Mountain High: Saving $ or Drought Survival Mode?

[jamesdeluxe]

I don't have a place to stay whenever I want in the elite ski region of SoCal (Mammoth/June) whereas I did in VT.

Are Mammoth/June considered southern CA?

 

[Mike Bernstein]

I don't have a place to stay whenever I want in the elite ski region of SoCal (Mammoth/June) whereas I did in VT.

Are Mammoth/June considered southern CA?

Considering that >90% of their patronage is from SoCal, I'd say definitively "yes". If northern VT is considered part of the skiing scene from NYC, then Mammoth/June should be for LA. They are both 5 hours away.

 

[SoCal Rider]

Don't ever say that in front of an Eastern Sierra local, but obviously the mountain depends on SoCal for its business.

My impression as a SoCaler sitting in my computer chair is that Eastern skiing, specifically NE, maybe gets a bad rap simply because it's not Utah or BC or wherever. I've seen plenty of mouth-watering dry powder photos - especially glades - over the years to tell me otherwise. We just don't get that here much. Less rain, but probably nothing that qualifies as cold smoke.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Don't ever say that in front of an Eastern Sierra local, but obviously the mountain depends on SoCal for its business.

Considering that >90% of their patronage is from SoCal, I'd say definitively "yes". If northern VT is considered part of the skiing scene from NYC, then Mammoth/June should be for LA. They are both 5 hours away.

My point was that MB was talking about the SoCal ski areas (Baldy, Waterman, Big Bear, MH, etc.) in terms of snow and terrain, then mentions Mammoth/June as being SoCal. I guess he made a jump to the topic of clientele, when I was still thinking about the earlier areas of comparison.

 

[SoCal Rider]

Oh, I was following everything fine. Just sayin', lest Snowman feels compelled to drop in to shout "I don't live in Southern California!"

 

[Marc_C]

I suppose we should stop using the forum to appease Marc_C's want for quiet. Or maybe this is just annoying marc because it isn't centered around his Utah. HUNTAH!!!!

It has nothing to do with either. It's all about arguing a position without having the necessary knowledge.

 

[Marc_C]

Let's see. Marc_C coming into yet another thread to spew and complain about something no one forced him to read in the first place.

No, it's about Rob talking about the skiing in SoCal without having spent much time (if any?) there at all and, especially, about Tony dissing the Northeast with nearly no direct experience (or certainly an adequate amount of experience) there - just primarily snowfall, temperature, and % open data.
Actually, your arrival in the thread provides some much needed direct experiential context instead of trying to infer something from a few spreadsheets.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Don't ever say that in front of an Eastern Sierra local, but obviously the mountain depends on SoCal for its business.

Considering that >90% of their patronage is from SoCal, I'd say definitively "yes". If northern VT is considered part of the skiing scene from NYC, then Mammoth/June should be for LA. They are both 5 hours away.

My point was that MB was talking about the SoCal ski areas (Baldy, Waterman, Big Bear, MH, etc.) in terms of snow and terrain, then mentions Mammoth/June as being SoCal. I guess he made a jump to the topic of clientele, when I was still thinking about the earlier areas of comparison.

Though Mammoth isn't technically in SoCal from a geographic perspective (MidCal?), it's most certainly in the orbit of SoCal. That's where all of its patrons are from and Mammoth is probably the only major ski resort most SoCal residents have ever been too. Ultimately, it's the only big resort within a 5-6 hr drive for something like 20 million people in this region. I would agree that Mammoth residents wouldn't consider themselves part of SoCal - no more than a local VT resident would consider himself a New Yorker. It's 5 hours and a world away.

 

[Staley]

I would probably never do it, but day trips to Mammoth from LA are doable. From where I am (Claremont), it only takes 4 hours to get to Mammoth if I leave at 3:30 or 4 in the morning. Then, as long as it's not a weekend (and I'd only day trip on a weekday), the trip back probably wouldn't be more than 4.5 hours.

