Tod

Definitely the MP3 player over the cell or GPS. A good map, compass, altimeter and the brain to use them are much lighter and more useful than a GPS. Now if your in the middle of the desert or the ocean a GPS has loads of use. The cell phone though can be usefull to tell the wife/girlfriend when your going to be a day or so late for those that may have loved ones that might freak out and call S&R when you don't really need it. Overall though, unnecessary weight...

Have you tested city water before? I thought it was very interesting in the research from the original post that San Francisco water had more giardia than the streams tested in the Sierras. I would have to agree that the testing methods used in the Sierras is probably not the most precise (since you can't pack in that much equipment), but if they were using the same testing methods to test San Francisco water and were consistently coming up with more giardia there I would expect that there is some truth. Either way, the research still tells me that high mountain water is GENERALLY just as safe as city water (and safer than San Francisco water). This would be particularly true during spring run off since cysts can only survive for as long as 2 to 3 months in cold water and they cannot tolerate freezing. Let giardia sit in a lake from the onset of winter and 5-6 months later when it thaws out it's generally or completely free of giardia. But then again, all it takes is one infected/carrier gumby or animal pooping in the lake. For me, I'll drink from most any high mountain stream, particularly if it's direct run off or from a spring. I've been doing this for 10 years on a regular basis and no problems. I'm not saying that all water is safe or that everybody should do what I do, but in my opinion (backed up by experience and independent research such as above), water filters for the alpinist are unneeded weight. Backpackers and lowland hikers are a different story....

Good info. The whole thing with PUR and Sweetwater pushing iodinated resin purifiers was really stupid to me. -They downgraded the filter from ~.3 microns to 1 micron because the iodinated resin was suppose to take care of everything that that the 1 micron filter couldn't take care of. -Then they used their research to prove their product (which when you actually read the researcher notes disproved their product). -When the sh*t hit the fan and it was publicly known that their filters didn't work they pulled them from the market (the Explorer and the Scout(?)) and like you say, couldn't figure out how to make the technology work effectively and safely. -In the end people were using filters that were as effective as the $5 piece of crap that you can buy from the Army Surplus store. Admittedly some of my info is old, outdated and hazy, but I still remember that a lot of the filter info was pushed on the public falsely and using fear as their greatest marketing tool...

Chlorine has little affect on giardia so the pool example does make perfect sense. This article is only one of many that have been published before (usually in a magazine) that try to prove the unlikliehood of contracting giardia from wilderness streams. The articles that usually end up with the most errors or false info are the articles published by the water filter industry. The fact is (in the fine print of these articles) many filters do not even protect you unless they are used in a specific way. Here was a good example: Pur Explorer (Pur Outdoor division is no longer in business so thankfully you can't buy this filter/purifier anymore): In their own research done by the U of Arizona proving their filter/purifier they stated that the filter was only effective if pumped at well less than one stroke/cycle per second and you filter the water TWICE and then LET IT SET. The reason..... the filter itself was not small enough to get the some things, so they relied on granulated iodine to pass the water across, however the water needed to pass over this iodine slowly in order to have contact time to be effective (and pass over it twice and then the water needed time to set to have have the proper contact time). This all was pretty ridiculous since nobody would do this, but what was even more ridiculous was that this filter (and some current "purifiers") included a carbon filter attachment that would filter out chemicals that would not even let the iodine have the contact time that was necessary to make the filter effective. So, by their own research, filters that are both a filter and purifier were/are not effective unless you go through all the extra work to make it work. This isn't my research, this was PUR's research (and Sweetwater's since they copied or co sponsored the same research and distributed it too). I don't suggest not treating your water, everyone can make up their own minds and decide on their own level concern. Me? The only time I've ever been sick was when I was using a water filter. I haven't filtered water in the last 10 years and have not been sick, just selective on where I get my water. I used to sell outdoor equipment and decided that the only things that did work for treating water were either iodine (if you let it disolve THEN sit for 20 minutes), or ceramic filters. Do the research, don't let the water filter industry scare you with their "research", and make up your own mind. But above all, practice good hygiene in the woods and your likely to stay healthy. Not the gospel, just an opinion that was formed after being blasted for years with research from the water filter industry.

I thought that there were at least two routes up the south face that had been climbed, but never repeated? The South Face is miles wide and there are numerous ribs that have been at least attempted (and I thought climbed). Maybe their route is the real South Face that has never been climbed....

Now that's a cool concept!

Access is via Big Beaver Creek and then cross it at Access Creek (the creek that drains due east of Luna). Head up Access Creek staying on the north side. There are places to camp at the head of the Access Creek basin just below Luna Peak. Cool area and a nice little 'schwack up Access Creek.

