russ

Did you find the Amazon village?

quote: for a different reason than your problem, the trango s was initially recalled ... that's partly why they weren't around all summer.[/QB]TLG, what was the reason for the recall? [ 10-25-2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: russ ]

quote: Originally posted by iain: anyone skiing Miras out there? what do you think about them? I'm thinking of some 188's. I demo'd the K2 Shuksan's last year and was not impressed. A sales guy had raved about them, but I found them to be not as responsive as I'd like for quick turns. Did just fine as GS cruiser. ymmv I ended up getting 188 Mira's which I've used in powder, crude, slush and summer hardpack. I like them a lot. Plenty wide in powder, solid enough to handle pnw crude and quick turning. The only icy conditions I've skied them on was climbing the sw chute on adams and starting the descent before the sun hit the face. I was nervous about the icy, hard snow conditions - once I committed to the first turn it was obvious the Mira's could handle the conditions with easy. Had a really good run. They're mounted with Dynafits. [edited for clarity-russ] [ 10-21-2002, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: russ ]

quote: Originally posted by gym rat: What about the arc'teryx Khamsin 62? If only got the editors' choice pick in Climbing magazine. Any thoughts? or are you guys too busy pounding the chests of YOUR packs? When someone is asked their opinion they either 1)spray b.s. about something they haven't experienced, 2) regurgitate what they've heard/read from others 3)or speak from personal experience. "Climbing" has given it the editors choice - they've spoken. So what do YOU think? My experience is with the Arcteryx Bora 60, which I've been extremely pleased with - well built, has the features I'm looking for, fits my body. Does the K62 have the features you're looking for? Does it fit your body?? Who cares what I say if it doesn't fit your needed?

I disagree with most of the above comments. The Dynafit combo with CR110 is a very good set up for the pnw. There are many of us happy Dynafit customers, not that there aren't times when the front pins require a little fiddling. It's just not that significant imho. Likewise, you'll find many happy CR110 skiers.

I recommend a brownie. [ 10-16-2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: trask ] A little heavy handed with that editing function don't ya think.

quote: Originally posted by scot'teryx: quote:boner. dude. did you see the size range... 44-68! who the hell wears 68" waist!?! those sizes are not the waist measurements, probably euro sizing or some such thing. It is euro sizing, you gotta actually read the text on the page Yah, it's Euro sizing, but it's still fricken gigantic. I bought Mammut Castor pants last week and the store couldn't tell me anything about the sizing, so I tried them all on. My assessment was 48 smallish medium, 50 medium, 52 large, 54 lg-xlarge. I don't want to even think about catching a fall of someone who wears a 68 .

quote: Originally posted by Fence Sitter: the thing that pisses me off is thatt with packs...the canucks use liters adn the yanks use C.U.'s whats the deal? does anyone knwo the conversion for that? try http://www.convert-me.com/en/ I reserve my brain for more important things

Just forked over the cash for a Minolta F100 . I'm playing with the settings - which seem pretty straight forward. Question for you folks who have used ditigals: what size (2272x1704 to 640x4980)and quality (super fine, fine, std, econ)do you normally set your camera at on a climb when you don't want to mess with it - just pull out, shoot, tuck it away, and go? My inclination is to go with 'fine', 2272x1704. but wonder if just going with 'standard' is adequate? Obviously you never know when the perfect shot opportunity is going to come up.

quote: Originally posted by B.S.'er: Plus it is not as pure because you are acclimating just like you had made a base camp. So that what you call what you're doing in the back of your car - "acclimating" - sure.

