By J. Albers
From California
Dec 9, 2009
| pfwein wrote: This may seem like a minor point so sorry if I'm wasting bandwidth, but you're quite a ways off on your 8 hours to get from Boulder to Devils Tower, regardless of whatever some online map may say. Try 6, and I'm not talking about being speed racer. This is based on multiple trips, not the Internets.
Hmmm, I have lived in good 'ol colorado and your experience is not my recollection, but hey, I could be wrong and just because my weak recollection agrees with the series of tubes on the internet doesn't make it fact. Guess I will have to clock it next time. | 
FLAG |
By Doug Shepherd
From Fort Collins, CO
Dec 9, 2009
| Yeah, all those times from boulder seem a bit long. Google maps seems to overestimate times for destinations in wyoming pretty badly I've come to realize. |
FLAG |
By J. Albers
From California
Dec 9, 2009
| ...yeah, they overestimate a bit for California too, so maybe it evens out a bit. |
FLAG |
By Tony B
From Boulder, CO
Dec 9, 2009
| It was eithr R&I or climbing that had a major article on this question (CO or CA) a year or two ago and eventualy declared he winner to be...
UTAH. |
FLAG |
By Ian F.
From Phx
Dec 9, 2009
| J. Albers wrote: ...yeah, they overestimate a bit for California too, so maybe it evens out a bit.
I am going to call you out on this, ust because of your comments regarding anyone who questions IPCC, and media, in regards to the actual science. You claim it is all legit, and fuging numbers doesn't exist, because God Damn it, you guys are scientist, and apparently can't be proven wrong.
Well, you also claim your times where in line with the findings on the internet. As again claimed in the above statement. I checked each on Map Quest, and they where all within reason to driving times I have had, and from past experience elsewhere, in respect to a ball park time. Pretty much everything you listed for CO was a solid hour or more.
Your times for CA where pretty on par with Mapquest.
Yet, you lead us to believe that both time references are to be equally overestimated. Is this the way you scientists do it. Just sayin. |
FLAG |
By slim
Dec 9, 2009
| i agree with the people disagreeing w/ j albers times. definitely heavy on the colorado trips and light on the california hours. particularly if you include traffic, then his numbers are way off.
like most have said, if you want to be able to get out after work several days a week for mediocre climbing, and get a bit further out on the weekends for good to excellent climbing, boulder is hard to beat.
if you prefer to not bother climbing during the week, and then fight traffic on the weekend, but be rewarded by top notch climbing, then cali is hard to beat.
in either case, it sure as hell beats living in nebraska. |
FLAG |
By J. Albers
From California
Dec 9, 2009
| Ian F. wrote: I am going to call you out on this, ust because of your comments regarding anyone who questions IPCC, and media, in regards to the actual science. You claim it is all legit, and fuging numbers doesn't exist, because God Damn it, you guys are scientist, and apparently can't be proven wrong. Well, you also claim your times where in line with the findings on the internet. As again claimed in the above statement. I checked each on Map Quest, and they where all within reason to driving times I have had, and from past experience elsewhere, in respect to a ball park time. Pretty much everything you listed for CO was a solid hour or more. Your times for CA where pretty on par with Mapquest. Yet, you lead us to believe that both time references are to be equally overestimated. Is this the way you scientists do it. Just sayin.
Really? That's the best you can do? Are really correlating my potential differential overestimation of driving times between CO and CA using google maps as proof that my fellow scientists and I are scamming you on global warming. Try harder man.
And back to the actual post.....The exact driving times I list are really not of huge importance. Add a +/- to any of the times you like. It doesn't change the thrust of my original post. If I wanted to climb long, amazing trad, I would stay in CA. However, as I said, I would rather be able to climb after work, so I lean towards living in CO. Some of this is personal preference though because I could give or take the Utah sandstone, whereas Sierra granite makes my fingers tingle....though I love Devil's Tower as well.
Lets just say this. If you live in either CA or CO, your are lucky as all shit. Period. |
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Dec 9, 2009
| J. Albers wrote: If you live in either CA or CO, your are lucky as all shit. Period.
See?? Scientists ARE politicians!!!