West Ridge of Stuart was fun. It's a lot more traversing than I normally like to do but still a blast. If you like blind navigating from ledges to gullies to couliours to ledges (and so on) and are ready to back track if you make a mistake then it's your type of climbing. Thankfully we didn't have to backtrack at all and we were able to do all but the last 30' free solo. The last 30' was something of a series of double crack, stemming and layback that probably was 5.7. Kind of a bummer when you get that far can see the summit right above you and then have to pull out the rope and gear up for only 30'.

I had a good view of Ingals this last weekend from the West Ridge of Stuart: Ingals looks to have very little to no snow on the route. The only snow I would expect your going to encounter is on the approach and there will be plenty. The lake is still frozen, however it looks ready to break up soon (maybe already). From our experience at 9,400' on Stuart having clean snow free rock will not be a problem....

I haven't been up there in a few years, but from our experience I would recommend going in around the June time frame than the July/August since the Bravo Glacier could be quite the icefall later in the year and hell to navigate through. The bergschrund on the Bravo could be quite nasty if you wait too late in the year also. The route up summit pyramid is fairly well protected from rime ice (feathers), we had more trouble with ice falling on us from the wind blowing through than actually navigating through the ice. In fact, all around us was pretty heavy rime ice, except for where the route was. Good luck and have fun. It's a super cool area, and the ski down from the Plummer Hut to the Tiedemann is pretty cool also...

Don't forget Burgundy Spire! I second the vote for N Ridge of Stuart, that's a great route, but make sure you do it complete, not starting in the middle from the glacier. N. Butt of Fury is classic but that's a bit more mixed mountaineering.

There wasn't much of a view of the North Ridge. However, from what we could see the steeper sections of the north side of Stuart, that side of the mountain seems to be mostly snow free. When we ventured out onto the north side from the upper West Ridge it was pretty clean with only snow sticking to gulleys below. The climb from the glacier to the North Ridge notch would probably hold the most snow, after that it's probably okay. If it's not good now it'll probably be good real soon!

Nice job. I saw your tracks on Monday when I went in for the same route. There was group of 5 who climbed Cashmere on Monday but I never saw them. I must have passed them in the trees. There was also another group that stated in the register at the summit that they were going to ski the North Face of Cashmere but there were no tracks that I could see. Too bad, it would have been a good ski... Good conditioning hike/climb... Beautiful day on Monday. Warm and sunny. The snow as a little sloppy at times. I left the car at 9am and was back at 6pm. Mental Note: I should have brought my skis. An incredible area for a backcountry tour.

I would hate to have a piece blow on a self equalizing anchor like that. It would put quite the shock on the other two anchors along with the rope and the climber. I think your better off having something that is directional, yet static once you set it. Something that else that improves dramatically on the cordalette yet protects from the shock of a piece blowing is the Web-o-Lette by Mountain Tools. This thing rocks. It's light and versatile like a cordalette, but easier to use and untie than one since it's not as bulky and made out of webbing. Check it out at: www.mtntools.com/cat/mt/webolette/webolette.html

A few years back we did the traverse from Whatcom Pass, over Challenger, over Fury via N. Buttress, but then had to abort via the Luna/Access Creek route due to weather. We ended up spending an extra 1.5 days on Fury trying to wait out weather so we could complete the traverse over the Southern Picketts. It's a kick *ss area that is well worth the struggle to get into. Weather is certainly an issue, but the main difficulty is being comfortable with navigating. If your navigating is up to par, then getting around is not too difficult since there are non-technical (as far as rock goes) ways to complete the traverse. I think it would be great to link up the Depot Creek/Redoubt area with the Picketts and call it a full traverse (kind of like doing the full N. Ridge of Stuart rather than cutting in from the middle like most do). If your looking for further info there is some great threads from the last year or two you can do a search on here. I'm hoping to get back there this year to try again and finish it off...

And I thought I had it bad the year that we had the record snowfall. Nice job on the persistence! Almost a lesson in futility. The year of the record snowfall (98-99) a buddy of mine and I when up to TC in March (or April?) with overnight gear. A pain in the with that much snow, particularly crossing the bridges. The next morning a storm came in so we decided to bail and come back in better weather. Since we figured we’d be back in the next week and we didn’t want to double carry our climbing gear we stashed it in a nearby tree well. Every week we were packed and ready to do the route but as we all know it never stopped snowing. It wasn’t until 2 months later that the snow stopped falling and we were able to go up, get our gear and actually do the route… People kept teasing us for leaving our gear up there, we were just hoping we could still find it after all the snow that had fallen.

Nice! We saw some spindrift and ice coming down just as we were starting the route and figured there was someone above us, but since we never saw any definite sign of anyone we never figured out if it was climber debris or spindrift. Now we know. I'm surprised we didn't see you when we were scoping the route out from the lake though. Do you have any gps tracking coordinates or three independent witnesses to verify your ascent and time? The steps were definitly there but I think the steps were partially filled in due to fact that the snow was soft enough in places that just kicking your feet around would push snow into the step. Nice job doing the climb in 4 hours and breaking trail!

