fishstick

Well done! A great description of a great day in the hills. GB

I haven't used them but suspect that the Asolo Nanga GV might work very well. I own the non-welted Sherpa GV and found them to be exceptionally comfortable out of the box and very durable. GB

Answering your question in detail would require a reply the length of a small novel. There's a number of different ways of approaching the problem, most of which have gotten more confusing with clothing advancements introduced in 2011. You're asking for lots of air permeability AND water resistance; these two characteristics are generally considered to be going in opposite directions on the performance continuum. My short answer, also being a person who generates a bunch of heat while touring, is to supplement your layers with a light-weight, unlined stretch-woven jacket like the MEC kinetic. It won't work in prolonged rain but it looks like you're carrying a hard-shell anyways. Think of the stretch woven as being a softSHELL. It isn't warm on its own but you can dial in your thermal needs by layering underneath. A second option worth considering is the Patagonia Knifeblade. It's a very different solution. It's an unlined soft-shell constructed like a hard-shell. It breathes much, much better than hard-shells but still offers enough water and wind resistance to replace the hard-shell on most trips. Seams are not taped so in theory it can leak when conditions go monsoon. Breathability rates are about 1/10 of the Kinetic but 12 to 20 X greater than the best of last year's hard-shells. The problem is going to be smoothly transitioning from multiple layers sans shell to wearing the shell. You might have to remove a layer for up-tracking... All of this said there's no correct answer but I will say that the new (2011) fabrics are a paradigm shift.

It's pretty simple really. You get to climb in notoriously condition-dependent areas while enjoying the rare benefit of the very best of local knowledge. More importantly you get to share ideas with, learn from and drink with some of the very best winter climbers on the planet. It's about opening up your mind. GB

The Petzls fit other BD harnesses so I assume that they'd work on the Couloir. It's a tight fit and they're awkward to remove (a rib of plastic tends to hook the fabric keeper) but they're more stable and hold an extra screw due to their larger size. I tried one and then replaced all of my BDs.

The screws will self-thread into the hollow rivets. This should take some effort but if the screw absolutely stalls before bottoming out then the inside of the rivet may need to be very carefully cleaned up with a drill of the same dimension (or slightly smaller) of the hole. Once complete the system has proven to be surprising bombproof if not liberating over several years of use. Good luck! GB

Drive about 1 kilometer east beyond the hamlet of Glacier. Turn RIGHT on Glacier creek road. Follow the road for about 10 or 15 minutes until you get to the one and only obvious parking lot 300m beyond a sign advising the need for forest passes at trailheads. The trail takes a bit over an hour to get to the campsite on the moraine. Take ski poles for the last two creek crossings. Cheers, GB

Dane, You're really going to smile when you see the new Nomic... GB

Ah, you might want to check where your BD and Osprey packs are made...

Climb-wise, are you looking for a summit, ice or rock? How hard? With the realization that I'm 2450ks away, I suspect rock routes on sunny aspects of the Flatirons and Boulder canyon should be very climbable after mid-morning. In the winter Boulder tends to be cool at night, but surprisingly warm during the day. In terms of ice, drive north to Estes Park (maybe 60ks) and continue into RMNP to the parking lot for glacier gorge. Follow well-beaten snowshoe paths to either Loch Vale or Glacier Gorge. The latter would likely be less crowded. More info here: http://www.mountainproject.com/v/colorado/co_ice__mixed/rmnp__mixedice/105744515 Also look here: http://climbinglife.com/ An easy walk-up summit with a view might be something like Lady Washington, also in RMNP. Park at the Long's peak trail head. The area above treeline gets incredibly wind blown. Re: Skiing in the Front Range. Compared to the Coast or Cascades, skiing around Boulder is brutal. It's too windy and has far too little snow. I hope that helps! Cheers, GB

Sat phones may have problems as well. There was a case in the West Kootenays (BC) last winter where a Sat phone was used to request assistance following a serious injury in an avalanche. From what I gather, provincial authorities refused to take the call because their call display indicated an 011 (overseas) area code. Local RCMP thought the call was a hoax for similar reasons. Eventually the Sat user called their employer, who then called the RCMP and had to convince them that the previous call was real. A helicopter picked the victim up just before dark; it was questionable if they would have survived the night. GB

The three partners deserve an incredibly swift kick in the nuts. GB

Thanks for the information and sharing your thoughts on the east face, SE ridge and block tower area; it's all very much appreciated. I agree the approach is a bit long, but it's just a case of walking (or riding) rather than battling bush, bugs and rivers. That said, the winter approach via the same has a pretty high suck factor. Cheers, GB

