mattp

Jason - I bet you are absolutely right about the cause of most crevasse falls in Washington. Because of our weather patterns, the bridges tend to sag before they get weak enough to collapse under a climber and they aren early always detectable (unlike, say, Alaska). I have put a foot through, but I have never heard of an experienced alpine climber actually falling into a crevasse in the Cascades, except after freshly fallen snow in early season. Has anybody here heard of such an incident? Mattp

For water-ice and mixed climbing such as might be required to reach a summit when the travel to and from the climbing was going to be quite lengthy, I have successfully used rigid crampons with flexible boots, both telemark ski boots and somewhat flexible hiking boots, and the rigid crampons gave me the support I needed for the technical climbing. However, you better use "vertical bar" crampons like Foot Fangs or Rambos if you are going to use them this way, and I am sure the manufacturer will not take responsibility if you break them. Also, I am sure it is not a good idea to try this for extended walking, as has been indicated above. For lower angled glacier travel, I agree that flexibility is preferable, and I would prefer hinged crampons with flexible boots. I believe the chief distinction in choosing those that will ball up less is to chose crampons without "vertical bars" (a fram that is oriented vertically). Duct tape does work, if it is relatively new. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 08-24-2001).]

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000811.html

I have heard of people who didn't like the looks of the glacier deciding it better to just drop down and cross below it. One buddy of mine told me he thought it faster to do it this way, rather than stop and set up for glacier travel. What do you think about this idea, Kyle, having just been there?

Practice may make perfect, but I believe that practice will prove to most people that, in reality, a single rescuer is going to be very hard pressed to get his unconcious buddy out of a crevasse. Try it when you are well rested and the conditions are perfect, and it is nearly impossible. Then imagine trying it with a lot of soft snow on the surface or when you are cold and tired. No disrespect, Jason, but I believe that if one truly wants to travel with a good margin of safety, a party larger than two is a good idea. I climb with two, but I realize the risk that I am taking.

I did the route many years ago, and although my memory is somewhat vague, I don't believe I had to contend with much vertical bushwacking. I took a variant that remained east of the crest of the lower buttress, all the way to the snow arete. It utilized a gully diverting left from that which most climbers take to reach the crest of the lower buttress, and after at most 300 feet of very friendly bushes, there were several hundred feet on the steepest grass slope I have ever been on, followed by some scrambling and a couple rope lengths of rock climbing to reach the buttress crest at the snow arete. I had no belay, and remember only a little bit of it being scary. Since then, I have been told that my route was "off route" but there were numerous old pitons on the hard part, and it may well be a good alternative if the "on route" variation is as bad as recent posts here have indicated. The descent from the top of Johannesburg has proven difficult for most parties. Everyone who has posted here found significant difficulties on the descent to the East. Way back when, I descended the south face which, although I would not recommend it, I was able to downclimb without any rappelling. In an earlier thread on this site, Wotan suggested the traverse west over the west peak and down the standard W. Peak route into a basin (almost entirely snow free in late season) from where one can climb over the ridge and descend north back into the main drainage.

There is enough vegetation on the cliff that, with the heavy rain we had this week, it will ooze for at least a day after the rain stops. However, Dreamer faces southeast so it will dry faster than might some of the other Darrington climbs (Silent Running tends to dry quickly, up until the last pitch). The lower portion of the route is pretty much free of moss and lichen and I've found that my shoes stick damn near just as well to wet rock as they do to dry rock -- if it is clean -- but if you add the slightest bit of moss or lichen, it gets slick real fast with even the slightest bit of moisture. If the sun comes out on Friday, it should be more or less OK by Saturday, and if the sun shines on Saturday, the rock will have had several hours of sun on it by the time you got higher up where the route receives less traffic and is dirtier.

Dan - You may be right about those guys, but Greg Markov studied under Fred Beckey for a while. So maybe the guidebook reference and the "beta" are part of a conspiracy. - Matt

Matt - In European Heaven, add that the lovers are Italian and the bankers are Swiss; in Hell it is the other way around.

A week ago I talked to some guys who had just come down from the climb and reported that it was in "top" condition. They said the chimneys were dry, there was some but not much "ice" at Winnie's Slide (I believe this is mis-marked on the 7.5 topo), and that crevasses presented little problem. The summit scramble is just that - a scramble. Ditto what DPS said, though I am not sure that a picket will do anything that you can't do with an ice axe.

Some of these posts have mentioned 4wd. I believe it is a nice feature, but it generally adds to the expense of a vehicle, usually reduces mileage, and is not at all necessary -- even if you are a back country skier. I currently own a 4wd, but I will not place much priority on that in my next vehicle. My previous 2wd pickup handled better and had a smoother ride, and it took me up all manner of logging roads, through just as much snow and ice or rocky ruts as my 4wd does. When I went somewhere with others in 4wd's, the 4wd drivers had the luxury of not having to take a run at rough spots but being able to creep over them, and when we got somewhere that was snowy or muddy they could turn around when I needed help from my friends. Also, they did not have to stop and put chains on when they were required on the highway (in the backcountry, they nearly always had to use chains any time I did). But we all got to the same place on any given day. Many will tell you they would never go back to 2wd but, in my opinion, clearance is a more significant issue than 4wd. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 08-21-2001).]

Most Cascade trailheads are accessed by gravel roads, with the majority of these being passable in just about any car. Some require higher clearance than a normal "street" car. Many of the roads have brush growing in along the edges, so if you worry about your paint job, you may occasionally be dismayed.