I'm about the lay down my cash on a digital camera as well. The important features for me are size (reasonably small), adequate optical zoom (at least x3), adequate resolution (3-4 megapixal) and reasonable battery life. I've finally settled on the Minolta F100. I have an Canon Elph APS format, so looked hard at the digital Elph's (Powershot S330). Decided I wanted both x3 optical zoom and 4 megapixel. Here's a good website for researching digital cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?cameras=minolta_dimagef100&method=sidebyside

quote: Originally posted by sexual chocolate: Dang. I did the math, and it actually came out to 1,331. clearly you have too much time on your hands

Back in the late '70's I went to Mt Jonah, or something close to that, in Georgia. On several routes every hold was painted blue. A local said the national guard trained there, so the holds were marked so they could find them.

I was hestitant to bring this up out of respect for a fellow climbers death and the grief of his friends,family and climbing community, but there's been enough other sidebars so I will. It took awhile for it to register, but the almost exclusive use of camming devices on the pitch is something a couple of my partners and I have talked about over the years. I tend to protect like Goren did, plug the cams - fast, usually solid. Where my buddies prefer using mostly chocks, or at least as good mixture (I'm talking where you have a choice between 2 acceptable placements). The discussions have influenced me, because I've noticed that I've purposely mixed pro more in the last couple of years. I can't help but wonder what a solidly place chock higher up would have done? [it's been a few years since I led Air Guitar and my memory of the crack has faded - it's probably mostly parallel sided...]

Three of us hiked Sloan Peak Saturday via the Corkscrew route as described in Nelson's guide. We had attempted this route 2 years ago in October; at that time the Sauk was running at mid-thigh level. As I remember it had been raining a fair amount the week before. We ended up turning around in the basin just below the Sloan's north ridge in about a foot and a half of new snow. Saturday was quite different. We came prepared with tennies/aqua socks, but they weren't really needed as the water was only ankle deep for about 30 feet. Of course we didn't know this, so had already changed at the first branch crossing. Hiking through the forest was beautiful,and marred only by a couple of hornet attacks. Somehow I came through unscathed, one buddy was wearing red knicker socks and he sustained 6 of 8 stings on his calves. We couldn't decide if they were attracted by the bright color or offend at his sense of fashion . After the second creek crossing (I think), there's a section of avalanche debris that you have to cross for a couple hundred yards - it wasn't there 2 years ago. Actually, lower down you have to cross about a hundred feet of the run out debris as well. Someone has marked a "trail" with tape which made it easier connecting with the trail on the other side. I think this is one of the largest avalanche pathways that I've seen. It would have been awesome to watch it come down from an opposite ridge. Crossing the glacier was straight forward. We roped up at one point for a 5' section where the snow bridge was about 18" wide. A solo climber had turned around at that point, which I thought showed excellent judgement. It was no big deal with a belay to test the strength, but not worth risking as a soloist. An uneventful scramble to the summit was rewarded by a fantastic 360 degree view. Two other climber joined us on the summit and pointed out many peaks we were unsure of. On the way down we were getting tired, but jazzed that we'd pulled off this fine outing in good style - we should have known that you never let your guard down before your ass is setting in the car... After recrossing the river, instead of exactly retracing our path, we took the dreaded "left fork". You know the one, the one that straightens out the wandering path, the one that going to cut 10 minutes off your return, the one that going to lead to the village of amazons who haven't seen a man in 2 years...whoa, that's another story - back to Sloan. The left path leads us back to what we think is the first branch on the Sauk we crossed so many hours ago - but in an entirely different place. No worry, there's a big fricken log spanning the 50' section of water. We walk across to the far end where the log resting next to a large cedar. so what? as we get next to the cedar it's clear you can't walk around it because it pushes you too far out, and it's to big grab to just swing around. Off come the packs and we crawl - no let's be honest - we grovel past the cedar,hoping it doesn't push our butts over into the river. Once the first guy gets past, do we go see if there's a trail on the other side - no, that would be logical. We all get around, of course to discover there's nothing on the otherside but wonderful Washington backwoods. You know, the ugly kind..lots of devils club..no ground level for 2 steps in a row. We forge ahead for about 50 feet, when we realize what absolute dolts we're being and turn around. Back across the log (grovel,grovel ), retrace to the short cut point. Now on the right path, we head back to the car having easily lost an hour on our side trip. Still all-in-all a fun day. Started at 6:30am, got back to the car at 7:30 pm. Didn't need those headlamps.

