Get ready for a Gore/North Creek interconnect

[Tony Crocker]

joegm must ski there on weekends

No, his days off are midweek (Tue-Wed?), though not flexible.

seems silly to me that someone would own a condo at a place that they bitch about.

Yes, that's one of the :dead horse: I beat around here periodically.

There's a big difference between being able to survive gnar and doing it gracefully.
I'm still trying to get out of the first group. Based on the videos I see here and elsewhere, I'm not alone.

I agree completely with this comment.

With regard to powder, it's not that difficult once you get enough mileage in, especially with the right equipment. Easier than almost all other ungroomed skiing. I'm sure the Utards will agree. It's some of the $@#% you go through getting to and from the powder that can wear you out.

 

[Marc_C]

With regard to powder, it's not that difficult once you get enough mileage in, especially with the right equipment.

When I first moved here, it was with a pair of 205 Rossi 7XK GS skis, 20 years of muscle memory that says put *all* your weight on your downhill edge, and a NE perspective that 3" somehow constitutes a powder day. First day out at Alta, my friend directs us off the groomer to a very short powder shot on an 18" day. Five cartwheels over the handlebars later I thought some skills improvement necessary. And maybe at least a pair of mid-fats.

Easier than almost all other ungroomed skiing. I'm sure the Utards will agree. It's some of the $@#% you go through getting to and from the powder that can wear you out.

Lazy Californian! O

 

[Tony Crocker]

Rossi 7XK GS skis

Those were my last conventional skis. When they were brand new in 1995 I followed then 65-lb Adam into some intermediate but sunbaked 3-day old powder at Grand Targhee. That resulted in a ride down the hill in the meat wagon with a torn meniscus. And a search for fat skis starting the next season.

Lazy Californian!

This comment coming from one of the Utards who was absent on the March 8 White Pine expedition. :stir:

 

[Marc_C]

Lazy Californian!

This comment coming from one of the Utards who was absent on the March 8 White Pine expedition. :stir:

I didn't think B/C conditions would be good that day and hence not worth the effort. :wink:

 

[Harvey]

If you are a black diamond skier, you have talent.

You two have obviously never met.

Can someone direct me to some video of Mr Crocker in action?

 

[Harvey]

I couldn't find this on FTO, for some reason I couldn't get into the news section. Sorry if it's here somewhere.

http://www.denpubs.com/Articles-c-2009- ... rward.html

 

[Harvey]

A few pics of the work that has been done on the skibowl liftline:

http://harvey44.blogspot.com/2009/08/ne ... -bowl.html

 

[Harvey]

If someone can help me understand how to rate steepness I would appreciate it. I remember that someone here - it may have been Tony(?) had a resource that said that Rumor (steepest trail at Gore) was somewhere around 30 or 33 degrees? What was the source of that info?

And my real question....how does that pitch compare to the new lower mountain lift that advertises 830 vertical feet over a 3000 foot long lift? Marketing is saying that when the new lift line is done, it will be the second steepest run after Rumor.

If you do 830'/3000' does that give you a 28% pitch? Probably not quite as the 3000 isn't purely the run (as in rise/run). The run should be less than the full 3000. How do you translate percent grade into pitch?

So ...I know I'm rambling - how can I learn the slope of Rumor and how does it compare to slope that rises 830 and has a 3000' lift line?

Any help is appreciated.

 

[Admin]

Grab an inclinometer. 45 degrees pitch is 100% pitch. Any other angle is a pure ratio based on that.

 

[Tony Crocker]

rise/run = tangent (slope angle).
So:
100% grade = 45 degree angle
75% grade = 36.9 degree angle
50% grade = 26.6 degree angle
25% grade = 14 degree angle

Any other angle is a pure ratio based on that.

No, you can see from the above that the relationship is not linear. Many eastern ski areas like to quote percent grade instead of slope angle. :stir:

 

[Harvey]

I'm wondering though....the lift line is 3000 feet long. The RUN then is less than 3000 right? Isn't the 3000 feet the hypotenuse (?) of the triangle?

