mattp

Kurt Cobain

Sorry, Mike. But it might be a good idea to do what he says. I'd say you ought to look into a calcium delivery syetem: or maybe?

"We're not lost" (zero visibility, raining sideways, high on some volcano).

"You got a lighter?"

You got that right, Bronco. If it is sub-zero, you have absolutely no need to wear a raincoat. A windbreaker, maybe...

Ouch. Is THIS in your dead genre?

Actually, if we are talking about Colonial Creek, it snows there fairly often and some years there is a real snowpack there. However, it usually melts before any time when they are likely to be working on opening Washington Pass.

Scott, I don't dispute that Moore may be unethical. However, his movies are quite obviously a blend of documentary and drama and I don't think he is really trying to pass them off as otherwise. Now the Jessica Lynch story - that is pure fiction presented as truth.

You get wet digging them if you are wearing goretex but not if you have real rain gear. Also, as I indicated in another thread, I rarely ever see people dig one in a place where the snow falls out the door rather than having to be shovelled out - this dramatically decreases the work involved. For a short night as in on a weekend peak climb, though, I agree that the cave is probably not worth it.

I think you are the one with attention deficit here, CJF - I believe the comment about breathability was in reference to the use of an umbrella. Perhaps you twitch when holding the umbrella, too.

Indeed. [head hung in sorrow gremlin] These guys aren't dead, though, are they?

What planet is this? This is not the planet of life. It's after the end of the world!

From now 'till about Feb 15th, I'm with Dru in that if there is a hotel or hut available, that is where I wanna be. It is cold and dark outside for many hours at this time of year and even if the long hours in the sack don't get you down, the inability to dry everything out probably will. Second choice is a snowcave over a tent, though, particularly if someone else digs it so I don't have to get MY clothes wet (my friend KJ is the man to have on your team). But in the Spring months when most people do their "winter" camping, and if I'm camping at or below treeline, a tarp erected over a show hole with benches is the way to go! For winter camping in particular, a tent is my last choice.

Have you guys hear that Karma album that he's raving about? I actually think it's pretty cool, but I bet it would be a tough sell here on cc.com.

Plastic rubber is the way to go, Ray. Pair it with the lightest windbreaker you can find, and you've got "Scottish goretex." Depending on where I'm gong, I use either the army surplus rubber with a buckle hood adjustment or a Columbia Sportswear (the latter is cheap and relatively light stuff from REI that won't stand up to serious bushwacking but it will hold out ANY kind of downpour). Most of the time, including even a wet Cascades snow/slop storm, I can get away with just the windbreaker if I've treated it with water repellent and the combo is both waterproof and breathable. Screw the pit zips - when you're getting the full-on car wash treatment you don't want 'em (if you REALLY want 'em, you could rip or cut the underarm seam and sew in a zipper -- I've done that in the past but I don't bother with it anymore). Scotish goretex rox! (For just plain hiking, an umbrella is not a bad idea either.)

Tilman Right up there with Harding's "Downward Bound."

I think there is an analogous situation with climbing, Mr. K. If you think about the more dangerous routes around here, anyway -- mountain routes like the Willis Wall or the Price Glacier where you spend a lot of time below seracs, or scary rock leads like DDD or the first pitch of Heart of the Country, I don't think you'll find many beginners on them. Yes, relative beginners will take some risks with seracs such as you encounter on the Kautz Glacier Route, but the exposure here is extremely brief compared to the Willis Wall or the Price. And yes, relative beginners may run it out on the some fourth class choss heap like, perhaps, Mount Thompson, but I think that by far the vast majority of routes that you and I would recognize as dangerous are undertaken by relatively strong climbers and, when it comes to leading the scary pitches, the more experienced climber of the team is just about always handed the rack. We've been speculating about whether, on average, relatively easy routes kill more people because they are more popular or because they tend to be popular with bumblers or because they tend to actually be more dangerous in an objective sense, but I am pretty sure some statistically valid survey would reveal that those who knowingly take risks are more often more experienced (in the case of your tree trimmer's example you are talking about knowingly taking risks, aren't you?).