quote: Originally posted by David Parker: Also, the approach is a total piece of cake compared to 1986! No trail whatsoever back then! you must have missed it or the trail was in one of those weird time/space dimension warps. we did dreamer in 83 (my first yr in WA) and found the trail just fine. went back a couple years later and wandered in the vine maple. then went back later that summer and the trail mysteriously re-appeared (no, it couldn't been us and we were not abusing substances) I agree with others that the runout, knob tieing last pitches were a major character of the route. On the other hand, when I climbed it again 3-4 years ago, I enjoyed those bolted pitches - just different kind of experience. One thing that was kind of amusing (for me anyway) was that this late time there was a party just ahead of that was "kind of slow" in their route finding. I don't like to spray beta, so I kept my mouth shut and waited patiently. Near the end of the 5th pitch where you start traversing left, a shiny bolt lured them up and right. I again kept quite, but used the opportunity to zip past them on the left. They looked kind of pissed, but hey, alls fair....

quote: Originally posted by pete a: So would you recommend going with the older dyna binding instead of the tri-step? The only advantage of the newer one is its easier to get in and out of it, right? [/QB] I got dynafits last year and went with the older model (techlite?) because of the tri-step toe release problem. According to the sales rep (and I've heard it elsewhere) one improvement worth considering is the newer heel piece have slightly longer metal rods which engage the rear bracket on the boots. This makes the binding less prone to release due to upward lift of the boot/upward flex of the ski when you have a heavy snow load on the tips and tails. The upward flex causes the distance between toe and heel pieces of the binding to increase and the boots pop out. I had half a dozen or so releases last year because of this. Mostly when I stopped in deep heavy snow and started to lift the ski straight up. I'm going to get a second set of dynafits for some light weight skis to use in summer conditions. I've thought about using the toe piece from the techlite with the heel piece of the tri-step on my winter/spring skis, but I don't know enough to determine if that's safe to do. Figured I'd ask around at a few shops....

nice shots

Bug - are they full set 0 - 11 or all one size?

guess I'm to web illiterate to figure it out. mr. radon offered to post the photo, so I sent a couple to him.

ok, I created a basic website with a couple of photos of stuart - let's see if it works.

quote: Originally posted by jdog: the first hard pitch seemed alot harder than a 5.7 layback. actually was a layback with a overhanging bulge. ended up setting a belay off a fixed piton. i hauled my backpack through this section and it was a bitch. i don't ever recall the squeeze slot unless this first pitch was it. didn't seem right though. i think we were too far to the east. I've got a jpeg of the first pitch (which shows the 5.7 layback with tie off bush and entering the 5.8 slot), but I don't have a website to link to. If anyone is interested I would e-mail the jpeg and someone could put up a link. Russ (rschwartz45@attbi.com)

quote: Originally posted by Dru: So Ok...Is unknown TR guy pulling on the rope in the picture? His hand is right on the rope! Discuss at depth. Looks like his left hand to me -very important distinction. beta calls for thin sloper for the right hand, rope for the left - blow the sequence and you look like a gaper.

In the bottom quarter of Cascadian stay right and you pickup a nice trail that takes you to the bottom. (Either way) go right when you hit the trail, then take the left fork to the creek. Cross the creek on a log in a well traveled area, then it's up and over Longs.

Jared - I'm not familar with the Beverly Creek trail, but looking at the TOPO cd that sure looks like a lot longer way to go. As you're coming down Cascadian coul. and hit Ingalls trail, you go right (west) as you're going to Ingalls Lake. After a short while you reach a fork - right leads to Ingalls Lk, left leads to the log crossing and Longs' Pass. Sounds like the log you crossed on came as you went left (east) on Ingalls trail. [ 08-10-2002, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: russ ]