dylan_taylor

Mike is right. I would like my pole back. My Girlfriend and I were climbing the NW face of Liberty Bell that day, so we didn't witness the fall. But on the summit, we did meet the Canadian climbers who witnessed the event from the Beckey Route, and they filled us in. I am glad the climber survived the fall and made it out in one piece. Earlier that day we had left our poles in the LB approach gulley. When my GF and I descended the gully, one of my poles had been broken by rockfall(?) while the other one was missing. We soon found that my other trekking pole was in use by the self-rescuing party, and I hope it was helpful to them. I would also like to see if I can get it returned soon, as I fly to Europe next wednesday. The pole was brand new, as I had just bought it to replace a previously stolen pair. Hopefully, those of you involved found my mailing address on your car windshield? Thanks, and glad to hear the faller is recovering well. -Dylan Taylor

Where is the 1300 Lb developed? I think maybe i skimmed this article a few months back. 1300 Lbs of force would be reasonable on the anchor, after a bigger TR fall, but that means only half of that (or less) on the belay-to-anchor strand, and less than half of that again on the brake-side-edge of the belay device used - and that is based on zero friction. So, way less than 300 Lbs or so (actually like 30Lb-40Lb). The other good news (news that means that sharp edges may be less of a concern than you would think) is that if you are belaying off the anchor using the reverso or guide atc in autolock-configuration, the sharp edge is never rope-bearing. Plus, if you are ever worried about your reverso getting sharp, just rappel on it backwards. The reverso is still superior to the BD guide ATC for ropes bigger than about 9.4 or 9.5. I have had softer and/or fuzzier ropes get trapped in the guide ATC in small 2nding falls, and it can take a quick improvised block and tackle to get the rope unstuck. DT

hmmmmm. That guy in the BD video might want to clip his fingernails soon...

There was someone doing an academic study on CO and cooking in tents on Denali two season ago. They took blood tests from volunteers, and created an email mailing list to send out the results of their study, but I never got it.

Phil - Interesting point. Although I don't see a contradiction, I will attempt to clarify: Some could relate "Safety" to statistics. To others, it may relate to "appropriately managed risks". How many accidents have happened with one axe position vs another? Could any of those accidents have been mitigated by a different axe position? I don't know. It seems like once a person falls in a steep, high consequences environment, the likelihood of that person avoiding injury is less than if they would have avoided falling in the first place. I do not mean to imply that the self arrest grip is "safer" at all (as referenced in my second quote in your post). I think that would be like saying that wearing a parachute when flying in a plane is safer than not wearing one. I merely wanted to point out some examples where it is an appropriate technique when others on your rope team are at risk of a fall. In reading my post again I don't think I did a good job of emphasizing that "when a fall may be imminent" means a fall by another member of your party - not a fall by you. Self arrest grip certainly has its place in a few isolated circumstances. I simply tried to point out a few of those circumstances; my example relates to a person who is using self arrest grip to mitigate the consequences of someone else falling. Right technique, right place, right time. I think for many people this topic can be quite mundane, but I am always surprised at how vigorously debated it is in many mountaineering courses, and i think that it can be fun to debate these nuances. -Dylan

So far, Kurt Hicks and Jason M have provided spot-on explanations. I've never heard of any evidence showing that self arrest grip is any "safer". The upper end mountaineering schools in the PNW (Both AAI's, M-Madness, and several others...) have been teaching students to distinguish between the self arrest grip (pick pointed backward) and self belay grip (piolet canne/pick forward) for up to several decades. There are pros and cons with each of course, and we as instructors have found that the self belay grip suits most climbers most of the time. The canne position (adze under palm) is found to be a little more comfortable when driving an axe shaft in for a 10 hour day, and it is also more appropriate for dagger positions. We have our clients practice going from self belay grip to self arrest grip to full-blown self arrest while sliding down steep slopes in all positions. After 30-60 min of practice, it is surprising how proficient the students become. However, I will also tell my clients that if they feel that some sort of fall may be imminent (usually someone else on their team looking shaky or about to pop thru a weak bridge), they may hold their axe in the more conservative self arrest grip - then switch it back to self belay when out of harms way. We remind them that it is critical to remember how one is holding their axe when going into self arrest - don't want to stab yourself in the neck. I think the fear that drives many to hold their axes in self arrest position in order to more quickly prepare for self arrest is generally unfounded. The falls that seem to surprise people on snow seem to be slips related to steep, wet and/or sloppy snow. In those cases, the snow is often soft enough to plunge the axe shaft in anyway, and self arrest is a slow and sloppy affair. Stop the slip before it becomes a "fall"! It is fairly uncommon to see someone "slip" or "fall" on good, hard, steep snow - especially with crampons being worn. It is even more rare to see people fall on good snow when they are using their axes properly - which usually means piolet canne or apui! The climbers I have seen fall on steep snow have been ones that lacked good foot technique, and usually didn't know how to use their axe properly. I think the moral is - if the fall has high consequences (Just below Denali Pass comes to mind...), then don't depend on a "well executed self arrest" to get yourself out of trouble! Climb steep snow carefully and efficiently, take a belay if you need it, and use good technique to not fall! Use self arrest to mitigate other peoples' slips and falls! Ultimately, each climber should use whichever technique is more comfortable to them - but gain comfort through thorough practice of all methods, not through complacency! Thanks for raising that question, Jerseyscum. It is a good one. BTW. I went back to triumph this year - finally.

