Mammoth Mountain, CA

Click on a lift’s name for pictures. View in fullscreen↗

28 thoughts on “Mammoth Mountain, CA

  1. Peter Landsman July 2, 2018 / 9:00 pm

    Does anyone know why Mammoth came out with new logos and re-wrapped the gondola cabins twice circa 2014?
    Take 1:

    Take 2:

    I like the first logo way better but it only lasted one year.


    • Thomas Jett July 2, 2018 / 10:44 pm

      I know that the second logo was used before 2014. It was always way bigger than the first.


  2. Carson July 22, 2018 / 11:42 am

    A riblet t-bar sounds interesting

    Liked by 3 people

  3. carol August 4, 2018 / 12:11 am

    These logos suck. Bring back the ORIGINAL WOOLLY on skis!!


  4. John November 5, 2018 / 4:28 pm

    I think Heimo’s Platter may have been removed this past summer because on the new trail map for the 2018-19 season, there is the Canyon Carpet in the same alignment that Heimo’s was originally in.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. GreatEight December 18, 2018 / 4:08 pm

    What is the busiest lift at mammoth and the one that needs to be upgraded the most?


    • Thomas Jett December 19, 2018 / 5:42 pm

      Chair 2 is the busiest. The detachables that need upgrade are 1 and 16, because they’re Yan/Doppelmayr hybrids that are getting old, and can be busy on peak days. 2 and 10 could also use upgrading because they each have a capacity of 2,800 pp/h, but they serve as the only way for intermediates to get from one side of the mountain to the other. There’s also some fixed grips that need to be upgraded. 12 and 14 really need to become detachable to make it easier to use the backside of the mountain. 25 is also planned to be upgraded to serve the side of Lincoln Mountain, but I’m not sure that there’s enough terrain to make it a high priority. One thing that I’d like to see done is upgrades of 2 and 10, and then relocations of the old quads to replace the backside lifts. Currently, the plan is to replace 16 next summer with a six pack. They’re considering a bunch of high-end features, including bubbles, heated seats, and a loading carpet. Maybe Alterra will feel brave enough to buy their first D-Line.


      • GreatEight December 20, 2018 / 8:21 am

        DO you think they need the capacity of an 8 person on 1, 2 or 16?


        • Thomas Jett December 21, 2018 / 11:11 am

          1 Definitely doesn’t need it. It has chair 6 and the gondola to supplement it, and the lines are usually shorter. 2 definitely needs a capacity of 3,600 pp/h, and it wouldn’t hurt at 16, either. I think that in general, eight packs shouldn’t be built. Grouping eventually becomes enough of a problem that wider seats aren’t justified. Mammoth, in particular, struggles to fill seats on its two six packs, and unless they improve operations, there’s going to be more inefficiency than some other mountains. The 2007 plan dealt with this problem by constructing lifts to supplement the demand for cross-mountain transportation. They have plans to extend the village gondola to the top of 15. 15 will be converted and extended to the top of 5. Eventually, a tram will run from there to the summit. At 2, there’s plans to build a beginner-ish detachable quad to mirror 6.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. zjroeber March 3, 2019 / 9:52 pm

    Any word on Mammoth’s plans for lift projects in the 2019 build season?


    • skitheeast March 4, 2019 / 8:16 am

      Alterra said they are announcing their projects for next season later this month.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thomas Jett March 4, 2019 / 2:17 pm

        Do you have a source on that?


        • Thomas Jett March 4, 2019 / 8:17 pm

          So, they’re not getting a new lift.


  7. Joe Blake July 30, 2019 / 8:51 pm

    So many lifts! Is this joint just confusing af or do the folds in the volcano make it all make sense?


    • Thomas Jett July 30, 2019 / 10:20 pm

      The best way to understand it is that the tops of 1, 3, 5, 22, and 23 (and kinda 9 and 10 as well) are all sub-peaks of the mountain, meaning that you can ski down from them in any direction. Google Earth would help you understand it.


    • skitheeast July 31, 2019 / 10:10 am

      Look at Google Maps in terrain mode. That should help you understand the topography of the mountain.


  8. milanyvr November 6, 2019 / 2:04 pm

    Anybody know anything about that Riblet T-Bar?


  9. Trevor Wong January 28, 2020 / 2:45 pm

    As a 12 year Mammoth veteran, here’s my analysis on what needs to be upgraded.
    (A lot of this is based off the 2007 Ecosign master plan.)