Furthermore, if you ask me what my "home mountain" is as a LA area resident, I'd undoubtedly say Mammoth. I think it's definitely fair to include Mammoth in the equation for LA skiing, as it's really not difficult at all to get there for a powder day. The bigger question is the flexibility of your schedule. If you can't take off weekdays, then I don't see much of an advantage for NE over Mammoth, as they're both easy weekend trips. If you can take off weekdays, then I could see a powder advantage for the East. However, if you can take off two days in a row or the powder day will be on Friday or Monday, getting powder on short notice in Mammoth is no issue.

I've never skied in the East, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I just wanted to point out that chasing powder in Mammoth is very possible for a LA resident. I'm fully capable of getting every non-Monday powder day, and I don't even have a car.

 

[rfarren]

I suppose we should stop using the forum to appease Marc_C's want for quiet. Or maybe this is just annoying marc because it isn't centered around his Utah. HUNTAH!!!!

It has nothing to do with either. It's all about arguing a position without having the necessary knowledge.

Or making an obnoxious comment in a conversation that one isn't even a part of.

 

[rfarren]

Let's see. Marc_C coming into yet another thread to spew and complain about something no one forced him to read in the first place.

No, it's about Rob talking about the skiing in SoCal without having spent much time (if any?) there at all and, especially, about Tony dissing the Northeast with nearly no direct experience (or certainly an adequate amount of experience) there - just primarily snowfall, temperature, and % open data.
Actually, your arrival in the thread provides some much needed direct experiential context instead of trying to infer something from a few spreadsheets.

I'm so glad we have Marc_C on this forum to tell us how it is. If it weren't for him we would never stay grounded in reality. :roll: Why should the EC forum members ever comment or infer something in other forums based on what people write? We all know he never trolls, but always makes useful constructive comments.

 

[Marc_C]

Or making an obnoxious comment in a conversation that one isn't even a part of.

Reading it is being part of it. That's kinda what public discussion fora are all about.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I will agree with the above statement in that reading eastern reports here is a key factor in forming my opinions. The others being the data I've compiled and the few days I've skied in the East, primarily in March 2003. I consulted admin on that one and so have seen the best of eastern lift served terrain. I've also had a day in Tuckerman's, and the big mountain terrain there vs. eastern lift service certainly explains why people like icelantic spend so much time there.

The Cannon data is 2003-04 through 2009-10.

I have a decent estimate of how often Baldy is 80+% open, which means at least some of chair 1 and all of Thunder are skiable. Of the past 33 seasons:
11 were wipeouts
6 had 1-4 weekends of 80+%
8 had 5-9 weekends of 80+%
8 had 10 or more weekends of 80+%
1978-79 was tops with 15 weekends.

Either way Mike Bernstein also mentioned that those areas become skiable only the top 20% or 30% of years.

As demonstrated above it's a reasonable length of time in half of seasons and zero in only one third.

Mike Bernstein has not been here long enough to focus on a way to get more Mammoth time. I doubt he would say what he does about the Northeast in comparison if he were getting Adam's time at Mammoth. And Adam didn't buy anything, he's just sharing a season rental. I'm also curious if Mike has ever skied a Memorial weekend at Mammoth, probably well over a month after he would have hung 'em up in the Northeast.

I probably haven't seen the best of what SoCal offers

I think Mike has a quite accurate picture of SoCal local skiing. He has not focused enough on the relatively easy access to world class skiing at Mammoth, Tahoe and Utah IMHO.

a powder day in the NE is just as good as one anywhere else. The difference is that between rain/warmth, wind, and generally higher skier density, those conditions don't typically stick around for very long as compares the Rockies etc.. In my last few years in NYC, once I learned to properly follow the weather and knew a lot more of the slackcountry secrets of NoVT, I was able to achieve a ~75% hit rate of powder days as a % of total ski days while getting 20-30 days/year. And that from from NYC with a 5 hr drive. From Boston with a 3 hr drive, it's even easier.

