Mammoth Mountain, CA

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

96 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.

    Liked by 3 people

    • 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.

      Liked by 2 people

    • julestheshiba March 3, 2021 / 1:17 pm

      The same goes for Squaws Logo, I much prefered the original purple oval. I wonder what they will do with the upcoming name change.


    • skier61 December 13, 2021 / 7:30 pm

      sorry Peter I like the second logo of the mountain crown better


    • Victor aka sketchyAnalogies December 28, 2022 / 7:38 pm

      Was the new logo with the “my mammoth” program launch. Some see an M crown, but I always remember the “my mammoth” program and see the “crown” logo as an MY. I agree with you 100%, I love the tusks M over the crown MY


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

    A riblet t-bar sounds interesting

    Liked by 7 people

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

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

    Liked by 3 people

  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 2 people

    • ski man December 11, 2021 / 6:40 pm

      the 1a platter ski lift was actually next to canyon express and the platter on the 1972 trail next to McCoy station was a different platter compared to 1a so 1a platter was right next to canyon express and I think it came from the platter lift by McCoy station.

      here is a picture of the 1982 trail map but the platter at McCoy is not there but there is a platter but canyon express

      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?

        Liked by 1 person

        • 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?

    Liked by 1 person

    • 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 3 people

      • 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 3 people

      • 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


      • John March 15, 2022 / 12:23 pm

        I think that they need 8 with its fixed grip lift for the stormiest/windiest of days, when the rest of the mountain is closed, and they want to have some uphill capacity (it happened this past weekend, when at the end of the day, only 7 and 8 were running).


    • alexmlee1994 January 30, 2021 / 8:45 pm

      I think for Eagle Express, I think DC8BH, with bubble, footrests, and heated seats. Built by Doppelmayr, bring back the spacejet design terminal using D-Line equipment and Technology. or Detachable 8 with all that, but HYBRIDIZED with an 8-12 capacity gondola.

      Cloud 9 should be kept a six pack, perhaps upgrade with under the hood equipment, heated seats, footrests and bubble.

      Those that are mentioned to be upgraded to detachable quad, should be by Doppelmayr using D-line equipment, but with the same UNI original style designed terminal, with Exposed Bullwheels at both terminals. Chairs should have heated seats, footrests, and bubble.


      • Myles Svec January 30, 2021 / 9:54 pm

        That seems too ambitious of Alterra to do and why bring back the Uni Spacejet terminal when you can have the better looking d line ones?

        Liked by 3 people

        • alexmlee1994 January 30, 2021 / 10:39 pm

          Myles,IMO I think the Spacejet looks way too cool, thats why I think they should bring it back. Could look very modern, space age like. Also lets add solar panels to the roof of ALL detachable terminals so they can rely on solar energy when the sun is out instead of just relying on pure electricity which could be better used when the weather isn’t that friendly.


        • Utah Powder Skier March 29, 2021 / 8:51 am

          Yes, the D-line could use another terminal skin like the Uni-G does, but it is just not going to be the Uni-Spacejet. I could see a variant of the tunnel (Agamatic) design being used on D-line but the Spacejet is obsolete, just like the Uni and the CLD-260. The Uni and the Uni-Spacejet are designed for two completely different grips. There has only been one instance of a DS grip in a Spacejet terminal and that was in 1994. I don’t know of any ski area who ordered a lift because of a space age looking terminal. Jackson Hole only made that terminal variant to match other terminals nearby, not to “look more space age.”

          Liked by 1 person

        • julestheshiba March 29, 2021 / 3:12 pm

          I prefer the Spacejet terminals from an aesthetic perspective but they will never bring them back. While the things he previously stated are never going to happen I am pretty sure he is referring to a newer terminal structure for the UNI-G that looks like the spacejet. I really don’t like the look of the D-Line it is too big and boxy and I wish they had alternatives. I highly doubt that anyone thinks resurrecting old tech is something anyone thinks is a good idea, rather a terminal skin like the one at Jackson.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Utah Powder Skier March 3, 2021 / 9:19 am

        Do you realize that resurrecting the exposed bullwheel designs comes with resurrecting the DS series? Doppelmayr doesn’t want to be reminded about the DS series bubble lifts and how they didn’t do very well. The Uni terminal was supposed to be compact and 8 packs need a large terminal with D-line grips. It would probably be more more expensive to put an 8 pack in a Uni skin and make an even heaver duty DS-108 than to do a regular D-line 8 pack. ‘

        Alterra is just like Vail in that they don’t like bubble lifts. They’d rather stick to gondolas

        Liked by 2 people

        • Chris March 3, 2021 / 11:10 am

          What kind of problem do you think the DS series bubbles had? They are still running all over here, although the oldest ones have obviously been replaced. 8 packs obviously don’t need D-line grips as many of them long predate the D-line introduction. Not that I think that the idea to resurrect old designs for new lifts make any sense whatsoever.