    Chair 1/Broadway Express: Upgrade to a D6C, capacity between 2800-3600ish pph.
    Chair 2/Stump Alley Express: Upgrade to D6C, capacity also between 2800-3600ish pph.
    Chair 7: Upgrade to a D4C, maybe call it Wonderland Express??? Capacity between 1800-2400 pph.
    Chair 8: Upgrade to D4C, call maybe Bluejay Express? Move to where Eagle Express (current) top teminal is. Capacity between 1800 to 2400 pph.
    Chair 9/Cloud Nine Express: Downgrade to a D4C. Most of the time the lift chairs aren’t even half full and they could reuse the 6-person chairs at Broadway or somewhere else.
    Chair 10/Gold Rush Express: Upgrade to a D6C, capacity between 2800-3600ish pph.
    Chairs 12, 13 and 14: Definitely upgrade 12 and 14 to D4C, maybe upgrade 13??? Capacity would be 2400 pph.
    Chair 15/Eagle Express: Upgrade to a D8G or to a D12G (if there is such a thing). Extend to top of Summit. First midstation at current upper terminal (where there would be a ski school), and second midstation at the top of High Five. To save costs, second mid station could possibly be a one way mid station, like Orange Bubble at Park City.
    Chair 16/Canyon Express: Upgrade to D6C, capacity also between 2800-3600ish pph.
    Chair 25: Upgrade to D4C, maybe call Lincoln Express? Capacity between 1800-2400 pph. Move base terminal to where Cloud Nine is.

    Additionally, fixed grip lifts will be located to the east of The Mill, at Eagle Lodge, at Canyon Lodge, at the proposed Eagle Express Gondola midstation, and at the top of Cloud Nine. See the link below for details.

    Any thoughts?


    • Donald Reif January 28, 2020 / 3:27 pm

      I think Cloud Nine is a six pack on account of needing heavier chairs for wind tolerance.

      Considering WB’s reuse of Emerald 4 to upgrade Catskinner, I’d say that the proposed new high speed quads would be possible by relocating the ones getting replaced with high speed six packs.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mike B January 29, 2020 / 11:12 am

        Hard for me to imagine Mammoth redeploying the relic Yan Frankenlifts to anywhere else on the mountain, particularly chairs like 1 and 16 with a lot of hours on them..


        • Donald Reif January 29, 2020 / 12:44 pm

          I mean the ones that are UNI Spacejets. The Spacejet lifts would certainly be able to have their terminals reused, as Catskinner demonstrated.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Mike B January 29, 2020 / 12:04 pm

      @Trevor – Some interesting ideas here, though I’m not sure I understand a few of them.

      – Upgrades to D6C for Ch 1 and 2 are no brainers
      – Ch 7 makes sense more from a ease of loading perspective than capacity, but it looks like Mammoth is really focused on expanding their beginner terrain/ski school presence at Canyon and Eagle
      – Don’t understand why you’d want to upgrade Ch 8 to a DC4. The Ecosign plan already contemplates adding a 2nd stage to the Village Gondola to complete its originally intended route terminating at the top of Eagle/15. That will siphon a fair bit of traffic away from 8, which is pretty uncrowded as it is. Biggest issue with 8 for me is that it’s always stopping due to the large number of beginners taking it to navigate around the Canyon/Eagle area. Don’t see any need to double down on capacity with a detatchable lift when the line is only 3800 ft long. Leaving 8 as is would make for a really nice gem for experienced Mammoth skiers to exploit as traffic funnels to the sexier detatchable lifts on either side.
      – Downgrade Ch 9 from D6C to D4C? No. Not gonna happen both for wind reasons as Donald Reif mentioned and practical cost considerations.
      – Not sure I understand the impetus for upgrading 10/Gold Rush. It’s basically a transfer lift, albeit an important one. Lines are pretty modest every time I’ve been there. My biggest gripe with that lift is the exposure and I’d actually prefer that they replace Ch 21 with a D4C that starts next to 10. It would provide quicker access to Canyon and allow beginners/intermediates to avoid the mess of Solitude and/or Spook at the top of 10 in trying to get down and across to the Ch 16/4 area. Also would allow quicker access to the expanded skier services they apparently planning to put in at Ch 4 base.
      – Upgrades to Ch 12 and 14 to D4C are also no brainers for me for different reasons. 14 is a fossil and a new lift could help spread traffic around to the backside a little better. 12 is a necessity assuming the summit terminal is moved uphill toward White Bark Bowl. If you could easily return to Main w/o having to deal with the pain of skiing down 203, that would make that area a lot more attractive IMO. Plus again, the upgrade itself is likely to draw traffic to a highly underutilized area. Not sure Ch 13 needs detatchable technology given its short length (2300 ft) but maybe this is where a cut down version of 25 ends up if that’s upgraded.
      – Eagle/15 will need more capacity if the plans they have for Eagle base and the new beginner pod near the top are even partially executed. Extending it to the saddle at the top of 10 where the new restaurant is planned makes a huge amount of sense to me as well (either as a separate lift or a two-stager with midstation at current summit of 15). That would fundamentally transform access from Eagle and would take pressure of 16 to get people further West. But I can’t subscribe to the idea that the summit of Mammoth, with precisely 1 intermediate route down (and a narrow, hairy cat track at that) should be looking to double capacity up there. That’s a recipe for disaster, especially if 14 gets upgraded and they install the surface lift from the top of 9 up to Dave’s.
      – Ch 16 to D6C is also a no brainer
      – Ch 25 upgrade and realignment is a great idea, though I hope Mammoth takes a look at trail flow and re-grading opportunities feeding down to it. There’s so much terrain back there that is under-utilized and the flow or at least the signage is suboptimal.
      – You didn’t mention it but I love the idea of a shorter lift out of Mill to help get you over to Main w/o having to take Ch 2.

