Mt. Waterman 3/12/10

Staley

Member
I don't have any clue what the runs are named at Waterman, so this report probably won't be so detailed.

The snow conditions were a bit different than what I was expecting. I believe the main runs on chair 1 had been skied by employees all week and it wasn't untracked at all. That being said, it was still very smooth in most spots and the trees hadn't been touched much. The snow was for the most part breakable crust, so when I was able to get enough speed up, my Praxis handled that fairly well. It was strange having the widest skis on the whole mountain (by about 25mm), and I think everyone else was a bit jealous. In the especially shaded trees, there were turns of about 6 inches of real, but heavy, powder. You were never quite sure if a turn would be crust or powder, but it was really enjoyable either way.

They opened chair 2 at around 10:30 and I headed over, not really knowing what the expect, but hoping for consistently good snow due to the altitude. I was amazed at how much snow was up there (skis touched the ground at multiple points on the lift) and by how slow the chair was. On our first run, we searched for the steepest stuff possible under the closed chair 3 (it never opened). We were disappointed to find nothing that was any steeper than an easy blue, and surprisingly, the snow seemed much crustier than on chair 1. We returned to chair 2 and skied a groomer (flat but pretty fun, for about 10 seconds) before heading back to chair 1.

Chair 1 was beautiful all day. After noon, all of the sunny areas turned into pretty amazing corn/slush, and the shaded areas stayed soft even after they had been skied out. Waterman has tons of small rocks to jump off and the landings were all soft. At around 3, the areas that had received sun earlier in the day but were later shaded started to firm up. The temperature dropped noticeably, and by the end of the day (4:15), there was only one line down Chair 1 that was still really soft.

Tomorrow isn't going to be fun at the beginning of the day. Until the snow starts to thaw out, it's going to be refrozen mank. Nevertheless, today was really great (surely better than Baldy) and I loved the vibe at Waterman. Everyone working seemed genuinely happy to have visitors and unlike the other SoCal resorts, there were no egos on display and everyone was just enjoying a quiet, beautiful day on the mountain.

Unless conditions are WAY better at Waterman than Baldy, I'm probably unlikely to return. Today's lift ticket was the cost of my season pass at Baldy I spent 6 hours driving (traffic), as opposed to 1 hour for Baldy. I still had a great time, though, and I'm glad I got to experience Waterman.
 
That's precisely why I am afraid I'll miss Waterman this season now that we're a third of the way through March. It's about 50 miles further than Baldy for me each way, and Baldy is already 4 hours roundtrip.
 
waterman is only worth it on a powder day when everyone will be rushing at baldy, but since we wont be having any of those due to the roads, not quite worth it...
 
ski-the-face":2nz1sy2z said:
waterman is only worth it on a powder day when everyone will be rushing at baldy, but since we wont be having any of those due to the roads, not quite worth it...
I'd modify that a little. On the first day after a storm I'd still choose Baldy due to much larger scale and more vertical. I can get over 20K any time all their lifts are open no matter how busy it is if I get there early enough. Waterman's midweek closure makes Friday/Saturday attractive to go there after a storm earlier in the week, like Feb. 14 last year.

Nonetheless this report and commentary illustrate why Mt. Waterman faces daunting obstacles in becoming financially viable. And I'm one of the few for whom the drive time is about equal vs. Baldy, at least when the Angeles Crest above La Canada is open.
 
Back
Top