Don_Serl

dru - re: rack; "huge" adjective withdrawn. following our "off-line" discussions, i'm now aware that your meaning of "1 ea" for nuts and cams implies NOT taking duplicates. adequate pro is fine anytime; substituting "courage in your rucksack" for mental toughness and reasoned confidence is not gonna get anyone anywhere, metaphysically speaking... good route, btw. deserves lots of traffic. saw another party (from whistler) climb moonraker while we were on lillarete, and there were fresh tire tracks on the logging spur, so there's some traffic in there. cheers,

Climb: Randy Stoltmann Tower (Mt Athelstan)-Solstice Start to Lillarete Date of Climb: 6/20/2004 Trip Report: Janes Ales, Jia Condon, Don Serl; June 20, 2004 Reference: Alpine Select: pp234-236 (approach pp70-71) Online Reference: http://www.bivouac.com/TripPg.asp?TripId=3988 Executive summary: An ascent, with a 7 pitch variation start, of a long rock ridge 80km northwest of Pemberton. The climb: The initial few pitches of Lillarete looked a bit dank, and the open arete to its right looked climbable and inviting, so we headed for that, thinking we might even have a chance of doing the entire arete, all the way to the Gnomon. In the event, starting from the extreme right lower corner of the buttress, we found cracks and face climbing to about 5.8 on and left of the arete for 6 pitches (somewhat sparse protection) to a blank upper section. Here we traversed an easy, obvious ledge 20m left to join the original line a pitch and a half or so below the big angling crack. At the traverse on the north side of the Gnomon, we crossed snow horizontally just under 60m, then continued traversing on an easy rock/boulder bench about another 100m. This was a mistake, and led to the need to climb thru 30m of very badly shattered rock before being able to traverse back right into better rock and a low-angled snow patch to gain the ridge just at the point at which it begins to make its final rise towards Stoltmann Tower. The description in Alpine Select reads as if there are 4 pitches plus 5 pitches on the upper tower to gain the top, but there are just 5 from this point. We stayed on or close to the crest until the final two leads, where the natural line takes one rightward, with belays back on the crest. The descent: The rappel from the summit is in good shape, with a solid blade and a solid double-slung block. Most of the loose rock at the stance has been cleared. Rap 15m to a notch, climb out of the notch still on rappel, and rap a further 6m-8m to the second rappel stance. This has a good blade and a somewhat dubious jammed block. This rappel is awkward: diagonally left (facing in) to start, then slowly back rightward on the lower crest – pay close attention to re-placing your rope over edges above as you descent, so as to eliminate surprise flips and to keep the pull clean and direct. There is a good hex and block anchor at the col, and we rapped into the northwest-facing snow-gully rather than climbing the rather shattered looking rock onward to the glacier rim. Steep, soft snow (facing in for 150m), then easy glissading led back to the bivy. Timing: Alarm 3 a.m.; away 4; at base 4:30; climbing 5; summit 5:20; finish raps 6:30; bivy 7 p.m. We swapped leads throughout, and weren’t always able to simul-second full pitches, so we probably took 1 ½ – 2 hours more as a threesome than as a pair. Overall impressions and comments: The route is a lot bigger and more serious than the relatively moderate technical grade makes it sound, and it felt to me like a sandbag at “D” overall. It is pretty serious: there is quite a lot of loose rock in threatening positions (although a lot less now, as I make it a habit to chuck as much as I quickly and safely can in passing). The route-finding crux, up the 5.8 face to the right at the top of the long diagonal crack, protected well with a blade and baby angle up and right of the start, but was otherwise runout. Out technical crux was a short, steep 5.10 wall immediately left of a chimney to gain the face on which the diagonal crack lies, but there must be an easier alternative which we missed. Gear Notes: Due to a misunderstanding, our rack (5 nuts, 7 cams, and 7 pins) was leaner than desirable, but one does need anything close to the huge rack described in bivouac.com – ten or a dozen nuts (RPs not necessary), about 10 cams (to #2 Camalot), and 2 long blades, 2 Lost Arrows, and a baby angle are fine. Take an alpine hammer; crampons are not necessary in soft, early-season snow conditions. Approach Notes: Road approach note: Alpine Select says left/left/right on logging spur; there is a new side spur, so it’s now left/right/left/right. The lower section of the road (which is mostly pumice) is getting badly washed away, and won’t last till next year without some maintenance. Hiking approach note: There was not much snow in the approach gullies and the sun was very hot, so we walked up thru shady forest to the left. Decent going, minor undergrowth, pretty open. We bivvied about 150m higher than the site shown in A/S, on pumice at the very top of the second spur to the left of the fall-line from the route. There was plentiful water in a stream 10m north. 2 ½ hrs up. Descent to the road: We angled left (facing out) down the avvy chutes, glissading snow when we could and weaving thru and under bluffs on pumice before making a short alder-crash left and gaining forest on the south side of the avvy fan on the way out. Minor bush-bashing. 1 ¼ hrs down.