:) And you're right... |
FLAG |
By Tradster
From Phoenix AZ
Dec 9, 2009
| All you pro-Cali folks assume you'll drive right into good old Yosemite without being told, 'Sorry, no room left.' Especially because you had to leave a 1 AM to avoid traffic, but now the place is filled for the weekend and you get turned away. Plus, show me when traffic is ever 'good' around the Bay area... Also, in the Bay area you'll be able to afford a shitty little box under the nasty freeway in the worst part of town. In Boulder you can afford a bigger box under a bit nicer freeway in a bit nicer part of town. Funny thing is you Colorado folks aren't sticking up for your place properly. You all are about four or so hours from the Black Canyon, near the SPlatte, and RMNP...all pretty sweet places with plenty less crowds than Yosemite, unless you go up to Toulumne Meadows, which will add another hour to your drive time. |
FLAG |
By J. Albers
From California
Dec 9, 2009
| Tradster wrote: All you pro-Cali folks assume you'll drive right into good old Yosemite without being told, 'Sorry, no room left.' Especially because you had to leave a 1 AM to avoid traffic, but now the place is filled for the weekend and you get turned away. Plus, show me when traffic is ever 'good' around the Bay area... Also, in the Bay area you'll be able to afford a shitty little box under the nasty freeway in the worst part of town. In Boulder you can afford a bigger box under a bit nicer freeway in a bit nicer part of town. Funny thing is you Colorado folks aren't sticking up for your place properly. You all are about four or so hours from the Black Canyon, near the SPlatte, and RMNP...all pretty sweet places with plenty less crowds than Yosemite, unless you go up to Toulumne Meadows, which will add another hour to your drive time.
Who actually camps in the Valley proper? I think in all the time that I have lived in CA, I stayed inside the park once. There is camping to be had (nice, secluded camping) you just have to know where to find it. And yes, Bay Area traffic sucks. Thats why I don't live there. But, I have lived in CO also, and lets be honest, the traffic in the Denver/Boulder/Golden corridor is no peach either.
For the record, from where I live, all of those travel times for CA are even less by an hour....I live closer to the mountains than the Bay AND I have cheaper rent. I guess I should tell my climbing partner to quit his belly aching (he wants to move back to the Denver area). |
FLAG |
By Evan Simons
From Boulder CO
Dec 9, 2009
| Tradster wrote: Funny thing is you Colorado folks aren't sticking up for your place properly. You all are about four or so hours from the Black Canyon, near the SPlatte, and RMNP...all pretty sweet places with plenty less crowds than Yosemite, unless you go up to Toulumne Meadows, which will add another hour to your drive time.
You're right, there is nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the United States better to live and climb (notice the "live" part, I can't help but think people in the Yosemite area tend to be there more for the "climb" part) than the front range of Colorado. The only comparable place is Salt Lake City, which is a whole-nother animal. CO! YOU KNOW! Although Arizona is intriguing.... |
FLAG |
By Tradster
From Phoenix AZ
Dec 9, 2009
| Evan Simons wrote: You're right, there is nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the United States better to live and climb (notice the "live" part, I can't help but think people in the Yosemite area tend to be there more for the "climb" part) than the front range of Colorado. The only comparable place is Salt Lake City, which is a whole-nother animal. CO! YOU KNOW! Although Arizona is intriguing....
Yes, AZ is intriguing..however, I'd admit that Tucson has it over Phoenix for close proximity to climbing with Mt Lemmon nearby. So does Boulder. too. I like AZ because I can climb 24/7/365 with no problem, just by driving in a different direction...Flag, Prescott, Paradise Forks, Queen Creek, the Stronghold, McDowells, Superstitions, Isolation Canyon, etc. I'll admit that Cali and Colorado have more climbing, but, I am spoiled by our nice winter weather. I lived in Monterrey CA in the late 70s (Ft Ord, actually) and Cali just wasn't enough to keep me there. It was way too expensive and crowded in 1979-1980, and I'm sure it is even worse now. |
FLAG |
By EMT
Dec 9, 2009
| Tony B wrote: It was eithr R&I or climbing that had a major article on this question (CO or CA) a year or two ago and eventualy declared he winner to be... UTAH.
Shhhhhhhh
SLC kicks the shit out of the front range when you consider all that great ice so close to the city. Lucky bastards!!! Outside of the san juans CO, can't shake a stick at all the ice CLOSE to the city up and down the Wasatch. Maple, sanqu, provo, lil cot, etc....