Consequences of follower falling are greater than for leader falling - falling follower yanks leader off, and increases fall factor on existing gear. Therefore 2nd climber = Stronger climber = climber least likely to fall However, clever use of tiblocs on gear by the leader can often negate the usefullness of the strong climber 2nding.

A climber or ski mountaineer's crevasse rescue repetoire should always include versions of the drop-C, among other techniques - not just the standard Z or Z to C that many people learn first, then decide to not learn anything else. You can save a lot of hauling effort by prepping a new lip, and dropping a fresh line. Not to mention the rescuer needs to have options for descending into the hole in order to perform 1st aid, etc, then ascend out prior to hauling.

Follow your instincts. Keep your edges between you and the hole your friend is hanging in. skins make it harder. Hard snow makes it harder. Soft snow - easier. Yes, whippets can be a great idea when snow is firmer or angle is steeper. Yes, roping up while skiing sucks, but in a whiteout on a glacier, or when your choice of route is constrained by tough glacial terrain, or in a low snow year, etc, you will want a rope. There are many times where a rope may be appropriate for the way up if you are unfamiliar with the terrain, but you may feel it is unneccesary once you have scoped the safest line. tie butterfly knots in the rope every meter or two. Fat skis are harder to arrest on than skinny skis. Twin tips suck for "I", "N", and "H" ski anchors. good luck.

Hi Blake i tried to PM you but something malfunctioned... I will be in steamboat during the same time period.

The edited version

Thanks for tips. I have the iron, but the moral of the story is that I need a bigger scraper. I've never had fat skis before and my trusty ski scraper isn't wide enough, so I end up doing a bad job scraping. Which has lower melting temp - glue or wax? If I do the brown bag trick how do I keep from stripping glue off as well?

Thank you! Will give that a shot...

I was in a hurry to use my new skis and I didn't do a good enough job scraping the wax. Now there is some on my new skins-creating spots of zero stickyness. Any tricks from removing wax from glue?

John Dunne...

Ride, thank you for giving us enlightening information on these two stoves. I have both, and I agree that the PR can boil water faster, but I think the JetBoil is a better stove. I do not like the larger pot very much, even though it is efficient. The lid on my large jetboil shrunk the first time i boiled pasta noodles with it - haven't been able to get it back on since. I don't understand the arguement over stove efficiency. I disagree with this statement: . I just don't see the link between stove efficiency and stove boiling speed. If I wanted to drive from bellingham to seattle as fast as possible, a corvette could get me there in just over half an hour, but that doesn't mean that it is more efficient than driving my toyota wagon, which would take me at least three times longer, but burn only a fraction of the fuel. The jetboil barely uses any fuel at high power. But the engineers figured out how to get most of that heat to go from the burner into the pot, rather than out into the atmosphere. I sometimes value speedy boiling when i am in the backcountry - big groups, cold temps, etc, but usually I am far happier to be boiling my water in four minutes instead of three, as long as I know my fuel cannister will last three or four times longer. I like the jetboil (small pot, not big one) the most because it nests into a compact package, it is fairly light, it is incredibly efficient, it makes decent coffee, it has an included tea cup/bloatmeal bowl, and, best of all, it hangs in my tent! That way I can use that extra minute or two of slow boiling time to clip my toenails while it is raining outside... I am excited to see the production Reactor stove. It sounds like it will be jetted to burn fast and efficiently. I just hope we can figure out a way to hang it.

ANWAR: a red herring that the republicans have sent evironmentalists on in order to distract them from pressuring their congressmen and representatives to vote on something that might actually matter, and might actually hurt Big Oil, like CAFE. The CAFE standards remain the same for the last 21 years.

It is happening quite quickly on the valle blanche:

slop test perhaps it is better to say that alpine ski boots will generally outperform softer Randonee boots The difference in weight (once brakes are added to the explore's - not a bad idea in avy terrain or ski-mountaineering) is only 3 oz. 3oz for a slightly beefier toe piece, a higher DIN option, and perma-brakes seems almost worth it for the freerides... Then again the dynafits are top-notch 99% of the time.