tyler, on the one hand, ANY tool can be used in almost any situation, and usually it is not the TOOL that is the limitation, it's the experience/technique. on the other hand, better tools clearly allow better, faster development of more-honed technique. so, buy "good stuff" - you won't regret it! i won't comment about axes/hammers, but i'll offer that my personal favorite crampons are the G-14s with the cramp-o-matic binding. to me, the key function of the binding is to hold the crampon in precise position relative to the boot, and the cramp-o-matic (bail-in-welt) binding does a better job of this than "over-the-toe" style front attachments. i "reshaped" the front bails slightly (as necessary) with a vice and pliers so they fit exactly to the boot welts, again in the interest of tight fit. how can you be accurate with your crampon foot-work otherwise? i run them with monos for waterfalls in the winter and dbl points for alpine the rest of the year. if you choose a different crampon, avoid thin-profile vertical points for the alpine, or you'll be scaring the shit out of yourself when the points start "gliding" thru 50º crisp neve. except for pure waterfall use, choose flat fronts instead of verticals, except for systems like the G-14s which have some "width" to the points. the key disadvantage of the G-14s is weight - they are heavier than most of the alternatives, which is especially a consideration for mountaineering use - but weight indicates "toughness" too, and they seem most unlikely to fail in any way. and FOR SURE use anti-bots in the mtns. it's way too easy to lose footing and take a long slide without them. people get killed every year this way. anti-bots are IMHO one of the greatest contributors to better safety in the mtns in the past decade! enjoy, cheers,

i won't be going leashless any time soon, except maybe for hard, complicated dry tooling. i don't have the forearm strength to grip that hard, that long. i see no sense in making what feels like middling 5.10 into middling 5.11! that said, dru's right in saying that climbing without leashes allows "moves" and movement that isn't possible when "strapped into" the tools. i found this really troublesome the one day i spent up at "the farm" on blackcomb - lotsa tip-torquing and traversing, and it was VERY problematic releasing the tools once you'd moved beyond them. thought-provoking... the "pinky hooks" serve a couple purposes: 1. taking weight - always useful, whether leashed or not, 2. separating your fingers from the ice - again, a "nice" feature, especially with lighter gloves (also nice, for greater dexterity). the technology improves, and the sport moves along. this has always been one of the most appealing aspects of ice-climbing. when i look back on the "crap" we used to climb with, i wonder how we did it at all! and meanwhile, the "ease" provided by the new tools and techniques allows me to fool myself into thinking i'm as good or better than i was "back when". i CLIMB harder, but i'm not convinced i'm "better". i'm an "old fart" too... all good, cheers,