        • julestheshiba March 3, 2021 / 1:09 pm

          I personally definitely prefer the Spacejet terminal designs but it would make no sense to re-use the internals. However, I feel like it would be nice to offer various terminal skins to better fit the resorts aesthetic. Something kind of like Jackson Holes Sweetwater. They still probably could fabricate a custom terminal skin for you if you were willing to pay the price.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Utah Powder Skier March 3, 2021 / 1:14 pm

          All the DS series bubble lifts had at at least a few bubbles that looked to be worn and opaque. I’ve seen some lifts that had indoor matienence facilities and the bubbles would still get scratched up. The DT series bubble lifts looked fine if they had an indoor matienence facility, some lifts didn’t have a single bubble that looked worn. It must have been a better bubble design. The American ski resorts still didn’t build indoor matienence facilities and Doppelmayr changed the bubble design to the current one.


        • Donald Reif March 3, 2021 / 3:36 pm

          Custom skins do happen but they’re rare. There’s definitely a few interesting ones out there, like the high speed quads in Blue Sky Basin having their terminals designed to look like farmhouses (with the Skyline Express and Earl’s Express having their upper terminals inside barns)…

          or the Sweetwater example, where JHMR wanted the bottom terminal to resemble the Challenger terminals on the adjacent Teewinot lift and Bridger Gondola.

          I think the Sweetwater custom example is a bit more plausible and within budget for most resorts.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Chris March 3, 2021 / 11:20 pm

          The DS lifts are all 30 years old or older. If the bubbles have not been properly maintained or replaced they’ll obviously look worn. Around here in Austria there are a few that do look pretty worn, but most are in great shape.


        • alexmlee1994 March 29, 2021 / 6:30 pm

          Jules, I prefer spacejet design of terminal too, except with the latest internal tech of Ramcharger tricking down into it. Also solar panels on the roof of the spacejet..additionally retractable parking rails so that part of its panel will electrically rise to insert the parking rail into the terminal when chairs are removed, and respectively the panel of terminal closed flush into the terminal when parking rail is not in use, along with that their should be a service/parking mode for it.


        • Utah Powder Skier March 29, 2021 / 7:28 pm

          Alex, do you realize that the D-line looks the way it looks to make it easier for mechanics and allow for that large screen in the front of the terminals?

          While what you’re proposing for solar would be nice in all, snow comes from storms (or fan guns) and storms would accumulate snow on the solar panels, allowing for limited use. The only practical use for them would be in the summer and you must remember that this Alterra.


        • Myles Svec March 29, 2021 / 7:41 pm

          I’d think wind energy is a better choice than solar panels because they don’t get covered with snow as easily and a lot of ski resorts have high winds so when lifts are shut down they are making electricity.

          Liked by 1 person

        • julestheshiba March 29, 2021 / 7:43 pm

          Some kind of active wind energy device between tower spans would be super effective.


        • Utah Powder Skier March 29, 2021 / 7:54 pm

          Also, wind turbines don’t take up that much space either. No more than any type of snowmaker.


        • alexmlee1994 March 29, 2021 / 8:08 pm

          Ok maybe let’s clarify it a bit, heated solar panel, although solar panel would be used when not snowing, wind power is great to have at the posts.

          Spacejet and D Line? I was mainly referring to the D Line internals, D line grips and chairlift, the Doppelmayr direct drive system, doesn’t have to be exactly like the overall internal structure of ram Charger with the screens. I can care less about the screens(can always put the screens on top the operator house.) We just need to enlarge the spacejet terminal so it’s at least the size of Zirmbahn in Austria or larger.


        • Utah Powder Skier March 29, 2021 / 8:23 pm

          If Doppelmayr really liked the Spacejet design, they would have kept it like they kept the EJ carrier, or how Poma kept the Alpha. Most skiers aren’t picky about a terminal design. “As long as it gets me up the mountain” is good enough for most skiers. The only reason for terminal skins is to try to create a theme for the mountain. Is it worth the money to build a one of a kind custom skin that won’t bring any more money than before?

          Liked by 1 person

        • julestheshiba March 29, 2021 / 9:06 pm

          I despise the EJ it is an awfully uncomfortable chair and I will never get over how they ditched the nice comfortable Garaventa chairs in favor of it.


  10. Mountaineer April 29, 2020 / 10:43 am

    With regard to the two Yan doubles that should have been installed in 1976: could this be an error? Chairs 15/16 were built in 1974 and chairs 17-19 in 1979, so there is no gap in the numbering. The old maps do also not show any expansion in 1976. Chair 5 and lift 1a were installed in 1975.


    • skibumbarnes March 3, 2021 / 4:33 pm

      Saw this too and I was just as confused, anyone know?


      • Myles Svec March 3, 2021 / 6:47 pm

        The reason was the lifts all got shut down because of wind and Eagle Express was open so they were hiking there.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Myles Svec April 8, 2021 / 5:42 pm

    Some info regarding the removed Chair 7 double

    It was manufactured by Western Lift & Crane and was their only lift ever built.


  12. Connor May 11, 2021 / 11:06 am

    Anyone know which lift had plastic chairs? I know that it is a mid-80s triple with bottom tension and top drive, but can’t figure out which one.

