New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Homewood, How Long the Runs?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Can y'all be frank and tell me whether the $25 midweek tkt is worth the day for long groomers? I know about the slow lifts, but maybe I shouldn't complain for $25?

Mt. Rose on Tuesday also for $25?

Gracias!
post #2 of 24
Homewood is worth $25 for a midweek day. The mountain is a little rough around the edges, but it does a good job grooming. I think the best skiing is off the Ellis Chair. The elevation is a little low (lake level), so coverage can be a bit of an issue early on. However, this allows the mountain to operate on storm days when most of Squaw and Alpine are closed due to severe winds. Not a very steep mountain with the exception of Quail Face. Very mellow and low key place.

Overall, I would not recommend Homewood over Alpine or Sugar Bowl -- and those areas should have reasonable lift tickets on weekdays (near $39).

Mt. Rose really improved with the opening of the Chutes and another HS 6-pack last year. I think this is a stronger $25 offering than Homewood. There is plenty of intermediate/upper intermediate cruising on two faces - each with a HS lift. Finally, they have legitimate expert terrain. Good stuff.
post #3 of 24
Thread Starter 
Tks chrisc. I looked at the map, and it shows various traverses cutting-off otherwise longish trails. Is this true?
post #4 of 24
Pay the $39 for Sugarbowl
post #5 of 24
Here is an aerial map. http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.c...mewood%7cca%7c

My issue with the ski terrain -- is it runs along an East-West Ridge (more ENE - WSW). The runs on the North side all follow this ridge, drop down parallel to one another and are followed by a traverse back to the lift. A lot of good vertical is wasted, and the trails seem very similar. The South side (Ellis) is more open and steeper with different pitches. The terrain down to lake can have coverage issues.
post #6 of 24

Homewood or Mt Rose

1. Homewood. Worked there as instructor in 2002 and have skied there a lot. Homewood is good for: Almost never crowded, even at Xmas, midweek you will not stand in any line anywhere. When theres powder its good, very wind protected expecially compared to sqaw etc. No crowds!!!!! Good friendly bar, typical food fodder. Great views of the Lake. Poor lst timer area, there is no easy way down from the top. A really good uncrowded, protected intermediate area. There is very little Advanced or expert skiing unless the chutes are open and oftern time they aren't. Well run professional staff.

2. Mt Rose. Skied it a lot and raced there quite a few times. Can be crowded on Holidays and weekends. I like Tahoe Ski Bowl side the best, runs are longer andpitch can be good. Good bar, better food than most areas. High m,ountain can have good snow and can also have some mean windy whiteouts.

Which would I buy a season pass to if I had no other Choices: Depends on where I lived, Reno=Mt Rose, Sacramento=Hom,ewood etc etc. Good luck have a great winter. Won't ski either this year - Its snowing as I type in Northern Idaho. Pete
post #7 of 24
Homewood is worth it for the views alone, IMHO. If you're at the lake, you should ski there at least once. Better views than the typical Heavenly promo shots.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Homewood is worth it for the views alone, IMHO. If you're at the lake, you should ski there at least once. Better views than the typical Heavenly promo shots.
Ditto.

I skied it this past march with the girlfriend. I wanted the first day skiing in Tahoe to be one with a great view and this did the trick. After Squaw, it was the most fun we had while in Tahoe. The views are incredible and other then the slow lifts, the mountain was awesome. We also did Mt. Rose and that too was a blast. We went to Homewood, Mt. Rose, Squaw, Kirkwood, and lastly by a long way, Alpine Meadows. Alpine Meadows sucked and it was the worst skiing experience of my life.

Homewood is worth the views alone and Mt. Rose is worth it just to ski some of the chutes.
post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanky again all!!!! Blizzboy, why the hatred towards Alpine? Mind you, I've nearly scratched it from my list because they only groom 20-30% of trails, as stated by them in reply to my queries.

But really, that bad?

Those slow lifts @ Hwood, are they exasperating or just an average 8-10 minute ride?
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpaul
Thanky again all!!!! Blizzboy, why the hatred towards Alpine? Mind you, I've nearly scratched it from my list because they only groom 20-30% of trails, as stated by them in reply to my queries.

But really, that bad?

Those slow lifts @ Hwood, are they exasperating or just an average 8-10 minute ride?
Well to truly tell how much hatred I feel towards Alpine you need to read the thread I just wrote about it. Thanks for the motivation!

The lifts aren't that bad. It is definitely worth the $25 ticket!
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Blizzboy, why the hatred towards Alpine? Mind you, I've nearly scratched it from my list because they only groom 20-30% of trails, as stated by them in reply to my queries.
Alpine does a really nice job of grooming. Almost every intermediate and beginner run is groomed nightly in my experience -- and often Wolverine Bowl/sometimes Waterfall.

Key intermediate areas:
Lakeview - Great views. Faces SW so perfect for afternoons. Very uncrowded.
Sherwood - Best views. Directly overlooking lake with no mountains in front of it. Faces South so ski earlier - maybe 10-1 is optimal (soft, but not too soft). New HS Quad.
Summit/Roundhouse - Big long runs served by a HS 6 and HS quad. The open wide open Alpine Bowl should not be missed. Faces Northeast so best to ski first in the morning.
Hot Wheels - Good low intermediate north facing run.

Alpine has a lot going for it:
Highest base on Tahoe north shore so good snow preservation.
Sits on the Sierra Crest so it gets among the most snow in Tahoe.
3 HS lifts.
Mutliple exposures so you follow the sun.
Mostly open terrain.
Relatively undeveloped.