      And thus ends my Ted Talk.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nick Pullan January 29, 2020 / 2:57 pm

        I dont think the Village Gondola extension would be feasible, as it is already free and they would have to put up lift gates at the Village to prevent fare evaders skiing down from the top of 8 and 15. A fixed grip or detach for 8 makes more sense.


      • Thomas Jett January 29, 2020 / 3:16 pm

        From personal experience, it’s actually pretty hard to get to Main from White Bark, as there’s a ridge above 11 that cuts across the fall line. I’d also imagine that people below advanced intermediates wouldn’t enjoy a run as steep as White Bark.

        On a different note, I’d add that 15b is supposed to end at the top of 5. From there, there’s going to be a Big Sky/Snowbasin style tram running to the summit. I don’t think that it’ll add much capacity to the upper mountain.


        • Mike B January 29, 2020 / 10:57 pm

          I get it regarding 11. It’s just an unfortunate layout b/c that slog back to Main really, really sucks. Maybe some creative grading can help? Either way, I think the plan in the Ecosign version was to offer advanced intermediates a new lappable option with the expectation that most people would first go skiers left down a wide new run on the ridge for 100 vertical before re-entering the existing trail network under 11

          If they’re going to put a 4-person beer can up to the summit from the top of 5, that’s a different animal. Capacity below 500 pph doesn’t change the equation much.

          Surprised though that they’d run 15b up to that spot though. I think the saddle near the top of 10 is the better spot for it with the ability to go completely separate directions and disperse traffic. Also puts anyone below an intermediate skier in a tough spot with few options to get down – upper Solitude will be a bigger junk show.


    • skitheeast January 29, 2020 / 7:04 pm

      You have skied Mammoth more than I have, but my thoughts:

      Agree with the Broadway upgrade, although I think capacity should be closer to 3600, given its already at 2800 and can have long lines. I might even say an eight pack would be a good fit here. The same goes for Gold Rush and Stump Alley (although no eight pack).

      Instead of upgrading 7, I would simply remove it and replace Schoolyard with a higher capacity lift (six or eight pack with high spacing for easy loading and high capacity). Install a Magic Carpet if traversing the couple hundred feet from the base of 7 to Schoolyard is too difficult.

      I like the idea of replacing 8 and 22 with a single lift (8’s bottom terminal, 22’s top terminal). I do not know if it would be a detachable quad or six, but either way, it would really alleviate Canyon traffic.

      Not a huge fan of downgrading lifts in general unless there is a significant financial reason, so I am not a fan of your idea for 9.

      I agree 12/14 should be upgraded to detachable quads. 13 is really redundant and can be removed or delegated to weekends/holidays. Maybe realign it to have it instead serve the Hemlocks.

      I understand the argument for an Eagle base-to-summit gondola, but I really do not think it is necessary if the lifts around it are upgraded to make it easier to get around the mountain.

      There is an existing plan to upgrade Canyon either this summer or in 2021.

      I agree with your 25 assessment.

      On a separate note, I do not believe this plan is being followed anymore, although many elements are surely still going to eventually occur, and I would personally love a detachable 23 with a bottom terminal located farther downhill to allow for easier Monument and Scotty’s laps.


      • Mike B January 29, 2020 / 11:06 pm

        Replace 8 and 22 with one lift? No thanks. It kills the ability to lap the sweet intermediate terrain under 8, eliminates the only direct access between Canyon and Eagle, puts way too many people on top of Mt. Lincoln. Aside from that it’s a great idea. If Village Gondola 2 isn’t happening, then I suppose 8 turns into a DC4, hopefully not with the summit next to 15 though.

        And eliminating 13 isn’t redundant IMO. Not a high priority lift but it will likely need to handle more traffic if both 12 and 14 are upgraded around it, and I don’t think it’s reasonable for the only non expert egress from the back side to be the pain that is Lower Road Runner


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s