mattp

On the BD website I saw that it said they had four different configurations. Maybe that is where Lummox got the idea:

Actually, aren't they designed to be placed three different ways, Rod? I believe they have different widths for both of the different tilts to the normal orientation, and then a larger dimension if placed end-to-end.

Dru makes a good point about the hex's being just as solid as a cam (or more so in some respects) but I'm not sure about the weight assertion -- didn't somebody look it up and show that cams are as light as hex nuts in middle to large sizes? Anyway, I find that I am often more confident of a cam placement when I shove it into some dirt-filled crack that I have just excavated behind what may be an expanding flake. Whether I am right to place any confidence in what is really a piece of crap, well one could argue that point. And I don't remember what was the outcome when the technogeeks debated whether a nut or a camp put more outward force on that loose flake.

A small alpine rack for me usually consists of six or eight small stoppers and maybe a few tcu's or aliens, maxing out at about one inch or so. On a granite climb, I might add a red camelot and leave behind some of the tiny stuff. In the winter, I'd bring a couple of pins. I sometimes carry three ice screws for some schrund crossing or something, but I'm assuming you are talking about a predominantly rock rack in your initial inquiry. I don't find much use for pickets, though every time I say this I get four or five responsive posts arguing for how threat they are. For slings, I carry shoulder length ones and maybe a double-shoulder-length one for throwing around a large block or tree.

Yep. Seriously. They had information about the reroute up at the boulder field and stuff like that. It was not where you'd go to get to last year's log crossing, though, and it didn't stop ME from wandering around in the woods for ten minutes in the morning.

CJF- Go back and look at my post about 10 entries up. You'll see that I was referring to using the poles for kick and glide touring - which on my ski outings pretty much only happens when going slighttly downhill. Maybe you have enough energy/strength to kick and skate up hill or on the level with your mountaineering setup and a pack on, but I don't -- at least not for very far.

Well, yeah, there's that. But it even has a bulletin board and everything!

I'd call that Eldorado Creek approach pretty much of a trail, Mr. K. I don't think I'd say the same for Roush Creek, but I've never been that way.

The distinction between an "inside bowline" and an "outside bowline" is not know to most people. I'm not sure if I can explain it much better than Thinker did but if you tie a bowline and look at the tail end coming out of the knot, it can either be inside the loop that you have created or outside it - with both variations looking and feeling like a bowline. Mr. E may never have made the mistake of tying the "outside bowline" but in any knot class you will be told the "inside bowline" is better. I'm not sure, but it may be that we have all been told the inside bowline is better precisely because of where the tail runs rather than the fact that the knot is actually stronger that way. RuMR is on the right track here, I'd say. Strength is not the issue for your tie-in knot -- the possibility for knot failure and ease of tying/untying, and management of the tail, and things like that are much more of a concern.

There is a gate at a small "borrow pit" that seems to me was about at the mile post that you suggest, Paco, and you are right that it is really not all that far of a road walk from there to the Eldorado Creek trailhead.

In your thread, Paco said you can drive to within a mile of the Eldo Creek trailhead.

We'd probably vote for that gas tax here in Seattle sometime, Catbird. I never saw a tax levy I didn't like.

Be careful there, Jon. A bike racing friend of mine was training on Lake Washington Boulevard one time, and he angered some kids who came back and whacked him with some kind of bat.

I learned to ski in Massachusetts. My distinct impression is that they don't have any monopoly on icy snow on the East Coast, though. Even at Jackson I once encountered a five hundred foot high drop that was bluish ice.

ehmmic- the snow you will encounter in the backcountry is a completely different animal from what you area used to after skiing in ski areas. When it is deep, it is often bottomless rather than the more common eight (or even sixteen) inches over a hard base on a good day at the ski hill. When it is hard, it is often ice rather than some kind of "packed powder." And then there are a myriad variations of breakable crust, slush, slop, refrozen avalanche debris, bombed out woods, ..... Be prepared for some new experiences, but I would think you can head for the hills and probably have a decent time without thinking you need ski lessons all over again.