    Liked by 1 person

    • skier December 23, 2021 / 1:00 am

      Chairs 7 and 8 both have the bails that are not welded to the seat that are indicative of them having plastic chairs at some point. You can see at the bottom of them that they have round corners and the pipe goes all the way under the seat, rather than them ending at the corners and being welded to the seat. The same as the old Arrowhead chair at Sundance that got converted from plastic to metal.

      Now I never rode a chair at Mammoth when they had plastic seats so I may be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me.


      • Utah Powder Skier August 24, 2022 / 9:04 pm

        It probably wasn’t 8, the chair in the video I think Connor is referencing showed the lift running clockwise (8 runs counterclockwise). The model of the drive terminal on 8 is from post 1985 and considering it had its hangar arms replaced, it probably used type 6 grips. Seeing that Mammoth ordered type 6 grips for 26 and most likely 27 (that could explain its very short life), there’s a good chance 8 also had type 6 grips originally.

        As for which lift had plastic chairs, it had to have been a lift installed from 1983-1985. That would leave 7 as the only option. The video with the plastic chairs showed beginners riding it and 7 would make sense for beginners.


  13. ski man August 7, 2021 / 7:00 pm

    I think it’s chair 26


  14. ART5690 September 16, 2021 / 6:07 pm

    chair 7 had different chairs in the 1980s


    • Myles Svec October 3, 2021 / 4:35 pm

      It was built a Western Lift & Crane but at some point it was upgraded with Yan parts. That’s probably why it had different chairs in 1980s. The lift got relocated to Aspen lift at Pebble Creek, Idaho and that lift may give some clues to what lift 7 looked like.


    • Myles Svec October 3, 2021 / 4:42 pm

      Which chair 7 are you referring to? There were 2 in the 1980s. In my comment above I was referring to the removed chair 7.


  15. ALT5690 October 16, 2021 / 7:51 pm

    I’m talking about the triple chair 7


  16. Ski man October 19, 2021 / 9:31 pm

    The chair 5 double was made by brandle the other brandle double was at crystal moutain MI and they were both made in 1963 and the crystal moutain brandle was removed in 2016 while the chair 5 brandle was removed in 1975 and there are only 2 brandle lifts I have found


    • Myles Svec October 21, 2021 / 6:02 am

      It is not the western lift and crane. the picture was taken in 1966, 2 years before it was built.


      • Utah Lost Ski Area Project October 21, 2021 / 9:25 am

        Mountainscholar has made some mistakes in the past regarding a lift at Vail being identified as Steamboat.


    • Mountaineer October 21, 2021 / 1:29 pm

      That should be Chair 6.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. ski man November 6, 2021 / 6:53 pm

    the doppelmayer t-bar looks like it was removed in 1985 or 1988


  18. ski man November 9, 2021 / 5:21 pm

    did you know that chair 26 used to be a 1985 Yan quad till it turned into a 1988 Yan triple anyone know why


    • Kirk November 14, 2021 / 1:05 pm

      Changed grip from a Yan 6 to a Yan T, due to grip issues. Needed different hanger and bail.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Utah Lost Ski Area Project December 14, 2021 / 6:33 pm

        What issues exactly occurred with the Yan type 6? Loveland still operates a Type 6 triple and it appears to be working just fine. I believe there’s Type 6 quad still operating in Canada.

        Liked by 2 people

        • skier December 14, 2021 / 9:12 pm

          The water park gondola that came from Circus Circus has double Type 6 grips as well

          Liked by 1 person

  19. skilifts 4876 November 14, 2021 / 11:52 am

    that’s interesting I saw an old video of mammoth and it was a quad and on the old 1995 trail map anyone know why


  20. ART5690 November 16, 2021 / 6:12 pm

    till 1975 to 1985 their used to be another poem lift right next to canyon express go check it out

    Liked by 1 person

  21. skiman November 18, 2021 / 5:58 pm

    here is an old video of mammoth mountain the 1980s

    Liked by 1 person

    • ski man February 19, 2022 / 7:14 pm

      At 35:38 You can see the old J7 From June Mountain CA


  22. Myles Svec December 7, 2021 / 6:02 am

    Anyone know what happened to chair 27? It was the last Yan ever built in 1994.

    Liked by 3 people

  23. ski man December 7, 2021 / 6:32 pm

    chair 27 actually used to be right next to the chair 11 double but sadly 27 was removed after discovery chair 11 was built

    Liked by 1 person

  24. ski man February 17, 2022 / 5:49 pm

    Old Mammoth Mountain ski videos!!

    Here is another old video where you can see the old broadway express and chair 6 riblet lift was upgraded to a Yan Lift!!

    In 1993.


  25. ski man February 18, 2022 / 6:08 pm

    At the parking lot you can see broadway for a little bit and later you will see the old chair 6 riblet but it turned into a Yan.


  26. matthewberry6 February 1, 2023 / 11:49 pm

    the mammoth ski patrol alumni instagram has a bunch of photos of old lifts on it, pretty rad


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 )

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