everyone has their own opinions. i try to base mine on actual personal experience rather than bias, but you're free to disagree with my conclusions. and all "conclusions" are the result of balancing compromises, so be aware that my "priorities" might differ from yours. having said that, my most profound impression within the past few years re: ice climbing is that the folks at black diamond have taught us all an important lesson - the ease of placement of an icescrew is a key element in climbing success. and they taught us this by producing screws that stood above the rest. the tapered bore in the turbo express cuts better than any other screw, and the flip-out handle greatly speeds rotation. in my experience, only one other screw approaches (maybe exceeds) BD in ease of placement: the DMM revolution. the bore is incredibly finely finished, so friction is extremely low. and while the hanger lacks a handle, it's drop forged and can be rotated very smoothly and easily. they're not that easily available, however. the charlet 360º is a nice screw, but not quite in the same class - the hanger/crank design is too funky, and the screws are too hard to rack. plus the bore is not as sophisticated, so there is more rotational friction. the titanium screws are light, but from an "earlier age" in terms of placement ability. yes, you can save 25gm to 40gm per screw, but is that worth fighting for every placement? one ounce per screw versus many minutes and calories per placement? pre-turbo, i carried titanium - i no longer do. the maximum you need on an alpine ice face ought to be 6 screws: 2 for the belay, 2 runners, and two more for the top belay. or, if you want to "make time" but aren't comfortable soloing, carry 6 (or better, 8) screws and have the leader place one every half-ropelength, then move together. that way u always have 2 screws between you and the ground, and the terrain passes by pretty fast - 3 1/2 ropelengths till you place the last 2 screws and belay to swap ends. as for the N face of Shuksan specifically, except in exceptionally icy conditions this is "solo" terrain for most "experienced" climbers - BUT make your own decisions! don't let what others do influence what YOU feel comfortable soloing or belaying - you seem to be reasonably neophyte, so judge for yourself, be conservative, and stay alive!

the quark will come stock with a hooked pinky-rest next winter (I saw the prototype at the outdoor retailer show in january). the rest will be available as a retro-fit for older quarks, but will require minor modification of the tool. it looked really good! mine'll get a pair for sure. cheers,

see page 33 of the waddington guide - most of the "rules" gleaned from years of doing this in the old days are there. bottom lines: carry enough fuel to "get by". don't mix heavy and light. mix categories between boxes - sometimes a box will disappear or get destroyed. don't worry too much about "low and slow" except for accuracy - the box is going terminal when it hits, anyway... cheers,

newbee, take mostly thin stuff: a cpl long blades, a cpl medium LAs, maybe a mid-size leeper and a small angle (1/2" or 5/8", maybe 3/4" - don't get over-concerned about the size, cuz mtn cracks tend to be pretty variable in short distances, and if it won't fit HERE, it'll fit THERE). the deal is that you can't get decent pro (or anchors) in thin cracks without them, whereas you CAN get nuts or cams into anything more than thin fingers on out. plus, in the mtns the rock tends to be much more frost-fractured, and that tends towards thin, flakey cracks. as for hammers, i happen to like 50cm length, trad alpine pick tools ( i own, use, and love a DMM alpine raptor hammer, but that took a special order ). not easy to find these days, and heavier than the modern "mini" tools, but they can replace your iceaxe on an alpine climb, whereas the "minis" are not too fine to self-arrest or nick steps with. as for the "minis", people are often interested in "light", and the simond fox is lightest at 330gm. charlet petit loup is 410gm. grivel black 3º is 480gm. there are others out there that u can see surfing european sites, but not easily available in north america. have fun, cheers,

more likely, that man i quaking in fear that he would have to run a sporting goods shop! cheers,

