mattp

Are you suggesting that the North Ridge of Mount Baker or the Fischer Chimneys are not alpine routes? On the Fischer Chimneys, most people rope up for the glacier travel. Perhaps you would not. For those who did, a 70m or 60m rope would be no better than a 50m rope. I believe the same is true for the N. Ridge of Mount Baker. Most Cascade alpine climbs involve a lot of walking, scrambling, and other type of travel besides just climbing straight up and the advantage of linking pitches or making longer pitches is generally fairly small - and in my opinion generally offeset by the disadvantages of carrying and using the longer rope. Of the literally thousands of technical alpine climbs or non-technical alpine climbs that include some glacier travel listed in Beckey's guidebooks, I bet a longer rope would be beneficial on less than 5% of them. I acknowledged that on some alpine rock routes such as those described in NOLSe's sample trip reports, particularly those involving a fairly vertical or direct line on a multi-pitch climb, the longer ropes may be an advantage. (These are really more like cragging than what you or I would call "alpine climbs" but I didn't see it necessary to make such an observation.) The same might be true on longer ice faces or gully ice climbs that require an ongoing belay, but there are few if any of these in the Cascades.

As you note, NOLSe, it is largely a matter of style. For speed-climbing on the kind of alpine rock routes you listed, linking pitches can be advantageous. If AJ strives to climb like Mark Twight, he might want to start out with 70 mm ropes but I think that the mastery of other techniques is probably a highier priority than learning to link pitches without creating a mess. I bet if our friend Scott goes out and performs my same experiment on the West Ridge of Forbidden, the Fischer Chimney route on Shuksan, and the North Ridge of Mount Baker (a representation of three very different types of alpine climbs, but an easier selection than my first menu) he will get the same result: very few belays avoided and few if any rappels reduced. For sure he'll want to have that 60m rope if he goes after modern routes at the crags, though.

I believe that 60 m ropes are rarely an advantage in alpine climbing. Climb the North Ridge of Stuart, the Beckey route on Nooksack Tower and Liberty Ridge on Rainier - once using 50mm ropes and a second time using the 60's. My guess is that you will add no more than a handful of belay's with the 50's, you will not have added more than one or two rappels max, and you will have spent significantly less less time untangling them while also carrying 20% less rope. Admittedly, I have the 60's, though, because I worry about the once every ten days of climbing where I want the exra length. However, for me that is almost always in a cragging situation, not alpine. If you use a single rope for cragging, I'd buy a 60m single rope, and a pair of 50m doubles.

I prefer the Edelweiss Stratos, 9 mil (it might be 8.8). It is actually rated to hold a fall as a single rope over an edge (though not rated for use that way - whatever that means - I think it is something to do with the NUMBER of falls they can hold). They cost twice as much as cheap ropes, but they have a stiff handle which means they seem to tangle less than others, and they are tough. I sometimes DO use mine as a single. I agree about the 50m length except that there are increasing numbers of climbs that have been set with anchors made for '60's and I keep worrying that I will find my 50m too short. I can only remember a handful of time s where I ever really wanted the longer rope, as compared to hundreds of times where I've carried the longer rope only to be carrying extra cord. A lot of sport climbs are set for the longer ropes, though.

Scott does have a point here. Anybody who voted to authorize the use of force knew damn well that Bush was hell bent on invading Iraq and that he was going to use that authority unless Saddam completely folded. And I don't think anybody thought Saddam was going to completely fold. Yes, the Democrats suck. They have pretty much failed to set forth a clear policy and stick to it since Newt Gingrich kicked their ass. Kerry and all the others voted for the war powers because they felt backed into a corner and couldn't see a way out of it but to crumble. However, the fact remains that Bush and his buddies lied about what they were doing and Kerry's speech quoted here actually makes sense - if you took Bush and his buddies at face value. As I said, nobody could realistically have done so but, never-the-less, the Kerry fantasy here was vastly more defensible then was the Bush lie. In my opinion, fantasy visions of how things ought to be are better than flat out lies about how things are. Bush had a preconceived program and set out to deceive, but there was an outside chance that the policy endorsed by Kerry and others might actually have come to be and the idea of working nwith our allies to put pressure on Saddam, while waiving a big stick at him, is in fact the policy that most Americans probably would have, did, and might still support (even knowing about the lack of WMD).