I've expressed this sentiment. You can't argue the East vs. even Baldy much less Mammoth on the basis of terrain. Powder is what can elevate the East to world class skiing. The stats show that you need to get into the 250 inch range to see any frequency of 6+ inch days. I admire Mike's dedication in achieving that powder record living in NYC, but that's exceedingly rare. If he puts half that effort into maximizing the quality of his western skiing living in L.A. I'm sure he'll be more than pleased with the results. Hint: the drive to SLC is mostly desert too, and Southwest also flies there.

"Scary ice/snow driving" is in the eye of the beholder. If you didn't grow up in a place with constant winter snow -- I'm assuming rfarren didn't -- it'll frighten you far more than someone who's accustomed to it.

It's not a matter of being scary. It's the reality that when eastern conditions are at their best, that 5 hour drive becomes an 8 hour drive. The L.A. to Mammoth drive is still 90% desert even when it's dumping 10 feet in one week.

True, but SoCal drivers suck and I actually prefer the run up 91. At least there you have several distinct stages (out of NYC, up through Hartford to the MA border, MA border to VT border, VT border to WRJ, WRJ to the mtn), along with turns and rolling hills that keep you engaged and alert. Driving up to Mammoth, once you're past Lancaster, things just slow down b/c there's NOTHING out there and the road is dead straight with minimal traffic compared to 91/93/89 on a typical Friday/Sunday night. For me, the drive to NoVT always went by quicker than the one to Mammoth does today.

This is a truly bizarre argument. I enjoy driving more than most people do, but as a weekend warrior I certainly wanted to save my energy for skiing. It's a virtue that 90% of L.A. to Mammoth is now cruise control 4-lane highway through desert with not enough traffic for "sucky" drivers to impede flow. You want an "interesting" drive with SoCal drivers that suck? Try Vegas on Friday night or Sunday afternoon. Or Mammoth back in the 1970's with 200 ski club buses every weekend and only 1/4 of the 14/395 being 4 lanes. And of course we all know that NYC/Jersey/Massachusetts drivers don't suck.

 

[rfarren]

Or making an obnoxious comment in a conversation that one isn't even a part of.

Reading it is being part of it. That's kinda what public discussion fora are all about.

Also making obnoxious comments that have no constructive usefulness.

 

[rfarren]

I probably haven't seen the best of what SoCal offers

I think Mike has a quite accurate picture of SoCal local skiing. He has not focused enough on the relatively easy access to world class skiing at Mammoth, Tahoe and Utah IMHO.

With Tahoe at least an eight hour drive and Utah no less than 12 I think that's pretty much pushing it. If Utah and Tahoe are "easy" to get to from LA, and count as its local sphere, then Chamonix and St. Anton should count from NY. By the time you would reach tahoe from LA, I would be landing in Geneva.

a powder day in the NE is just as good as one anywhere else. The difference is that between rain/warmth, wind, and generally higher skier density, those conditions don't typically stick around for very long as compares the Rockies etc.. In my last few years in NYC, once I learned to properly follow the weather and knew a lot more of the slackcountry secrets of NoVT, I was able to achieve a ~75% hit rate of powder days as a % of total ski days while getting 20-30 days/year. And that from from NYC with a 5 hr drive. From Boston with a 3 hr drive, it's even easier.

I've expressed this sentiment. You can't argue the East vs. even Baldy much less Mammoth on the basis of terrain. Powder is what can elevate the East to world class skiing. The stats show that you need to get into the 250 inch range to see any frequency of 6+ inch days. I admire Mike's dedication in achieving that powder record living in NYC, but that's exceedingly rare. If he puts half that effort into maximizing the quality of his western skiing living in L.A. I'm sure he'll be more than pleased with the results. Hint: the drive to SLC is mostly desert too, and Southwest also flies there.