hi! i hope you've all had an enjoyable winter season. the ice was GREAT up around lillooet, eh? as you probably know, i'm updating west coast ice, intending the have WCI2 out before next winter. this will NOT be a repeat of the waddington guide saga - no ten years of waiting this time! fact is, i have FINISHED entering all routes that i am aware of into my route document. i have a bunch of detail checking to do, and many of you can expect one-on-one inquiries from me soon. i know, however, that there must still be routes out there that have been done, but not reported anywhere. and i'd dearly love to get the info into the guide! so, PLEASE, if you "know something" and it hasn't seen light of day in the CAJ, in MEC's routebook, on bivouac.com, on cascadeclimbers.com, or some other obvious place, please respond to this note with some info. or even just tell me where to look... to keep it efficient, let me know 1st time: >>> name, length, and grade >>> FA party and date >>> exact location of route (landmarks are useful) [think: how would i tell someone how to find this?] >>> route characteristics; any special rack requirements, etc. thanks a lot. and, just to whet your appetite for the new edition, lemme mention that the 1993 edition contained 136 routes - so far, i'm at 370 routes! i had NO idea there had been that much growth. i thought maybe double, but TRIPLE! i'm amazed... pull hard, take care, cheers,

stefan, well, you're dead-on that cash flow is the "life blood" of any organization, and that a "profitable" business can go bankrupt. however, i'll stand by my statement that the OBJECTIVE is to make a profit. an "objective" is a strategic aim. that's long-term, and answers a question about "what" the business is trying to do. cash flow is tactical, and short-term, and speaks to a question about "how" the business goes about accomplishing its objectives. so, a business that is "profitable" (in that a one-time snap-shot of its financial situation looks positive, i.e., its year-end consolidated statements) can still get into a life-threatening negative cash flow situation at some point during the year. more money is flowing out than is coming in, and if the company does not have "resources" (line of credit, ability to obtain a loan, possibility of selling an asset, option to issue more stock, whatever) to get more liquidity ("cash") into circulation, it'll hit the wall. if it hits hard enough (and/or if its bankers happen to be hard-pressed at the moment) it might be forced into bankruptcy. virtually every business goes thru cycles of positive and negative cash flow. in the outdoor business, things are generally negative february thru the spring, then turn positive thru summer, then maybe bump back negative for a couple months in the fall, then go WAY positive (hopefully) over winter/christmas. the key, as you allude to, is to have enough "cash" (in a variety of forms) to cover the outflows till they turn back into inflows. large businesses usually manage this thru financial tools: lines of credit, whatever. small businesses often rely on their suppliers to accept delayed payments - usually the suppliers grouse about it, but are OK with this - better that than not getting paid at all! a good analogy for cash flow is fording a river. if you are six feet tall and the river is 4 ft deep no problem. but, if the river "averages" 4 ft deep [which makes it look like you are "profitable"] but has a section 8 ft deep which is longer than you can cross while holding your breath (assuming you can't swim, but that you CAN walk on the bottom...), you drown! your cash flow was insufficient. of course, it's also plenty easy to simply go out of business because you're unprofitable! or, as dickens so accurately put it: “My other piece of advice, Copperfield,” said Mr. Micawber, “you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. cheers, p.s. apologies for the thread drift - kinda got carried away. i suppose somewhere in here is the ability to answer the original question about discounts and MEC/valhalla pure prices...

hey, cool. btw, nice photo of brian gourley at M/C - but too distant to show off the fact that he MADE HIS OWN TOOLS! yup, young, poor, metalworker... this is easy! he snagged a cpl quark picks, and built the rest! i climbed with brian this winter, and i've led with his tools, and they're not bad, actually. a touch too long, but he knows that and will build a 2nd, shorter version. also a bit "metallic" or "harsh" feeling upon impact, but they punch and hook and hold like mad, and he did save $600 or whatever... so, if u think we as a tribe get points for "doin' stuff", no matter WHAT gets in our way, brian tops my list for this season, for sure. cheers,