I don't think the step up between, say, 5.11a and 5.11b is as much as that between 5.8 and 5.9, but the difference between 5.10a and 5.11a is probably greater. A comparison with other rating systems may be helpful in answering this question: web page

Shawn old chap, You went on Internet bulletin boards to make accusations that other climbers' lied about climbing and skiing Mt. Robson. In the case of Colin, it appears you may not have carefuly read his report before you called B.S. on it, and my guess is you didn't attempt to contact him before you elected to call him a liar. In the case of the Dirtbag skiers, you could have found out that they skied Robson's north face in a ten minute search using Google - even with a slow modem - and that the "rumors" were true. I have complained of abusive rancor and pointless personal attack on this board for years, but one should not complain about it where they are challenged for making unsubstantiated or indefensible pronouncements. Carry on, my good man. Tally ho.

In this case, I'd say the "last ascent" may be more prestigious than the "first ascent." If I can dig up the article I'll scan a picture and post it here.

A guy named Pete Reagan wrote an article about this for Summit Magazine called "The Hag" or something like that. It had some spectacular photos showing Pete or his buddies on their climb, near the top, with a gaping vent or something, maybe smoke... I don't remember but it was impressive never-the-less. They climbed it in April 1980, after it was well under eruption and closed for climbing. The big blast was May 18. This was likely the last ascent.

Looking for a reference about Ptor Spricenieks and Trevor Jungen's skiing the North Face of Robson, I stumbled upon this: article with quote

Shawn- I've talked to one of the two guys who skied the North Face. I believe that they actually DID do it. Your fellow who finally made it skied the Kain Face. The Vancouver Sun summed it up this way: Reprint You are the first person I have ever heard to cast doubt on their accomplishment. Do you have any other basis for your statement, other than "it's impossible?" What's your take on the moon landing back in 1969?

I just scanned the text from the debate, and it may have been this excerpt: I remember thinking that he was talking to a teleprompter, but I suppose it could have been that he was tlking to Leher. However, seeing as how he had just scored a direct hit and was definitely taking a pause at that moment, it makes much more senst to me that he was responding to the voice in his ear. I don't know what color the lights were, though, and maybe Lehrer (off camera) signalled him that his time was up.

Sorry, I got all confused and stuff because the same link about the presidential wire was linked in two threads. But during last week's debate there was one point where he paused and said "no, I'm going to answer this" - or something like that - and then he made a statement. I can't remember just what he said but I got the immediate and disctinct impression that he was responding to a teleprompter. Would any of you be surprised by this?

During last week's debate there was one point where he paused and said "no, I'm going to answer this" - or something like that - and then he made a statement. I can't remember just what he said but I got the immediate and disctinct impression that he was responding to a teleprompter.

I'm with you there, Mr. K, but I also think that going out alone and relying solely upon one's own judgment and gumption can contribuite to becoming a proficient climber. Sometimes we will over-estimate a route and other times we will under-estimate one (or our own combineation of skill, energy and confidence on a particular day). The idea is to not get killed and not to have to call for a rescue in the process.

Dru- I'm well aware of the definition of "4th class." It does not mean terrain where some would scramble and others would call for a rope - that is "3rd class." Properly speaking, the term "4th class" was defined as terrain where you use a belay but not intermediate points of protection. I am also aware of the realities on the ground. I believe you are too, and I would be EXTREMELY surprised if there had never been something that the book said was 4th class where the great Dru did not think he wanted a quick belay. And I bet he didn't always go wimpering home and say "I should have lowered my commitment." Blake alreay wrote "Disclaimer to the obvious I know I shouldn't solo it if I'm not confident I can climb it but its nice to have a saftey net." Yours was the off track "remark."