Smart group... I could just see it happening - "why does the tent floor seem like a waterbed?" A few people wake up in the night with a sinking feeling and a wet sleeping bag. Skisports - when were you and JoshK on route? We were climbing between 9:15am and 1:00pm on Saturday, April 27th. We were probably at the point in the picture at about 11:00am. It didn't seem like anyone was in front of us, but was possible. The steps were great, thanks for breaking trail. The snow was soft enough (and somewhat filled in) that we still had to kick the steps in pretty well, but they certainly helped. Even a few of the pick placements on the ice came in handy. Every so often you'de find a nice spot to throw your tool that looked like it had been used before and the ice would just suck the pick right in...

I would have to agree with JoshK, people are climbing for many different reasons and there are no rules to what makes it enjoyable for anyone. Someone might want to climb Glacier Peak in a day, do the full Enchantment traverse in a day or do the Ptarmigan Traverse in a day and feel that it was the time of there life (or a walk in the park). Others may feel trips like that in a day are stupid. There are certain climbs I would much rather do in a day, and others I would rather take a few days on. The thing that comes to mind on some climbs is "we spent way too much time on that route, it would have been funner and safer if we were quicker", but that is just me. Hanging out and enjoying the mountains is pretty damn cool too.... However, the original point of this thread was that some people are getting caught up in speed or solo ascents when they shouldn't be and it causes concern for some. It's hard to really judge whether there is a good reason to be concerned unless you were actually there. A good point was made though, take a newbie out climbing and teach them good technique and judgement. It's the best way someone can learn their limits and how to safely approach them. Good mentoring will increase skill and reduce the concern. As far as whether people should be doing car-to-car and speed/light ascents, I love the stories and the possibilities. It's pretty damn cool to do climbs like that. Keep it up!

There's also the Mountaineer Creek Approach, descend to Ingalls and thumb a ride from the trailhead to Cle Elum and hope that a friend will come and pick you up and drive you to your car back at Eightmile.... We called it the Stuart/N Ridge to Cle Elum and get stranded traverse. Requires both climbing and negotiating skills.

I found some further info on the legality of snowmobiling in Wilderness areas and it is illegal. I guess since I've seen and heard of so many sleds in Wilderness areas I though it was legal. The following quote is from the Washington State Parks Website I also found this funny news article on someone famous getting busted for sledding in a wilderness area. Check it out....

I have heard before that under federal law (or as an exception) snowmobiles were allowed in wilderness areas when snow covered by a certain amount?

I wouldn't say it's a new trend. Climbers, scramblers and hikers have been doing car-to-car and light-is-right speed trips for a long time. With the advent of forums like cc.com it's now much easier for others to hear about it and make it sound like it's happening more than usual. But like you say, I can see it talking more people into doing "speed ascents" than should be out there. Many of the people who you hear about doing 2-3 day trips in 1 day are people who have years of experience doing just that and they know there capabilities and plan for mishaps. The concern on my part however are for those who do not have the experience or knowledge of their own skills, but this is the case on any type of 1 day or a multi-day climb.

Way cool! I'll have to make sure my buddy sees that. That's right after I've lead the crux between first and second coulior (crux is just below and to the left of the lower climber), and my buddy JB has already seconded and passed me. In the picture JB is in lead and I'm now seconding up behind him in. Thanks for taking the photo!

Interesting yet understandable concern. I would take a fair guess most any TR leaves out details that could either concern people further or the opposite, cause people to feel good that safety was upheld. It's difficult to judge unless all the questions are answered, but even then many people will either always be concerned, or again the opposite feel that the someone didn't push themselves enough. I may have inadvertintly expressed or caused some concern in my TR post? In the case of our climb up TC on Sunday, I was very comfortable with our skill, personal conditioning, and my longtime climbing partner that reads my mind. If there was any time for concern on our route it was the lack of protection in the single pitch of ice that we belayed (one screw and one cam). With a bomber cam placed at the crux we both were confident that any fall would have been safe. My partner was also aware that the anchor above him was quite possibly not placed in the rock, but rather in the snow or ice so he knew that extra care was required in seconding the pitch. After discussing the pitch once we reached the summit, we both felt that simulclimbing the crux pitch was potentially an option since the pitch went much easier than expected. However, given the same situation we still would have belayed it. Other than that, I can't find any point that we should have done anything different. Do it in 2 days, not necessary, it goes in 1 for athletic climbers. Belay more pitches? Our skill didn't require it and likely would have caused a safety concern given the extra time it would have taken. I'm glad you brought it up and it has some good thoughts to think about. I'm curious what others think?