i'll bet u cld still get on it at high altitude: say, upper sumallo river valley, north joffre creek, or the farm or the office up on blackcomb. of course, the avvy conditions are not the finest - see: http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/advisory/ BACKCOUNTRY AVALANCHE ADVISORY MARCH 26, 2004 10:00 AM We have received 45 cm. of new snow since Tuesday night. The snowfall has been accompanied by S and SE winds that have at times been moderate to strong. Today we are finding variable pockets of soft slab and windslab to 20 cm. in depth on NW through NE aspects. In the alpine terrain they are reacting easily to a ski cut, running on a density change within the snow that fell overnight. As you drop down in elevation the slab becomes much less consolidated and is not as reactive, but you can expect that it will thicken throughout the day with warming and brief glimpses of sunshine. Some ridgelines and windward aspects are still scoured down to the March 9 raincrust. Cornice tabs have grown through the week, and if triggered are propagating along a considerable distance. Stand well back from the edge so that you don?t become a part of the falling debris. The backcountry avalanche danger is rated as CONSIDERABLE in the alpine terrain and MODERATE at treeline and below. Watch for winch cats and snowmobiles if you are returning inbounds after hours. Whistler Mtn. Snow Safety take care, cheers,

in answer to tomtom's question: "Why do they need all this cash?" - there IS no cash! companies finance their operations on equity and debt (strictly speaking, liabilities, which are amounts that have to be paid out to someone, some time). retained earnings contribute to equity, but (while i'm no expert) companies that have NO debt whatsoever must be exceedingly rare. and debt costs you money. so, the amount that you increase your equity allows you to decrease your debt. this is generally a good thing cuz: #1: it gives YOU more control of your financial affairs rather than having to please the bank, #2: it insulates you against unexpected "turns" in the big, broad world, #3: it costs you less, #4: it gives you "room" to turn to debt if you need to, etc... on the other hand, loading up with debt allows a company to "leverage" a market position, opportunity, and/or competitive advantage much more dramatically/faster than it could if it relied just on its own resources (i.e., equity). of course, the debt has to be paid back over time, and many companies fail because they project too optimistically, leverage too hard, their projections aren't met, their cash flow position tightens, and they either cut costs dramatically or go out of business. MEC suffered through a bout of exactly this type in 2002/3, which (on a personal note) is why my job disappeared. as for REI and its retained earnings, yup, the "cash" got added there. retained earnings totalled $178m at the end of the year. add in the $70m in memberships, and you've basically got $250m in equity in the company. BUT, REI also has $100m of stock on the shelves (inventory), owns $250m worth of property and equipment, and has a variety of other commitments on its funds. the difference gets financed by long term debt ($63m) and shorter term financing (money owed to vendors is often a big part of this; see accounts payable = $106m). see, isn't finance fun? seriously, learning a bit about how to read a balance sheet is a useful thing to do - lots of common misconceptions get cleared up, and a better appreciation of the challenge faced by any and all business is gained - whether that be at the scale of valhalla pure in squamish, or REI. (btw, if you want to be amazed by efficiency in a retail operation, check out walmart's financials: $244 BILLION dollars of revenue in 2003 - largest company by revenue on the planet by far - and making a profit while running on 21.5% gross margin (half of REI's). leave aside all the sniping - much of which is valid - and from a purely financial point-of-view, that's effing amazing!) enjoy your day, cheers,