The point that he agreed with was that LA is most likely better than NYC but not places like Albany or Boston, which are 3 hours or less from NoVT and the rest of the regions in the NE. Mammoth has better terrain and more consistent conditions than any one mountain in the NE, but the sum of the many areas in the NE may be more valuable to a powder hound than one large place. From LA Mammoth is 5 hours away, so it's not day trip material, and although I feel 3 hours by car is pushing it for day trip-ability, it's doable, and that makes Boston or Albany superior to LA as metro areas based on skiing.

"Scary ice/snow driving" is in the eye of the beholder. If you didn't grow up in a place with constant winter snow -- I'm assuming rfarren didn't -- it'll frighten you far more than someone who's accustomed to it.

It's not a matter of being scary. It's the reality that when eastern conditions are at their best, that 5 hour drive becomes an 8 hour drive. The L.A. to Mammoth drive is still 90% desert even when it's dumping 10 feet in one week.

I think you meant to say aren't in your above statement.

Either way, those long rides to NoVT are on highways, and both 87 and 91 do a great job with plowing. Those roads almost never degrade too badly. BTW I love the desert, so I doubt I would be bored by that drive.

 

[Marc_C]

I think Mike has a quite accurate picture of SoCal local skiing. He has not focused enough on the relatively easy access to world class skiing at Mammoth, Tahoe and Utah IMHO.

With Tahoe at least an eight hour drive and Utah no less than 12 I think that's pretty much pushing it. If Utah and Tahoe are "easy" to get to from LA, and count as its local sphere,...

I think he might mean that you can fly to UT and Tahoe in the time you can drive to Mammoth (usually significantly faster) and the flights are relatively cheap.

 

[Marc_C]

Or making an obnoxious comment in a conversation that one isn't even a part of.

Reading it is being part of it. That's kinda what public discussion fora are all about.

Also making obnoxious comments that have no constructive usefulness.

Now you're just being a cantankerous New Yorker who likes to argue for the sake of arguing. :sabre fight:

 

[Mike Bernstein]

I have a decent estimate of how often Baldy is 80+% open, which means at least some of chair 1 and all of Thunder are skiable. Of the past 33 seasons:
11 were wipeouts
6 had 1-4 weekends of 80+%
8 had 5-9 weekends of 80+%
8 had 10 or more weekends of 80+%
1978-79 was tops with 15 weekends.

As demonstrated above it's a reasonable length of time in half of seasons and zero in only one third.

Wow - that 1/3 figure was an eye opener for me. I didn't realize you had true duds that often. :shock: :shock:

Mike Bernstein has not been here long enough to focus on a way to get more Mammoth time. I doubt he would say what he does about the Northeast in comparison if he were getting Adam's time at Mammoth. And Adam didn't buy anything, he's just sharing a season rental. I'm also curious if Mike has ever skied a Memorial weekend at Mammoth, probably well over a month after he would have hung 'em up in the Northeast.

This is true. The primary issue for me is just one of timing. I spent lots of time skiing in the Northeast when I was single and could get away at liberty. In the last three years, we've had two girls and occasional bouts of unemployment, so that's put a significant crimp in our ability to do weekends at Mammoth. Fir a single person, it's doable on a budget via the share house route. As a married couple with two young kids, if you want to get up there frequently, you either need to have your own place, or find a share with friends who are in a similar place in life and don't mind kids running around (i.e. not your typical share house). Since we are new to the area, we haven't had an opportunity to explore the share house option in full, and even then, our economic situation until recently mitigated against pursuing that option seriously. I anticipate that this will be changing for us next year pretty dramatically, though we are leaning heavily towards a June Lake base camp vs. Mammoth - it's cheaper, less of a zoo, less competition for powder, a friendlier atmosphere for kids/families and ridiculous sidecountry possibilities. We can always drive 20 mins down the road to Mammoth if we feel like it.

I think Mike has a quite accurate picture of SoCal local skiing. He has not focused enough on the relatively easy access to world class skiing at Mammoth, Tahoe and Utah IMHO.

