so I don't think we're lying!

[floridaskier]

Deer Valley claims exactly 3000, and Empire (9570) - gondola base (6570) = 3000. I'm sure some convenient rounding was done to get the even 3000, but even still, to get all 3000, it requires 3-4 lift rides. The most in one shot is about 1700 from Sultan, which is nothing to sneeze at, but not close to 3000.

Park City claims 3100 which is fine because you could hike up to the top of Jupiter Peak and head all the way down to First Time in one shot if you really wanted to

[DetroitSkier]

I personally have no problem with areas that report a vertical drop that may not be continuous, or skiable. Yeah, it may be misleading, but certainly it's not lying, given the going definition. I would define "Vertical Drop" myself as lowest elevation to highest elevation within the ski area boundaries that is skiable. If it takes a little hike to get to the top, or a bus to get from the bottom to anywhere else, fine. I'll even count the parking lot elevation if it's lower than the base lodge, bus pickup, etc., as I know some people who ski right to the car if there is enough snow in the lot!

The Summit at Snoqualmie situation is quite interesting, because it's really like 4 almost separate areas, isn't it? I would think the proper way to handle that would be to list each area's vertical only.

As far as MI areas go, I'm in agreement on who's telling the truth and who's lying. Mount Holly's overblown, as is Alpine Valley, but I haven't proved that one yet. I just visited Crystal Mountain MI, and my altimeter watch told me someone's fibbing, but I'm not sure. I'm in total agreement with Big Powderhorn as well (haven't been UP skiing, would love to someday). And Shanty Creek probably has the Snoqualmie syndrome, as they have two ski areas separated by a few miles!

Kudos to those resorts who give it to us straight. Please, just don't make up numbers!

If anybody has any more thoughts or facts, keep the responses coming! This has been enlightening so far.

[nathanvg]

The main point to take away from this topic is that the vertical drop stat should only be used as a very rough estimate of a ski area. The best way to get accurate data is with a USGS topo map such as terraserver.microsoft.com. Even with accurate vertical data, it is clear that many things factor good skiing. Some of the area's that lie about vertical are great areas. Big powderhorn is one of the worst vertical offendes with a 50% addition to their true vertical, but their vertical and slopes are still some of the best in MI.

[Callao]

floridaskier, on Jan 23 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

Deer Valley claims exactly 3000, and Empire (9570) - gondola base (6570) = 3000. I'm sure some convenient rounding was done to get the even 3000, but even still, to get all 3000, it requires 3-4 lift rides. The most in one shot is about 1700 from Sultan, which is nothing to sneeze at, but not close to 3000.

Wouldn't that be interesting if, while you're checking the resort's stats, it would say something like:
Base elevation: 6,570'
Summit elevation: 9,570'
Vertical: 1,700'

At first it would be a bit jarring, but more accurate.
On the other hand, the marketing department would slit their wrists.

[Callao]

I just looked at a couple maps of the Park City resorts. Watch out, they're a little old, but DV's Empire runs up to "Anchor" near Jupiter Hill (PC's "Jupiter Peak"). Both DV and PC report accurate elevations with Jupiter Hill nearing 10,000 feet, at a real 9,998 feet. DV is accurate as well, although top to bottom are a nearly-unskiable 4.5 miles apart.
The Canyons, on the other hand, report 3,190 feet. That measures from the bottom of Cabriolet at 6,800 feet (not skiable) to the top of Ninety-nine-90 (9,990 feet). Oh, but unfortunately, the lift is short of that peak about 100 feet. So all in all, The Canyons has a skiable vertical from top (9,890) to bottom (6,900 feet), of about 2,990 feet. Dang! more blood in the marketing department.
But in the end, who cares? I own a season pass there.

The Canyons:  TCanyons.JPG (878.87K)
Number of downloads: 7
Park City/Deer Valley:  PC_DV.JPG (1.62MB)
Number of downloads: 10

This post has been edited by Callao: 24 January 2007 - 06:11 PM

[hyak.net]

DetroitSkier, on Jan 23 2007, 10:06 PM, said:

The Summit at Snoqualmie situation is quite interesting, because it's really like 4 almost separate areas, isn't it? I would think the proper way to handle that would be to list each area's vertical only.

Snoqualmie was 4 seperate areas that over the years have been brought under one ownership. 3 of the areas are along the same ridge and are connected with crossover trails. I've actually snowboarded from one end to the other and back, which takes a couple hrs to do. Alpental is about a mile down the road and has shuttle busses running continuously between the different areas.

They do handle each section seperate, but I was just making the statement that since Crystal does what they do then why not do it at Snoqulamie and claim 2800' vertical from high to low point. You can't ski from high to low at Crystal and you can't do it at Snoqualmie either w/o the aid of a shuttle bus.

[skiPhreak]

Ive seen resorts that have had the same lift layout and skiable acers grow in vertical over the years. Old maps from some midwest resorts claim the vertical is almost 100' lower then it is now.