murray, you're doing a great job of serving the local market and of providing an alternative to MEC, and i'm sure that it's tough for any small businessman to keep the lights on and bread on the table, but don't "damn" the co-op with false claims. doing so confuses "the marketplace" and, worse yet, risks blurring your vision of your competitor, and leading you into making poor strategic choices. the FACT is that MEC sets its prices at "break even" level as a CHOICE, not because the law requires it to do so. they are NOT a "non-profit" (those are restricted, special-interest type organizations; they are kinda "not-for-profit" (although those words have disappeared from the co-op's self-descriptions in the past couple years, did you notice? and that is a board-chosen objective, NOT a mandate by law); and they are definitely NOT "unprofitable" (the third category, which every business must avoid!). a co-op is simply a different ownership structure - many co-ops (REI, for example) price "at market" (i.e., at full suggested retail prices). this generates a "surplus" or "earnings" (or "profit", as most people would incorrectly call it). in REI's case, their board has always followed a policy of giving back a portion of that surplus to their member/customers as a direct rebate (a cheque). in 2003, they sold about $805m at a margin of 43%, generated operating income of $55m, returned $34m net in member dividends, paid $1m tax on the income, and added $19m to retained earnings. very healthy financial performance! in MEC's case, the board has always CHOSEN to take a different course. prices are set as low as is possible for the business to sustain itself, and when a small surplus is gained even in those "tight" circumstances, the member dividend is paid out in the form of shares, not cash. this achieves 2 aims: 1) reducing taxable income to zero, while 2) keeping the working capital in the co-op. to compare to REI, in 2002 MEC sold $163m at a gross margin of 30% (two-thirds of the margin of REI and most other outdoor businesses in less-competitive environments - thereby the low retail prices). despite the low margin, MEC "made" $2.4m, and distributed $2.4m back to the members as a patronage dividend in the form of shares. taxable income was reduced to zero. note that the fact also is that returning "profit" to customers to lower taxable income to zero is NOT just something available to co-ops. you could legitimately do the same thing with the profits of your shop in squamish (not that you'd want to - you live off those profits). and of course, you'd need to record the name and address of every customer for every transaction to enable you to do so, so in the real world ONLY co-ops, with their member = owner = customer structure can practically do this. one further point: the objective of ANY business has to be to make a profit (even at MEC, the objective is to make around 2% "surplus"). when that happens, the usual course of events in all businesses is to distribute some (but not all) of that profit to the owners. for a publically traded company, those owners are the shareholders; for a privately held company (like yours) the owners are... the owners; for a co-op, the owners are the member/shareholders. different structures, names, and scales, but fundamentally parallel. so, back to my point: it's OK for you to grouse about how "tough" MEC makes it for other outdoor businesses in Canada - the margins (and therefore prices) are the lowest in the world for most goods (except for some interent retailers in obscure corners of Europe). your job, and your challenge, is to find ways of "adding value" that the co-op can't or doesn't. for instance, as you've pointed out, you're in Squamish - the co-op isn't. people can drive straight thru to the crags, then shop, rather than having to wait till 10 a.m. MEC opening, shop for an hour or two, then get to Squamish after lunch. and/or you can carry stuff the co-op does not. and/or you can provide better, more personable, more "user-friendly" service than MEC. you can make people aware of all this on forums like this one. etc, etc... the point is, MEC ain't going away, the competitive environment in Canada ain't getting any softer, and you don't do yourself any favours by mis-understanding and thereby perhaps mis-judging your major competitor. i offer this absolutely genuinely. i worked at MEC for 25 years and i "believe" in what and how the co-op does business, BUT i sure don't want to see them being the only game in town. that would be a VERY bad outcome for outdoor consumers. good luck to you; may your business thrive! cheers,

catbirdseat: i like that idea of whanging a hole thru a moat-rim with an ice-axe shaft. i learned something new today. a couple tied double-runners of 1" tape are always nice to have along, eh? other ideas, from experience: 1. i've set a double-length 1" tape sling in a bollard-shaped groove in heavy, isothermal spring snow, then shoveled snow over it and stomped it in. let it set a cpl minutes, and SIX people pulling on a rope downslope couldn't pull that sucker out. 2. i recall hearing about some guys needing to set a rap anchor in snow on the moose's tooth. they had a newspaper with them, so they rolled it up, T-slotted it in a trench with a sling around it, buried it, and away they went. a stuff-sack partially filled with snow is easily capable of the same thing. (you ever notice how strong an anchor for a tent guy-line you can make using a baggie with a bit of snow in it?) anybody else got strong-but funky rap anchor tales? cheers,