 

[Admin]

I stand corrected.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

 

[Tony Crocker]

The RUN then is less than 3000 right? Isn't the 3000 feet the hypotenuse (?) of the triangle?

Yes, it's the hypotenuse. But the run is still 2,883 feet.

4-1 length-to-vertical ratio of a lift implies mainstream intermediate pitch if it's consistent. But some of these will have short steep sections combined with long runouts.

 

[Marc_C]

I'm wondering though....the lift line is 3000 feet long. The RUN then is less than 3000 right? Isn't the 3000 feet the hypotenuse (?) of the triangle?

You're correct. So is Tony. But only one trigonometric approach is practical.

Referring to a triangle, we have the hypotenuse, and, with respect to the angle in question, the opposite side and the adjacent side. These last two are also often referred to as the rise and the run. Thus Tony is correct in that:
Tan angle x = opposite / adjacent

However, when we look at a ski slope, we never know the run length (ie length of the adjacent side) as it cannot be easily directly measured. Sure, you can spend time monkeying around with some really detailed topo or survey maps, but there's an easier way, since we do know the rise and the hypotenuse, as these figures are often published by the ski area. The actual trigonometric function we need to use to determine the angle of the ski slope given the hypotenuse and the rise is the cosecant:

csc angle x = hypotenuse / opposite (ie: rise)

The cosecant is the reciprocal of the sine function.

 

[Admin]

No wonder I dropped out of an engineering curriculum. :roll: :lol:

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Reminds me of that scene from the Coppola film "Peggy Sue Got Married," when Kathleen Turner hands in a blank test and tells the annoyed teacher, "Mr Snelgrove, I happen to know that in the future, I will not have the slightest use for algebra, and I speak from experience."

Not that it's algebra, but... same idea.

 

[Tony Crocker]

You don't need to know trig or algebra to make use of trail map info. Length/vertical ratio of 4 to 1 is likely intermediate, 5 or more to 1 fairly easy, 3 to 1 is advanced intermediate if consistently pitched but most 3 to 1 lifts will have steep sections. Marte is 2 to 1. That means its average pitch is 30 degrees over its 2,700 vertical. The lift ratios will give you a much better idea of an area you haven't skied than the green/blue/black trail markings, which are usually defined by marketing people to approximate a 25/50/25 proportion.

This is how I recommend estimating ski area size by using acreage but adjusting for those areas whose lift ratios deviate from the typical 4 to 1.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Many eastern ski areas like to quote percent grade instead of slope angle.

Harvey, to give you a visual reference, this is considered to be 50-degree slope angle at a western ski area:

 

[Admin]

Harvey, to give you a visual reference, this is considered to be 50-degree slope angle at a western ski area:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[kcyanks1]

I don't think the discussion here and in the other "drive/fly" thread is so much about whether Gore is a good mountain or not. Tony is beating his drum again about how people living downstate would be better served by flying west instead of driving north.

I haven't looked into that other thread recently, but the bulk of the discussion in this thread seems to be comparing drive times (Gore, Northern Vermont, Southern Vermont, etc.) vs., quality of skiing, with very little emphasis on air travel. For those that have potential lodging/notably shorter drives to Gore vs. Northern Vermont, I was trying to get a sense of whether there is even much of a difference in the skiing to make the extra driving worth it. Gore looks like a great mountain from what I see here, so I'm wondering why people are putting such emphasis on other options.

I grew up skiing at Gore. To me, the extra drive to, say, Sugarbush is absolutely worth it. Gore has improved a lot over the years as far as opening up more glades and cutting new trails, but the terrain and snow is just better in northern VT, IMO. Also, while Gore does have some nice expert runs, their trails are just so short. The 2000' vertical is very misleading as far as what you do in any given run. The Straight Brook quad probably serves the best pod of expert terrain, and is probably something like 700' vertical, if I remember correctly. And then the better runs don't even go for that entire vertical.

Also, they just don't get nearly the amount of snow that the VT areas get, and also seem to be less willing to open trails/glades in marginal conditions.

Gore has some nice terrain, and I'd rather go to Gore than to Okemo. But Sugarbush/Stowe/MRG vs. Gore? It's a no brainer for me, even with the extra drive.