That happened in our 9-person cave, too. It is the only time I have ever seen THAT extreme amount of height loss, but I have certainly seen caves lose headroom over the course of a few days plenty of times.

You are right about the drips - you need to make your roof as smooth as possible and a nice clean dome shape or you are likely to have drips on your sleeping bag, but I do not use a bivouac sack or anything to protect my down bag. I have never seen a puddle inside a snowcave -- are you for real about the drainage ditches, Bug? I ALWAYS cook inside the snowcave, and not in front of the door. I pretty much always poke a ski pole or ice axe through the roof (I don't remember having to use multiple vents) but I will often plug it up with a snow ball to reduce heat loss overnight, after stoves and candles are out (not a good idea if there is a blizzard outside and the door may be blocked). Ventilation is rarely a problem unless you have a major blizzard outside, though I did once build a big snowcave and we had nine people and four stoves in there and ventilation was definitely a problem in that one.

If I read it correctly, "the example" assumed NO pro. Are you worried about your anchor construction skills, too? Do what you want, but if I'm climbing with you, Dru, just remember that I'd prefer you to reel me in then to run the calculation and decide I'd rather have the factor 2 fall than the 2.25 or whatever. I'll take my chances that the extra force may cause my gear to blow. OK?

The fall factor analysis does not take into account the braking effect introduced by whether the person may be sliding down a slab or bouncing off ledges or whatever. It is a useful calculation, but in my view it does not answer very much in the context of this debate. Numbers suck. To borrow a word from Forrest in another thread, I'm of the "gestalt" school of fall/danger analysis. No equation that I am aware of can account for friction against the rock, different diameters of rope, different belay devices, whether or not the belayer is bigger or smaller than the leader, how far out on the lead the poor bastard is, .... Wait a second, here's the equation: Distance lead from belay (D) divided by length of runout (L) minus coarsness of rock © plus the rock temperature coefficient (rtf) times the rope diameter (rd) less the average size of ledges bounced off (aslbo) times the square route of the belaying technique cubed (srbtc) over the different weight of the climber and belayer (c-b) minus the amount of rope to be reeled in ®, or (D/L - C) + (rtf x [rd-<aslbo x sqrt{srbtc x srbtc x srbtc - c-b}) - R Isn't science great?

Dru - Cascade may be one of the most dangerous climbs around, but I'm not sure that proves or even necessarily supports your suggestion that gaper climbs are generally more dangerous and deadly than serious climbs -- if that really was your suggestion in the first place. I bet that, even on Cascade, it has a great deal to do with the way in which said newbies are more likely to manage the dangers of the route in addition to the "objective" hazards it contains. But then, I'm not sure you really said that gaper climbs are generally more dangerous but, rather, that more accidents occur on those climbs. As much as I might like to, I can't argue with that.

I agree with you there, Dru, that a simple browse of ANAM shows lots more reports of accidents on technically easy routes than on technically difficult ones. However, what about deaths and what about exposure? Is it true that way more people have been killed on Professor than Slipstream if you compare the number of ascents with the number of deaths on each? If you compare to the number of climbers who climb these routes, is it even true that the rate of injuries is greater on Professor? I'd guess that "gaper routes" may be more likely to hurt people, but I doubt they are anywhere near as likely to kill you. My friends who have been killed or seriously hurt while climbing have been pretty experienced climbers and none of them were on what I would call a "gaper route."

You got a problem with my friend? Good point: your mindset and your communication with your partner are key to survival. Unless you are expecting a climb that you can solo, most people choose their partners carefully if they are going to go "fast and light" and being "psyched" for the endeavor is nearly as important as being "qualified" for it.

In certain mountaineering situations it might be safer to climb alone than with a partner, I suppose, but I don't think unroped rock climbing can really be said to be safe. What kind of "stats" did Meyers present that showed soloists didn't get the chop very often? Even if relatively few soloists are killed, that might not support your assertion that it is a safe practice -- the question would have to be whether, for a given number of hours of risk exposure, or for any particular climb, would the average climber be more or less likely to be killed. Even if you thought you were being careful once upon a time I doubt that, viewed in this context, one could argue that soloing is anywhere near as safe as roped climbing (that is what we're talking about, isn't it?).