Agreed, though that has been a function of personal circumstances. Between those three regions, I've spent a total of about a dozen ski days, 2 of which were epic at Sugar Bowl, some middle of the road days at Canyons and Snowbird, and a bunch of duds at Mammoth with one morning powder day off Ch 8 (everything else on wind hold) thrown in for good measure. Once the girls are a bit older, we'll be able to travel more as a family and, crucially, I'll be able to get out for a weekend on my own to SLC (Admin - consider yourself warned), Tahoe or Mammoth as circumstances dictate.

I've expressed this sentiment. You can't argue the East vs. even Baldy much less Mammoth on the basis of terrain. Powder is what can elevate the East to world class skiing. The stats show that you need to get into the 250 inch range to see any frequency of 6+ inch days. I admire Mike's dedication in achieving that powder record living in NYC, but that's exceedingly rare. If he puts half that effort into maximizing the quality of his western skiing living in L.A. I'm sure he'll be more than pleased with the results. Hint: the drive to SLC is mostly desert too, and Southwest also flies there.

While it may be rare, it wasn't difficult. There were only three ingredients: 1) having a place to stay whenever I wanted 2) weather watching 3) developing the skills to find and exploit powder in the trees. Those factors are true anywhere, with perhaps a modification of the final factor to be more focused on development of local knowledge wherever you happen to go (or just ski with the right people!)

This is a truly bizarre argument. I enjoy driving more than most people do, but as a weekend warrior I certainly wanted to save my energy for skiing. It's a virtue that 90% of L.A. to Mammoth is now cruise control 4-lane highway through desert with not enough traffic for "sucky" drivers to impede flow. You want an "interesting" drive with SoCal drivers that suck? Try Vegas on Friday night or Sunday afternoon. Or Mammoth back in the 1970's with 200 ski club buses every weekend and only 1/4 of the 14/395 being 4 lanes. And of course we all know that NYC/Jersey/Massachusetts drivers don't suck.

Just b/c it's a straight 4 lane hwy through the desert doesn't make it an easy drive. I was more focused on the apparent length of the drive. For me, the drive up to NoVt went by MUCH quicker than the same 5 hr drive up the Mammoth. It's easier on me mentally. Also, I think you shouldn't be fooled by this year's weather into thinking that the major highways up to VT are always, or even often, a junk show when conditions are prime in the mtns. Of the times when it's snowing along the Green Mtn Spine, I'd estimate that 1/4 of the time you'll also have snow on the hwy en route, 1/4 you'll have rain (which New Englanders actually know how to drive in) and 1/2 you'll have no weather at all. Think about it - the mtns get 250-300" of snow/yr while NYC averages 40" or so and Brattleboro, VT (the first city you hit in Southern VT) only avgs 68". By definition, you're not going to have a huge overlap between the number of good days in the mtns and messy roads in the flatlands. I'd guess that those 8 hr sagas happen almost as frequently as they do out here due to low snow levels into the desert or, particularly, snow at pass level on the 14 and 15 freeways.

 

[socal]

I probably haven't seen the best of what SoCal offers

I think Mike has a quite accurate picture of SoCal local skiing. He has not focused enough on the relatively easy access to world class skiing at Mammoth, Tahoe and Utah IMHO.

With Tahoe at least an eight hour drive and Utah no less than 12 I think that's pretty much pushing it. If Utah and Tahoe are "easy" to get to from LA, and count as its local sphere, then Chamonix and St. Anton should count from NY. By the time you would reach tahoe from LA, I would be landing in Geneva.

a powder day in the NE is just as good as one anywhere else. The difference is that between rain/warmth, wind, and generally higher skier density, those conditions don't typically stick around for very long as compares the Rockies etc.. In my last few years in NYC, once I learned to properly follow the weather and knew a lot more of the slackcountry secrets of NoVT, I was able to achieve a ~75% hit rate of powder days as a % of total ski days while getting 20-30 days/year. And that from from NYC with a 5 hr drive. From Boston with a 3 hr drive, it's even easier.