Michelle - For a light sweater or as an alternative expedition weight top, go to the salvation army and get some cashmere or merino (smart wool makes wool underwear that is pretty nice, too, but it costs real $). For more serious warmth, there are synthetics that are much lighter and more compact than fleece, and for real warmth, try down. - Mattp

The complete north ridge is a long climb and there are plenty of 4" cracks on it. The first or second pitch has a crack that is probably closer to 6" though I believe it flares so that a 4" piece might go in there, and I seem to recall a 3-4" crack on the third or fourth pitch. However, most of the climb is not very steep and the difficulties are generally short in duration so, depending on your comfort with running it out in an exposed location, I bet you could get away without a piece that large. Given the gear that you will probably have with you, however, the extra weight of a single 4" piece wouldn't be all that great and if you were tired by the time you got to the gendarme, you might be glad for it there too (even if somebody hasn't by then figured out how to claim their booty from that pitch). As to other gear recommendations, aside from a "normal" rack, I would advise carrying some VERY long runners. More important would be the consideration of whether or not or how much bivvy gear to bring (I bet most parties do not complete the climb and descent in one day). And you did not solicit this suggestion, but I would add that, in my opinion, the upper portion of the route is far more aesthetic and I would probably not go back to repeat the lower portion but I would gladly do the upper half again.

Like Twight, Tyson has sought public attention and therefore he has no right to expect anyone not to express their opinion of him. I don't pay much attention to Mike Tyson - I believe that my opinion would be valid and that I would have a right to express it -- even to publicize it. Of course, by doing so I might be opening myself up to criticism for expressing an uninformed opinion. And I don't see the morality or logic in suggesting that one is in no position to criticize their "superiors" -- if that is what you are saying. As a climber, you or anybody else have a right to your opinions and I bet you have some opinions regarding the style in which certain people climb as opposed to how others are doing the same climbs. You probably also have some opinions about whether somebody's actions may be self-serving, or whether a certain practice is environmentally responsible, or whatever. Consider this, which may be a silly example for a number of reasons -- does the fact that I'm not an expert with a chainsaw deny me the right to publicly criticize certain logging practices? How would that be different from saying that the fact that I might an not as good an alpine climber as Marc Twight means I cannot comment on how he conducts himself in public, whether I believe his writing is good or bad, or even whether his last climb was something that I admire or not?

Watch for climbers, some of whom may feel that you are in their way.

hikerwa- One does not need to be an accomplished climber to like or dislike what some climber does or says. Particularly in the case of Marc Twight, who has deliberately made a spectacle of himself over the years. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 08-20-2001).]

Fleblebleb is right. The Rambo's are not so good for general apine climbing although they are good for steep ice. If your boots are slightly soft, a rigid crampon can help make up for the loss of stiffness if you do want to climb some steep ice (I use the Rambo's with my telemark boots and the perform pretty well) but the lighter, horizontal oriented crampons are better for general mountaineering. Although you indicated you might prefer "step ins," you might consider some lighter ones, probably strap ons, if you aren't after waterfalls and other specialty climbing. The modern harness systems are pretty user-friendly, even if your fingers are cold.

I assure you. I am not pen. We who worship ourselves do not need to post under some other alias.

That Shoeller fabric is very water repellant, breathable, and stretchable, but it IS very expensive and the finish is not as durable as some fabrics. I would not wear it while dangling a lot of ice screws from your rack or while crawling through some manzanita brush.

I would think the N. Face would be a better choice for a solo, because it does not travel on a glacier. The crossing from the col is probably, if anything, safer to do alone and the steep wind roll at the top is much less serioius than many reports would have you think. I soloed it and I am not much of an ice climber. Despite the fact that it is in Nelson's book, my impression is that it is not crowded.

Beck started this thread with an account of meeting Mr. Pemberthy. In about 1975 or so, he began publishing his theory that taking antacids would help prevent the symptoms of "Acute Mountain Sickness, Type R" (R for Rainier, and the reference was to the fact that mountain climbers combine exertion with the rapid ascent to altitude). Doctors and physiologists argued with his blood chemistry theory, and in 1979 I worked on a study, funded by the Natoinal Science Foundation, wherein we took over 70 people up Mount Rainier to see if we could get them sick. Half took antacids and half took sugar pills. We didn't disprove the antacid theory, but we found no support for it. We also documented, for the first time, the correlation between lung volume and adaptation to altitude exposure. So I guess you could say we tried to chip away at the legend of Mr. Pemberthy, but the legend lives on. Not only was he responsible for the original MSR stove, but he made the first ice screws that could be screwed in with one hand and I believe he started the discussion of "positive pick angle" on ice axes. He also invented an ice climbing tool that was dismissed at the time but remarkably similar to one being sold by Patagonia now -- what is it, the "beak" or something?

I haven't been there recently, but the one time I climbed Maude N. Face was in late September. There were no significant late-season difficulties that I can recall. The traverse from the col was, as has been discussed in an earlier thread on this site, messy with a lot of loose rock but otherwise OK. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 08-16-2001).]

I was in Darrington Saturday, and again today. No flies either time. But Sunday, in the N. Cascades, the flies were out of control. So was that the day of the fly? How can it vary so much from one day to the next, with no apparent change in the weather?

Mike - I've already stated - in the rangers lie thread - that as far as I can tell you are an exceptional ranger. I, for one, would probably head your advice, rather than rejecting it out of hand as I would the advice or information I hear from so many other rangers. But tell us -- how did you convince the park management that you should actually encourage mountain climbing?