you would not be the first, nor, i suspect, the last! call some day... cheers,

the movie contains a wonderful zooming shot which shows climbers perhaps a third of the way up the face (foreshortened), at the top of the initial snow/ice fields on the same line that simon and joe climbed. this is pretty impressive, BUT the harder mixed, ice, etc still lay above. the FA pair had covered the opening ground in a few hours - it got much harder and slower above. still, a long way up a big, pretty dangerous face, just to recreate a scene for a movie is going some... the credits are to dave cuthbertson and rory gregory. see for instance: http://www.triangle.com/movies/story/1040354p-7081237c.html from which this quote: Working in Peru and the Alps, Macdonald overcame enormous technical challenges as he filmed actor/climbers Brendan Mackey (playing Simpson) and Nicholas Aaron (Yates) re-creating the climbing scenes. Stuntmen Dave Cuthbertson and Rory Gregory handled the most dangerous falls. The filmmakers' base camp in Peru was a three-day hike past the end of the closest road, and 80 donkeys brought in the equipment. and: http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/lifestyle/bal-to.void20feb20,0,6881519.story?coll=bal-artslife-today from which: Interspersing present-day interviews with the actual climbers and footage of actors Brendan Mackey (as Simpson) and Nicholas Aaron (as Yates) re-enacting their story in the Andes and the Alps, director Kevin Macdonald achieves a rare blend of visceral force and contemplation. (Dave "Cubby" Cuthbertson and Rory Gregory served as climbing and stunt doubles for Mackey and Aaron, respectively.) Like the climbers, you feel the trivia of the world fall away as they dig into the forbidding West Face of Siula Grande. impressive achievement. cheers,

New location for BC basemap viewer: Go to http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ Then click open the "Provincial Basemap" hotlink. The operation of the viewer has changed a bit, and is a touch less user-friendly. You need to click the "Layers" tab at the top, then click open the "Base Map Layers" folder, then select the info you want added to the view. The thing is, you generally want EVERYTHING in the "Base Map Layers" section, but because the info is scale-sensitive, you can't access it all until you're in to about 1:100,00 scale or tighter. Hassle... But you can get to "tight" scale quickly by clicking on the map at about the location you want [to save moving a lot afterwards], then (after it reloads) re-entering the scale at (say) 1:96,000 in the box lower left and clicking to "GO" button, and making your complete selections after the re-load finishes. Reminder: keep the 3rd "Grids and Images" tab ("TRIM Orthomosaic") OFF so as to remove photo-overlays which interfere with visibility in some areas. Cheers,

superb movie. hollywood will never understand climbing, never. and, btw, i just learned something: not that i paid much attention to it at the time, but the Boney M song was "brown girl in the RING" - i always thought it was "...rain". reminds me of the tale about misunderstanding the lyrics to the refrain of the great deep purple hit "smoke on the water" as "slow walking walter, the fire engine guy"! tee hee,

some days enthusiasm overcomes good sense, and this was one of them... up at 4, away from vancouver at 5 with graham r in pouring rain. oh well, snowing hard long before we get to whistler, which is 650m elevation - and the parking for the rambles is at 750m, so it's looking good, if a bit pukey. heavy snowfall at cayoosh pass (1250m) and down at duffey lake (1100m), but shortly thereafter we get a lesson in [check my previous posts; you guessed it:] adiabatic lapse rate. it's chinooking like hell in the valley, blowing hard, raining lightly, and warming WAAAAY faster on the way back down in altitude on the (somewhat) drier side of the divide than it cooled on the weather side. by the time we get to the rambles, the snowline has disappeared into the cloud base, at least 500m above, and it's NOT ice-climbing weather. so we sip from our thermoses, tuck our tails between our legs, and drive home. nice way to put 500k on the car before breakfast... the ice is still there (checked carl's berg too), but the forecast looks ominous: temps headed for the mid-teens this week. could be all over... ah well, it's been the best season for many years; now comes alpine spring snow/ice-climbing season! and rock, now and again, or course. cheers,