I've expressed this sentiment. You can't argue the East vs. even Baldy much less Mammoth on the basis of terrain. Powder is what can elevate the East to world class skiing. The stats show that you need to get into the 250 inch range to see any frequency of 6+ inch days. I admire Mike's dedication in achieving that powder record living in NYC, but that's exceedingly rare. If he puts half that effort into maximizing the quality of his western skiing living in L.A. I'm sure he'll be more than pleased with the results. Hint: the drive to SLC is mostly desert too, and Southwest also flies there.

The point that he agreed with was that LA is most likely better than NYC but not places like Albany or Boston, which are 3 hours or less from NoVT and the rest of the regions in the NE. Mammoth has better terrain and more consistent conditions than any one mountain in the NE, but the sum of the many areas in the NE may be more valuable to a powder hound than one large place. From LA Mammoth is 5 hours away, so it's not day trip material, and although I feel 3 hours by car is pushing it for day trip-ability, it's doable, and that makes Boston or Albany superior to LA as metro areas based on skiing.

I think it depends on what your preferences are. From LA, Utah is a seriously easy weekend trip. 7pm flight to SLC, 1 hr 20 flight time and you're there. Ski Sat/Sun and hop on a a 6pm flight and you're at home by 8pm. If you don't want to fly you hop in the car and head to Mammoth for the weekend, it's only 2hrs longer (if the weather in new england cooperates) than VT from Boston. And on the 50% of the weekends or so that Baldy/Waterman are good you can go there and ski good steeps with moderate to no crowd issues, not to mention it's a 60 mile drive from LA.

At the end of the day, in my opinion (having lived in Philadelphia for 20 years and done the trip to VT/NY about a dozen times) weekend skiing in VT/NY is too crowded and the terrain just doesn't compare to make it worth a weekend trip which would included hotels and a 3+ hr drive at best. Having Baldy/Waterman an hour away for almost 1/2 the winter is great, and being a short, direct flight to pretty much all the best skiing in the west is perfect for me. The thought of driving 3+ hrs (if I lived in Boston) to ski crowded VT slopes just doesn't appeal to me after living out west and skiing exclusively out west the past four years.

 

[Tony Crocker]

With Tahoe at least an eight hour drive and Utah no less than 12 I think that's pretty much pushing it.

For a weekend that's true. But I routinely did 4-day trips to Tahoe nearly every season in the 80's and 90's. And a one week trip driving to Salt Lake from SoCal with 2 or more people is practically a no-brainer in terms of value for your ski vacation dollar with cheap lodging, cheap lift tickets and the quality of skiing. Now that I'm at the Iron Blosam for the full week, I'm always driving that trip.

FYI I do not count Utah (the driving distance factor does reduce to a meaningless level at 10+ hours) for SoCal in the "where to live" metro area scale I was tinkering with a couple of years ago. Tahoe is worth about 10% to a SoCal skier and Mammoth is worth more than half. SoCal local skiing represented about a quarter of my ~25 ski days per season even when I had more time and budget constraints on my skiing than in recent years. I'm guessing Mike Bernstein's SoCal local proportion of ski days has been quite a bit higher than that these past 2 seasons.

Note to Mike: This season will likely go into the "dud" category as I did not consider chair 1 really skiable from the December storms even though Thunder was much better for 2-3 weeks than in nearly all the other "dud" seasons. That one third figure is the reason that my ski season planning always revolved around Mammoth weekends, one full week destination trip and a shorter 4-day trip or two to Tahoe or Utah. Anything I got from Baldy was icing on the cake as far as I was concerned.

socal's last paragraph pretty much nails the L.A. vs. NYC or MASH comparison. The good areas for powder need to be within daytrip not overnight distance (last minute planning is key) for an eastern locale to be competitive with L.A. IMHO. I will leave it to individual preference whether a 3+ hour one way drive from Boston to central/northern Vermont qualifies. Montreal is the only big eastern metro area that clearly passes that daytrip test IMHO.