A fair comparison of Squaw and Alpine is -- they are the Snowbird (Squaw larger) and Alta (Alpine slightly smaller) of California. Would you really skip Alta on a trip to Utah? And neither should you skip Alpine.
post #12 of 24
Thread Starter 
Damn chrisc, you've enlightened me again! Maybe it does deserve at least 1 day....

Would you know if Sierra at Tahoe is better for groomers?
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blizzboy283
Well to truly tell how much hatred I feel towards Alpine you need to read the thread I just wrote about it. Thanks for the motivation!

The lifts aren't that bad. It is definitely worth the $25 ticket!
he is right it is horrible. no one should ever go to alpine
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpaul
Damn chrisc, you've enlightened me again! Maybe it does deserve at least 1 day....
You mean you were considering bypassing Alpine : It's way bigger than Homewood, and skis even bigger than the statistics would suggest. Meanwhile Homewood is cheap (and Alpine is cheap) and cheerfull and rougher than Alpine, which has it's own rough edges (apparantly CS is one). Homewood is worth a visit, even if it's for a storm day where you don't get the views.

Sierra at Tahoe is on South Shore and unless you're down there at already it would be a real hastle to get there even from Reno. It's groomed like Northstar, owned by the same company, and so has some of the best grooming, and groomers, around.
post #15 of 24
yep, alpine is #2 of lake tahoe resorts by most accounts; behind squaw. blizzboy has some issues. my 1st experience at vail blew, but i'm not going to dis the mountain because of it.
i'd take heavenlys groomers over sierra, but i'm no sierra terrian expert.
post #16 of 24
I hope we get some snow to groom! :

Sierra grooms virtually all of its intermediate terrain every night, and about 20% of its diamond terrain. If anything they have gone completely overboard. The only slopes immune from grooming are East About, Preachers, Upper Dynamite and the trees. Sierra and Northstar are owned by the same company, and they have determined people like groomed runs. It must work, because the areas are really popular.

Alpine is appealing for what is not groomed. For that reason alone, you can have a lot of groomed terrain to yourself.

Blizzboy was here last year during an extremely warm period. Conditions were spring-like, but I wouldn't consider them bad. As he left weather changed to very cold and windy freezing the corn and slush into miserable impenetrable ice. Lifts were closed for high winds. The week after that (March 20) we had huge fresh powder days that continued for most of the rest of the spring and into June. I did the Mantra review on March 20. Its luck of the draw and his expectations were clearly not met. I really don't think it had much to do with a specific ski area. I just live here, I could be wrong.
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by spring corn
he is right it is horrible. no one should ever go to alpine
All the clues are there. You're from Truckee. You're ID is "Spring Corn". Clearly you know what you're writing about
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruckeeLocal
All the clues are there. You're from Truckee. You're ID is "Spring Corn". Clearly you know what you're writing about
as i have been saying for years when i look at the hill in the morning:
MINE!
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by spring corn
as i have been saying for years when i look at the hill in the morning:
MINE!
Relax ! Visitors are busy in Summit Bowl and don't know about "High-T" (where are they all going : ) or $99 flings while we get to do laps into June : Cheaply
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisc
A fair comparison of Squaw and Alpine is -- they are the Snowbird (Squaw larger) and Alta (Alpine slightly smaller) of California. Would you really skip Alta on a trip to Utah? And neither should you skip Alpine.
Alpine is to Alta as crap is to gold. Mind you I've only been there once and like others have said, I had a bad experience but comparing it to Alta. No way! Alta is pretty much regarded by everyone here and most magazines as one of the best, if not the best, resort in the U.S. I mean is Alpine even in the top 20? I'm not one to hang by what the magazines say but based on my visits to Snowbird, Alta, and Squaw, the magazines seem to get it right.

I hope some Altaholic reads that blasphemous post and bars you from ever stepping foot at Alta ever again.

There is no way Alpine compares to Alta, no way.
post #21 of 24
Alpine totally compares to Alta, but Sierra snow is better.
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blizzboy283
Alpine is to Alta as crap is to gold. Mind you I've only been there once ... There is no way Alpine compares to Alta, no way.
Well just the stats compare almost exactly 2400 to 2200 skiable acres, 1802 to 2020 vertical feet, 14 to 12 lifts, 495 to 500" average snow, beginner/intermediate/expert breakdown is the same. First stat is Alpine, second Alta. Alta is almost 2000' higher. They both border a high-profile destination area. And they both ski the same, i.e. hike for the big runs which wouldn't be known to one time visitors. Both held out from allowing boarders, although Alpine now allows them. Both are local favorites, hence some resentment here to your trashing Alpine - same would happen if you trashed Alta - comparing Alpine to Alta most certainly does not demean Alta.

In fact Ski writes in its November 2005 issue "Alpine is the laid-back Alta to Squaw's fast-twitch Snowbird" and continues the analogy if you believe "the magazines seem to get it right".

By the way I live in Tahoe and work in SLC, so get to ski both. I actually ski Alta more often than Alpine these days. I recognize that you had a bad day, and I know I can't convince you otherwise, but to trash an area based on two runs strikes me as a little simplistic and contrary to why you and I are here ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blizzboy283
People come to this site for valuable information pertaining to skiing.
post #23 of 24
Alpine, Homewood, Mt Rose, Sugar Bowl, Kirkwood: none of them are worth your time at all. Too few people, too many fresh lines, not enough lifts, they actually expect you to hike to some of their terrain.

Just go to Squaw and Heavenly
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski_rick
Alpine, Homewood, Mt Rose, Sugar Bowl, Kirkwood: none of them are worth your time at all. Too few people, too many fresh lines, not enough lifts, they actually expect you to hike to some of their terrain.

Just go to Squaw and Heavenly
Ding ding!! this is the correct answer to GPauls Question. Homewood is a cheap locals place, the real skiers fly in from all over the world to ski Squaw.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel