Crazy_Jeff

Up Frostbite is definitely a cool way to go, but Josh is right, I've done that before. Seriously, when else am I ever going to bother bagging the south side of that beastly mountain? I'm glad I had a chance to check out the scenery around Glacier Peak Meadows, very cool. As a ski tour, it's probably a bit tame. You'd definitely want to take a shortcut, like down Baekos creek. There's more flats than I imagined there would be (duh?). And there are probably a million better skiing objectives this time of year... I just kept wanting to see the south side of GP. Plus it's really cool to see the looks on peoples' faces on the PCT when they see your skis and boots on your back.

Josh - I like the way you think. Yeah, I needed to get some September turns in. And weight training is good. Paul - You should be like me and get fired so you have more time to ski!

I had a couple days to kill and I wanted to make a trip that would hurt. South side of Glacier Peak seemed like the way to go. Got a late start Wed morning. Very scenic route, especially through Glaicer Peak Meadows. Made it to 8300 ft before it got dark and I had to bivy. Very windy all night. Woke up late and fought choss all the way up disappointment peak. I think there must be a better way up than what I took, easy 3rd/4th class most of the way with a couple low 5th class moves right at the top (always fun to do with skis on your back). Nothing challenging from there on up, however. The walk down was quite a chore on the ridge above sitkum spire, since there was ~50mph sustained winds coming from the scimitar. Made it nearly impossible to walk (especially with those damn skis). The upper sitkum was a disaster area, totally covered with rocks, dirt, and crevasses. The lower sitkum was only slightly better. Got perhaps 500 vertical feet of skiing in. After that, it's just a quick hike out to the car. Alright, so how many people out there think that a >10000' climb for ~500 ft of skiing is worthwhile? I'm getting the impression that I'm just about the only person who would be glad they brought skis after doing a trip like that. But I'm pretty messed up in the head. Oh yeah, if you're planning to do this trip and you're smart, you should bring a helmet. I relied on luck, however, which weighs less.

If I read trask's shit more, maybe I would know what you're talking about. But you're probably right... most things I say come straight out of my ass. As far as the wankers that dog our plan: all smack aside, I feel sorry for you if you don't see the point behind our trip. It's supposed to be an adventure, right? And we conquered the north ridge, probably putting more effort in to it than most people ever do. I think the best parts of the trip were climbing through crazy ass crevasses. Maybe you should consider trying something off the beaten path. It's cooler out there. I feel like I fought a huge battle and won. Bitchin. Even if we didn't succeed, I'd take losing a huge battle over winning a lame one any day. p.s. SUCK IT!

yes... paramount in "safe" mountain travel. But if you're so concerned about being safe, just stay home and beat off on your couch. If there's no risk, it's a hike, not a climb. And next time I'm looking for cluster fuck practice, I'll do what I always do... head over to your mom's house.

That's not just how I climb. That's how I live my whole life.

So if you brought a really really light tool (like just the pick or a fork), could you call it a fourth ice tool?

Well, we did use the crampons for the descent. And we did Sitkum last weekend, so we didn't need the extra views that badly. I see your point, though. We didn't use pro because we weren't roped up for Frostbite. We roped on Kennedy Glacier, but that was just in case we collapsed a snow bridge or something, so we didn't use pro there either. It's all good if you have fun, and we sure did. Hope you did too.

Okay, I think you confused me there. So by a "third tool" you really mean a second tool, right? Just called that because it's light? And the crater was pretty icy even in the evening. I think the hard plastic randonee boots were what got us up there. I wouldn't have done it in leather boots. I was just determined to make it after avoiding crampons all day. While I'm here, I also want to ask a couple extra questions... 1) Why do climbers always get up so early? I could understand wanting to see a sunrise from the summit, but not every single time I climb. 2) Why carry over? Sitkum is only marginally shorter, and if you downclimb the way you go up, you can leave your overnight gear down low, which sounds a lot more enjoyable to me. All my views were formed hanging out with the ski mountianeering crowd, so I'd just like a little insight into the world of normal climbers.

I did Frostbite this past weekend for the first time with Sky, and I don't really understand what all this talk is about technical climbing. I made it to the top with one whippet and no crampons, and I haven't even been climbing a year yet (started last Sept). And it was perfectly safe to downclimb too, unlike the Kennedy Glacier which had some sketchy crevasse crossings and water ice. I suppose it's cool that all these route descriptions make it sound so hairy that the masses will be deterred and leave the ridge vacated for those of us who know the proper way up Glacier Peak. I also understand that some people will want to use pickets and ice screws... no one wants someone attached to their rope who is nervous and likely to make a mistake, but could someone tell me why they'd want a third ice tool? Do you have three arms or what? I don't mean to sound like a jerk here. Frostbite ridge just didn't seem that technical to me. Someone needs to say it. If you think my opinion belongs in a blue bag, go ahead and let me know.