I've climbed a few things ropeless where, at least at some point, I wished I had a rope. I've also done some significant climbs with a self belay, and been happy with the result. "If you need some kind of pro, perhaps you should have chosen a third class route instead" sounds just a tad bit bragadocious to me.

I'm just armchair quarterbacking here, but it has been snowing on and off up there for the last several weeks and The snow level is supposed to bounce back and forth between 5,000 and 10,000 the next several days. Even with some rain up there you are probably not looking at the most optimum conditions for soloing -- particularly if it snows at the 5,000 foot to 7,000 foot level this weekend, and particularly if there is wind with it. You may well face just about the most dangerous conditions for travelling unroped on that glacier that you could choose, with a winning combination of the most possible crevasses and the least substantial snow bridges of the year.

I believe she has been thought divisive and questionnable as an administrator but I don't know about "the dirt." I think, too, that the insurance companies played hardball with her when she was Insurance Commissioner and tried to force some significant changes in health insurance in the State.

I'm with you here, Mr. X. I've seen other commentators make the point that ChucK did, but I think they are wrong. The question asked by Eiffel specifically referred to Cheney's "family situation," and he danced around specific mention of his daughter's status because the REPUBLICAN PARTY has sought to make this a divisive issue in this 2004 campaign year. For Edwards NOT to clarifiy what Cheney's "family situation" was, exactly, would have been to (1) avoid the obvious, (2) cower to the Republicans' manipulative campaign strategy, and (3) allow them to continue to try to have it both ways. I'm not saying the Democrats aren't hypocrites here, too, but the Republicans made this a campaign issue, not Kerry and Edwards.

Agreed. Even the slower parties that we may call "bumblies" "belong" on a route just as much as anybody else. The issues here involve how we deal with it when we encounter someone else who is somehow "in our way." About twenty years ago, in Yosemite, I once took a beginning climber up The Nutcracker. Wayne had never been on a real rock climb before, and didn't know how to deal with the gear - so he fumbled a bit. I had climbed the route barefoot just a week before, and I wasn't slow with the leading, but mever-the-less our combined speed was less than the party behind us wanted. They never asked to pass, but accosted me in the parking lot of the Yosemite Lodge that evening. When I pointed out that they had not even bothered to ask if they could pass, they replied that I had no right to take a beginner up that climb in the first place. I said that Wayne and I had just as much of a right to be on that climb as they did.

I don't know what "knowing about them" has to do with it, but this statement is equally true, I think, if turned completely around. Any amount of respect the following party owes the leading one is matched by the same amount of respect, and in fact more care, that the leading party owes the following one. Like I said, though, it all depends on the situation and, for example, I hope you do not take this attitude on longer climbs in an alpine setting. Or, even at Smith Rock, if you are on a "classic" and have a member of your party who is completely over their head so you are taking way longer on a route than is "standard."

Mr. Thrill, I realize that many climbers feel as you do, and I have seen where people have created real problems trying to pass another party in the middle of a climb. However, if the situation is handled properly it is often possible for one party to pass another - even in the middle of a pitch, with no problem. It all depends on the situation and the climbers involved, but I'd be very angry if you took a completely inflexible attitude about this when your party was clogging some classic and crowded climb on a sunny Saturday.

It sounds to me as if they were more than polite. They wanted to climb Karate Crack but asked the other party if they were wanting it first? Then they waited elsewhere? Then they didn't start up it 'till the follower was almost done with it? I'm sorry but it seems to me as if the other party ought to go somewhere else besides the most crowded area in the busiest climbing Park in the State if they can't handle other people sharing a climb with them. Most of us would prefer to have all the ***** routes to ourselves, but the fact is that we don't. If you go somewhere that is crowded, be prepared to be patient and friendly when someone is in your way, or comes too close behind for your own sense of comfort, but we really don't have much to complain about unless they are really being aggressive or dangerous or seriously inconsiderate about it. Allowing someone to go first and then waiting patiently is not being aggressive, dangerous, or seriously inconsiderate.

Two folding chairs and a Marmot long underwear top. Send me a private message if they are yours.