As fer the drive times others are chatting about it's all personal. I love the quick assess here inthe front range, but I covet the weather and splitters of the seirra.
We are all lucky bastards to live in the west. nuff said. |
FLAG |
By Shannon Moore
From CA
Dec 9, 2009
| Tradster wrote: All you pro-Cali folks assume you'll drive right into good old Yosemite without being told, 'Sorry, no room left.' Especially because you had to leave a 1 AM to avoid traffic, but now the place is filled for the weekend and you get turned away. Plus, show me when traffic is ever 'good' around the Bay area...all pretty sweet places with plenty less crowds than Yosemite, unless you go up to Toulumne Meadows, which will add another hour to your drive time.
Uh, what? The Valley fills up? In the fall? And we leave at 1 AM? That's a pretty amusing story. We typically leave around 7ish, it'll maybe be slow in a couple spots through the Central Valley, but otherwise generally ok (this is not hell, there is not 24/7 traffic). We hit Hardin or one of the other roads outside the park by 10:30 or so, sleep there, drive 30-45 minutes to the Valley in the morning. Camping reservations aren't hard to get outside of the summer, and you can always drive back to Hardin for the night if the campgrounds are full. Pretty sure nobody's ever been "turned away" at the gate... The crowds are pretty minimal in the spring/fall, and the driving time to Tuolumne is comparable to the Valley, plus the seasons are fairly different. No it's not ideal - there are way too many rules, and having dogs is tough, but it's not nearly as bad as you're trying to make it sound.
Tradster wrote: Don't necessarily disagree, but just curious where you've had the chance to climb in Colorado...
I was mostly exaggerating for the sake of the argument, and because I really do love the climbing in CA, but I've climbed at Rifle a couple times and bouldered at one of the areas outside of Fort Collins while visiting friends. Honestly, when Utah and Wyoming are between here and there, it's hard to want to drive all the way to Colorado. I have friends who have moved to CO recently, and while they love the proximity of climbing and the ease of having it be a part of daily life, they've said nothing out there compares to the Sierra and Yosemite, or southern Utah for that matter. |
FLAG |
By Andrew Gram
Administrator
From Denver, CO
Dec 9, 2009
| I think Salt Lake has either place beat, especially from a road tripping perspective. If you ski, it isn't even close. |
FLAG |
By Tradster
From Phoenix AZ
Dec 9, 2009
| You Cali people are so funny. That's about the second time you all have said if it's too crowded we camp outside of the park. You have proved my point. I have been turned away from that park on a crowded summer weekend...that was a long time ago. I doubt things have changed. Ft Ord was four hours from the Valley, so I imagine it takes a bit longer from the Bay area.
I know the Front Range can have bad traffic, but you guys and gals there can be climbing in an hour or less on plenty of crags. Show me any really decent climbing within an hour of the Bay area. IT DOESN'T EXIST!
So you Bay area supporters can gym climb during the week (and that's all you'll be doing on a week night there)...in Boulder you can climb on real rock during the week cuz the drive is short. Not so in Frisco. |
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Dec 9, 2009
| Andrew Gram wrote: I think Salt Lake has either place beat, especially from a road tripping perspective. If you ski, it isn't even close.
+1
I'm also curious how it happened that Shannon's post has my "where did you climb?" question in Tradster's quote! |
FLAG |
By EMT
Dec 9, 2009
| Tradster wrote: You Cali people are so funny. That's about the second time you all have said if it's too crowded we camp outside of the park. You have proved my point. I have been turned away from that park on a crowded summer weekend...that was a long time ago. I doubt things have changed. Ft Ord was four hours from the Valley, so I imagine it takes a bit longer from the Bay area. I know the Front Range can have bad traffic, but you guys and gals there can be climbing in an hour or less on plenty of crags. Show me any really decent climbing within an hour of the Bay area. IT DOESN'T EXIST! So you Bay area supporters can gym climb during the week (and that's all you'll be doing on a week night there)...in Boulder you can climb on real rock during the week cuz the drive is short. Not so in Frisco.
I've lived 4 summers in yose and gone multi times every year and never seen heard of people being turned away that's crazy. What evidence to you cite other than personal experience?