Nice TR and images. I've been wondering about that East side of North Twin Sister for a bunch of years, but have tended to lack the ambition to poke my nose around the corner after doing other lines. Do you think it might be fun after an initial fall/early winter storm or two? Cheers, GB

I've gotta ask... Why not Baker? It's an easier and shorter drive, shorter and easier approach, has much higher quality ice and most importantly, it has 500X more boulder problems than any other local (Vancouver) option. If you look beyond the limits of top roping, the place is like a frozen Fontainebleau. Not all the routes are in shape at any given time, but unless it's unseasonably hot, you can always find quality terrain between August and the beginning of November. Cheers, GB

I used a Reactor a reasonable amount over the winter, but never in truly cold temperatures. Re: Use in cooler temps. I agree that performance dwindles as the cartridge cools during use. I found the solution is to place the cartridge in a small very light-weight pot (or other cylindrical shaped object) filled with water to the top of the cartridge's vertical sides. In my case the diameter used just slides over the heat exchanger/pot base for ease of packing. I tried to use a shallower water source, but found it froze solid quickly. I use the system described when nights are known to be below about -6 or -7C. Re: Efficiency for "winter" use. Assuming the stove is responsible for 100% of water supply and cooking, allow one 220g cartridge per 24hr/2people with no rationing. Re: Speed. Running side by side with an MSR Dragonfly in -5C conditions (sans water source described above), the Reactor melts and boils 3 X 1.7L pots of water faster than the Dragonfly MELTS 1 X 2.8L. The Reactor makes even an XGK look like a dud. Re: Wrapping cartridge in foam. Not. The foam will seal in the cold; what's needed is to warm the cartridge. A brief experiment with hand-warmers (actually toe warmers) proved that a water-jacket works vastly better. Re: Reliability. Thus far it's still going. Re: Overall for mild winter/spring touring etc. The stove is so fast, so good in the wind (except for lighting) and so easy to use, I've been taking it over white gas alternatives such as the DragonFly. In a sense, this is to stoves what the original Tikka is to headlamps. GB

Thanks Dane. Did you try to shape the stock liners? Cheers, GB

Spantik question: I own a pair, but have yet to have the opportunity to us them in truly cold conditions. Assuming your motivation to go with Intuition liners was warmth, how cold a temperatures would you consider the stock liners suitable (assuming multi-day rather than roadside)? Thanks in advance. GB

Re: Lining up images of tools etc. Going beyond the purpose of this thread, an easy way for perspective buyers to gain a guesstimate of how various tools might behave is to draw a line running from roughly an inch or two behind the tip of the pick, to the front of the pommel or spike. Look at the angle between that line and the underside of the pick, tip-side. Steeper angles (noticeably under 90 degrees) tend to hook well, but require a distinctive wrist flick. Shallower angles just under 90 degrees provide a more natural swing, but hook less well. In very thin ice, I suspect those near 90 degrees pry ice off the rock to a lesser degree (but it’s just a theory of mine…). Shaft design is still required to stabilize those good hooks – try a BD Fusion and a Scud on the same day to get the idea. Re: Pick volume vs. Strength. My gut feeling is that taller (front two inches near the tip) picks are somewhat susceptible to breakage as a result of twisting in very hard ice. In a perfect world we don’t twist picks, but in reality we do sometimes load tools via force vectors that don’t align perfectly with the shaft. Picks may also twist as they as they deflect micro amounts as they penetrate through semi-bonded icicles. Picks absorb some of the tool vibration that doesn’t make it to the user’s hands. Shallow (less tall) picks provide a smaller surface which better allows the pick to twist in the ice, rather than on its own axis. Based on the above and personal experience, pick strength likely comes from pick thickness, not height. Good metallurgy and pick design still trump thickness. Re: Bevelled (sharp) tops. Keeping the top edge of the pick very sharp aids removal, which should also extend the pick’s life. Be sure to file out any stress-rising nicks in the top edge as they occur. Re: Bevelled lower edges. These also aid removal, as well as seem to aid penetration. I suspect they lower the angles of stress-risers on teeth, and minimize drag while penetrating ice. Less drag, should equal less stress. Regarding stress, I’ve never broken a pick by twisting it in a big, slow manner. I think of picks as shattering (cold metal slamming into hard ice is sort of like a beer glass flying into brick wall). When my picks have broken, they’ve certainly broken 100%. Breakage has become evident only upon removal, which is kind of scary; 80% of body weight may have been hanging on the thing as I was probing with the other stick. My suspicion is that some failures are the result of imperfect metallurgy due to bulk production. It’s far easier to nail the process over the entire length of the pick on one sample, than to do so in a bulk batch of 100 or more. All of this is of course theory… GB