The grips on the flicklock ARE comfortable. I am curently using a pair and I have not found them to be as foolproof as suggested above - if the locks are adjusted so that I can easily undo them they don't grab the pole as well as I'd like, and I have pulled the wrist strap off by catching the pole on a tree and now it won't stay on the pole very well. For me, there are pluses and minuses for both and the next pair of adjustable poles I buy will probably be whatever is cheapest. Meanwhile, I'm thinking I might go back to trying the fixed length again.... Cracked is right, of course, longer for up hill and shorter for down hill is generally not a bad thing thought like I said, the time that I REALLY want longer poles is when skiing gently downhill, not up.

Icy snow at a ski area????

Sorry to ruin your put-downs with some discussion there, Klenke. By the way: you couldn't climb your way out of a paper bag, you suck - and you swallow. Better now?

I disagree with you there, Al. References to "you better take tampons" or whatever are offered on this board as a put-down of the targettd person, with the insult being that they are some kind of coward or crybaby or whatever. I don't think there has ever been such a reference that was offered in a spirit of the celebration of any positive quality of women or of the (male or female) target of the post. As to whether his joke was funny or not, that is a different matter. It is certainly true that boys will be boys and one may argue that they thought it was funny or that it really wasn't all that deeply offensive, or "lighten up -- it's only spray."

Did the Leavenworth station say what they meant, Lammy? Did they close that Eightmile road less than a week after opening it?

It's looking as if we might be able to see the sky tonight. Cool!

Forrest - I agree with just about everything you said. My main point was that fashion or image concerns may lead some people to think helmets are cool at the ski area whereas they are dorky at exit 38 (and for most of us, I think the helmet is probably more important on the crag than on the ski hill). My second point was that, for the kinds of accidents where some people are trying to suggest a helmet would have made a difference - a high speed collision with a lift pole or a tumble off a cliff, the helmets are of limited help. As I indicated already, I agree with you that wearing a helmet in a downhill ski area is easy, probably not uncomfortable, and might make a difference. I do not criticize anyone for wearing a ski helmet but, rather, I am suggesting we think about why we make the decisions that we do. That is all.

Screw lock poles are OK, and not difficult to maintain. I've been using twist tightening adjustable poles for twenty years and have only once broken one. Water gets inside and the screw mechanisms get corroded, and the plastic thingy that grips the insides of the poles gets polished so they fail to stick after a while, but you can rehab the mechanisms as follows: 1. pull the poles apart 2. clean up the threads on the screw mechanism with a piece of steel wool and lubricate it with bike lube or something 3. run steel wool in and out the barrel of the pole on a stick (like cleaning a gun barrel) 4. rough up the plastic thingy so it will grip the barrel of the pole by "sanding" (gouging it, really) with some 50 grit sandpaper. Good as new. I find the flicklock poles difficult to adjust sometimes. Maybe I'm just weak. Beater poles are good. I strongly agree with the recommendation to use some beater poles in the ski area. How often do you need to adjust the pole length when downhill skiing anyway? Get a pair of fixed-length poles from the Salvation Army and you won't care if you drop one off the chair lift or break it in a treewell or have it stolen at lunch time. I'm not sure I really need adjustable poles at all. Even in the backcountry, I am finding that I don't really adjust the pole length very often. I like being able to shrink the poles down for putting them into the car or putting them on my pack for some technical climbing, but on most outings I set the poles at about 135 cm and leave them that way, whether going up or down hill. The most frequent time I adjust the pole length otherwise is when touring out (down) a logging road --- longer poles are much better for trying to get some glide going in this situation. Some times I will adjust the poles to two different lengths when I'm going to do a long traverse or climb an endless set of switchbacks, but usually I don't bother. Probe Poles are questionnable. As noted above, your ski poles do not work very well as probes even if you have some fancy ones that screw together with the intended purpose being to use them as probes. I've used them this way as a tent pole for a megamid, but I've had them break when using them this way when it got windy because the connection mechnism probably wasn't designed for sheer strength.

Yeah. F'ing eh right. Catbird sucks donkeydicks, too.