Your points about the bay area climbing are right on. No one is saying it's got climbing close? are they? |
FLAG |
By Tradster
From Phoenix AZ
Dec 9, 2009
| EMT wrote: I've lived 4 summers in yose and gone multi times every year and never seen heard of people being turned away that's crazy. What evidence to you cite other than personal experience? Your points about the bay area climbing are right on. No one is saying it's got climbing close? are they?
Well, personal experience seems to be pretty good evidence...I wasn't hallucinating at the time. Well, part of the discussion revolves around which is a better place to live for climbing, right? So, I take it having to drive hours for good climbing is equal to driving less than an hour to good climbing? I hope your vehicle runs on air, so it doesn't cost you too much. You Cali folks are into that car thingy in a big way, I guess. |
FLAG |
By Evan Simons
From Boulder CO
Dec 9, 2009
| EMT wrote: What evidence to you cite other than personal experience?
Usually that's the best kind...? |
FLAG |
By Shawn Mitchell
From Broomfield
Dec 9, 2009
| Shannon Moore wrote: I have friends who have moved to CO recently, and while they love the proximity of climbing and the ease of having it be a part of daily life, they've said nothing out there compares to the Sierra and Yosemite, or southern Utah for that matter.
Don't really disagree. But there are classic, aesthetic, and geologically solid routes in the South Platte, Lumpy Ridge and (Wyo) Vedauvoo within 90 minutes of my Broomfield home. Though, it's hard to even make myself drive to those places when Eldorado & Boulder Canyons, the Flatirons, and Clear Creek Canyon are within 30 minutes... |
FLAG |
By Evan Simons
From Boulder CO
Dec 9, 2009
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: Don't really disagree. But there are classic, aesthetic, and geologically solid routes in the South Platte, Lumpy Ridge and (Wyo) Vedauvoo within 90 minutes of my Broomfield home. Though, it's hard to even make myself drive to those places when Eldorado & Boulder Canyons, the Flatirons, and Clear Creek Canyon are within 30 minutes...
I think the thread can end right here. |
FLAG |
By Tradster
From Phoenix AZ
Dec 9, 2009
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: Don't really disagree. But there are classic, aesthetic, and geologically solid routes in the South Platte, Lumpy Ridge and (Wyo) Vedauvoo within 90 minutes of my Broomfield home. Though, it's hard to even make myself drive to those places when Eldorado & Boulder Canyons, the Flatirons, and Clear Creek Canyon are within 30 minutes...
I agree that the Sierras can't be beat...Palisades, Temple Crag, The Needles, Lovers Leap, Yosemite are all top notch places, so no argument from me concerning those climbing venues. Personally, the only place I've been that rivals the Sierras was the Chamonix area of the French Alps. |
FLAG |
By EMT
Dec 9, 2009
| Evan Simons wrote: Usually that's the best kind...?
For FOX news maybe!?!?!
best kind? what. the dude said something that I and others had never EVER heard. On him to cite some fact to support it.
". I have been turned away from that park on a crowded summer weekend...that was a long time ago. I doubt things have changed."
The part I doubt things have changed? that part is even more crazy! Dude doesn't even get out much and thinks he's got the world figured out so it must be that way?
I guess I'm way off to travel so much when I could just sit back and know how it was and how it is!?!?! Convenient. |
FLAG |
By Shannon Moore
From CA
Dec 9, 2009
| Shawn Mitchell wrote: +1 I'm also curious how it happened that Shannon's post has my "where did you climb?" question in Tradster's quote!
Forgot to change the name in the html code - oops! And you're right, I'd probably be pretty happy with those areas you mentioned within 30 minutes of my house, it would just be hard to give up CA granite. Plus all my family is here.
And Tradster, it's usually less than 4 hours to the Valley from here, not longer as you're claiming - trust me, I drive that road a lot. And why are you so worked up about us camping outside the park if the campgrounds are full? It's worth it to us to climb there.
Nobody here is arguing that there is good climbing within an hour of the bay - as I said in my first post, if you live here you will likely be climbing in the gym during the week, and you will be driving a lot to get to good climbing on the weekends. But what amazing climbing it is! It's not easy though, and I'm definitely considering other places to live, as much as I love it here. I've had enough of gym climbing to last me a lifetime. |
FLAG |
|
[ Forums > General Climbing ]
RSS Feed