shriek and loose lady are THE sandbags of SWBC! how was i to know? i hadn't climbed either back when bruce and i put the guide together, so we just believed what others told us (well, actually, bruce was on the FA of shriek, btu they probably found shriek in uniquely filled-in condition; it was early march when they did it.) i've sure heard lots of tales about people finding it 5+ (or even 6 in early season), so that's what it'll get in WCI2. loose lady might come in to 4+ condition every now and then, but it's easily the most backed-off route around, and 5+ seems way closer to typical. dale, bob: you guys both have significant rockies grade 6 experience, and i'd like your input on grading the short horrendous things we get around the coast. the "rules" in 'waterfall ice' define WI6 "A full 50m pitch of dead vertical ice or a shorter length of nasty proportions", so the question comes down to "how much shorter?" and "how nasty?" for it to still be considered grade 6. are there any 20m WI6s out there (i don't think so..) also, while saying the grade is "technical", i believe common usage is to 'grade the pitch' rather than 'grading the moves' like you would on a rock route. i'm fine with that. bottom line is that most short super-funky stuff out here tops out at 5+ - it's just not long enough to get a "6" by rockies standards. tom bridge reversed that tradition with some of his routes, giving "6s" to body shop, fender bender, as seen on TV, house of cards, etc. if it was "technical 6", he called it that. continuing that direction will yield a fair number of "soft-touch" 6s out here, and i'd rather stay consistent with the rockies. maybe we need to innovate with a "6S" grade, the S being for "short"? or do i go with 5+/6? cuz stuff which is sometimes 6 is often 5+ or even 5 later in the season... or just call it "6" if it 'typically' is "nasty" enough? opinions? from other people too... thanks for the input, cheers,

try to find a library in your area which has holdings of the canadian alpine journal, and work your way thru the last 20 years or so. amer alpine club in jackson hole must have them, if all else fails. worth a weekend drive from texas... btw, if u have specific questions, feel free to PM me. cheers,

yup, getting warm, but as long as it stays reasonably clear overnite, the ice is still forming, not disappearing, on the shady stuff. sun-exposed climbs are a different story! note also that the trends graph continues to record actual temps about 2ºC lower than the forecast, so drop another 3ºC to 5ºC for true temps at climb height, and it's not thawing much of the day. here's what i've heard/seen on the duffey: closet secrets fat/solid, but ade/robert struck a geyser with a screw. rambles fat/still almost dry. carlsberg fat/4+, but will start getting sun. sargeant pepper was in nice, but is probably getting sun now. deep throat might still be OK. tube fat but a bit drippy. loose lady hard (when is it not?), a bit drippy. red wall wanderer fat/dry except for crux pillar, which is drippy. time to leave synchronicity alone - way too much sun! as others have said, M/C shld remain fat and damp for a while yet. oregon jack is really high, so will be fine. i reckon night n gale and the shriek will be OK for a while, cuz they're high, but most of the other bridge river canyon stuff starts getting pretty sunny now. cheers,

so, yah, we climbed the little pillar out in the "3 sisters", 12km out the duffey from lillooet. it had fattened up a bit from when dru's photo was taken, but it was still only about 1/2m thick and 2m broad at the base. pretty aerated ice too, so pro was dubious (in the 1st half), but it seemed pretty clear it was not gonna fall down. janez led, graham and i followed. just over-vertical with funky ice in the 1st half, then improving. no official name yet, but of the various options under discussion i like "size matters". there is a 20m approach slope, then 15m of column. might be too short to call "6", altho the climbing was certainly grade 6 in technicality, so i think the usual coastal "5+" will be the grade - altho it's harder than body shop at M/C or mister freeze at sailor bar and i guess they both got called "6". 2hrs up from synchronicity bridge: angle up bench above bridge, cross side drainage high, keep angling up and around - steep hillside, big exposure - wear crampons! did red wall wanderer on the sunday - still in excellent shape. then climbed at "the farm" and "the office" on blackcomb monday. the season ain't over yet! see ya out there... cheers,