From what I heard, Aermets were discontinued due to problems with production. The picks were so tough that the tooling used was getting damaged or destroyed. GB

On a related note, in an effort to work with modified prototype tools, I found myself needing to drill holes in BD picks (circa 2003). I could drill a roughly 1/8 hole through Stinger picks with ease using a press with an $8.00 bit. I then destroyed two of the same bits in an effort to drill through an Alaska pick. I bumped up to a $45.00 tungsten carbide bit which still failed to go 1/3 through before it shattered. The Alaska picks were made of vastly harder metal. I'd broken the original Stinger so easily (deep, soft ice) that I figured that the added durability of the Alaska was the way to go. Has anyone broken a BD Alaska pick? GB

I went for years without breaking anything, then snapped perhaps 8 Simonds (Piranha and Naja) PRE-FORGING PROCESS. Usually in very cold weather or the day after climbing such, or once in very, very hard ice. All of these breakages occurred following a change in Simond's design. I've broken one BD pick in a short career of using such tools. Add two friends using the same - 10 picks broken in one season. Perhaps 2002? I've also badly bent the tips of two BDs (very thin ice, darkness, new route, soloing)(early 90s). I finished using old Simonds, munching and chipping chunks out of the tips, but the picks remained quite functional. Of the picks I've seen snap, all have gone at near placement depth, so about 2 inches. Of those I've snapped, I've been able to lead or solo to the top of the pitch or down-climb. The gorked pick has still seemed like a better option than using the relatively useless third tool that I carried until recently. I've been with people who've bent Grivel Evolution picks beyond functionality. Since I switched to tools using forged picks (2004)(Simonds), durability has been perfect with no breaking or bending. It's a real confidence booster when running it out or traveling alone. Cheers, GB

Both have their places. The primary function of over bags such as the MEC Penguins is to move the dew point beyond the outer shell of the primary bag. I think of the temperature gains of using an over bag as increasing over the duration of the trip, because otherwise the primary bag would be getting damper and damper. Highly water resistant shells such as DryLoft (now known as Windstopper) may appear to be dry, but often condensation builds on the inside of the shell in cool weather (out of sight, out of mind, or at least for a while). One of the more interesting experiences I've had with an over bag went as follows: I was testing a microfibre-shelled bag and was avoiding the use of the over bag because it would bias the test. At approximately 3:00am I woke up and the entire shell of the down bag was absolutely soaking wet. Facing another couple of weeks in cold conditions, I quickly pulled my basic (non-DryLoft) over bag over top. At 7:00am the primary down bag was bone dry and lofting fully. The synthetic over bag dried quickly in the sun. VBLs add more warmth per gram than overbags, or at least in the short term. They're well suited to trips where you might need something, but you really don't want to carry 700 or 800g of extra bag. One of the nicest thing about VBLs is that the sleeping bag system heats up much more quickly (it takes a while to warm up big winter bags). I find they seem much less bothersome if you start our by pulling it up only to your arm pits (keep your arms out). As the bag heats further, push it down to your waist and eventually to your feet. The downfall of VBLs is they encourage sleeping with only minimal clothing, which is less than convenient in very cold temperatures. A nice aspect is that should you get up at night to pee etc and return to the tent dusted with snow, the VBL will protect the inside of the bag. The primary use of VBLs of course is REALLY cold weather. I think they're also well suited (mandatory) for use in bivisacks in the winter (the VBL will help, but the bag will still die). For big, cold trips, I'd probably carry both an over bag and VBL. As an aside, if you're carrying the VBL just in case, use it as your pack liner. If you think you won't need it that night, put your entire pack in the VBL. Cheers, GB

I faced a similar problem with a set of Montrail crampons. I kept using them despite their recall with the thought that nothing else would work and nothing bad would happen if I kept an eye on them... I realized the error of that logic when I broke both vertical rails under the arch of my foot while soloing a straight-forward ice face in CO. It's actually pretty hard bunny-hop down-climbing 100+ m of late-fall ice. They sent me M10s the next week:) Cheers, GB

ID's bag ratings have nothing to do with Canada. ID rates their bags using their methods. Efforts at applying a uniform ASTM bag rating system in North America are extremely difficult until a certain large US manufacturer agrees to play in the sand box. Cheers, GB