Like other workers in the service industry, guides expect tips. How much depends on the type of work. Guides working in day venues are often tipped proportionally more (~$50/day for a day on rock) than they are on long, multi-week expeditions, probably due to price fatigue, because the work is less consistent, and because the client's fun:suffering ratio is high. On Denali and foreign expeditions, Guides anticipate being tipped in the neigberhood of ~$10-~$30/day (per client), though these tips could be adjusted based on how much technical work the guide did (e.g. Were guide and clients tying into ropes every day? Such as on Denali or in the Alps? or was it only 3 out of 15 days (Ecuador volcanoes). Furthermore, I don't think all guides deserve the same tip amount. There is often a lead guide who, while responsible for the well-being of each client, is also responsible for instruction his/her junior guides on how to guide in that particular environment. To tip all equally is to tell the lead guide that their additional effort is not appreciated, and to tell the junior guides that, upon reaching the status of lead guide, they should not expect any additional reward for their hard work. Tip each guide invidually based on how you feel they contributed to the success of the expedition. For most places in the world, this is bullshit. For something non-technical like Kili, sure, a guide is a logistics liason. But for the majority of foreign guiding work, the guide is the glue that holds the trip together - not some freeloader picking up coin for interpreting between boistrous clients and "shy locals" On south america work in Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, if I didn't start working my ass off a week ahead of time buying/packing food, paying support staff, confirming hotel reservations, arranging transportation, contracting some arrieros in a village, then the trip would fall apart. This is the invisible work that the clients never see. In third-world venues, the guide is responsible for educating the clients on a little culture, history, etc. The guide needs to teach the clients on appropriate behavior in a cultural environment they are not used to visiting. Yes, the guides should pass on tips to the local staff. On foreign trips I have worked, it is customary to remind clients during the expedition about the hard work the cooks/porters/drivers do and remind them that they deserve a tip from the clients. We as guides are able to instruct the clients on what is an appropriate tip for the locals: too little is insulting to the local staff, too much sets a precedent of laziness and unrealistic expectations. The clients can fill in the blanks - knowing what guide wages in the U.S. are these days - and calculate what is then appropriate for us - the guides. If the trip runs safely, smoothly, and efficiently, if clients have fun, regardless the outcome, if the support staff is able to do their work well, then chances are the guide(s) did an excellent job of keeping it together and they deserve a gratuity from you.

Panasonic LX-1. 8.2 MP. 28mm wide angle equivilant, high aspect ratio, 4x optical zoom, image stabilizer, and RAW support. Drawback is that lens is not fully retractable so camera is hard to fit into chest pocket

I used to use the GiGi, but gave it up. Too specialized. The reverso and BD guide are much better for most of us. For a while, I always thought that the two biggest problems with the reverso were the tendency to form a sharp edge, and the relative lack of friction when belaying or rapelling on the new "standard" of skinnier ropes. Fortunately, if the reverso is used right, the two problems cancel each other out. If you rappel with the reverso "reversed", you get more friction, and you will either a)not develop a sharp edge or b) round out an existing sharp edge. The sharp edge frightened me for awhile, but in reality it never seems to have a highly tensioned rope over it except for in rare cases (such as pre-rigging a client with an old, sharp reverso above several other clients and/or a guide). I have used the BD guide device, and though I like it for some things, i don't like it for others. With its teeth, it handles skinnier rope belaying and rappeling a little better than the reverso (however, i have not used the latest generation reverso, with teeth and more taper included). But even with its gimicky release hole, meant to have a piece of cord or webbing girthed to it for releasing in autolock mode, I thought the Reverso was far smoother and easier to operate. A guiding colleague of mine tests gear for part of his livelyhood. He tested the reverso in a situation where a loaded rope with 4-8kN is wrapped over the sharp edge (in a pre-rig scenrio as mentioned above). Here are the details: "Dylan and I made a stink about Tom's Reverso being so sharp when we saw it on the exam (at the top of a rappel). He had been using it a lot at his local sandstone crag and honed a couple of really sharp edges (see photo). I traded Tom out for a new Reverso and took his home with me. I pull tested it a couple of days ago. Three tests were done: The device was placed in rappel orientation for all tests. A Sterling 10.5 mm dynamic rope was used in the first two tests on the side with the most damage. Both times the failure occurred where expected, at the sharp edge of the Reverso. What wasn't expected is that it failed at 2424.5 lbF (10.8 kN)! Dylan and I would have to gain some serious weight to have Tom's Reverso do much damage, and we were the heavy weights in the exam. Sheesh. The other test was done (same orientation) on the side with the least amount of damage with a new single 8.8mm dynamic double rope. It didn't fail after pulling 48", but started to have some sheath damage at 1941 lbF (8.6 kN). I thionk it would have taken much much more to fail it. The other interresting thing that was observed is that the sharp edges of aluminum were rolled over after pull testing, much like what happens to a really sharp knife blade when cutting on a hard surface." Obviously, the sample size is small, only two ropes were used. A photo of the test reverso is included. DT

Hey John! What memories! I was just looking at old slides of Triumph... Anyway, Google is an amazing thing. This satisfied some curiousity: Bina, C. R., and A. Navrotsky, Till Hell freezes over - Ice in subducting slabs?, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting Supplement, T22B-05, 2000. T22B-05 During subduction of oceanic lithosphere, a series of progressive dehydration reactions occurs. The water liberated participates in geologically important processes. It has been invoked in melting point depression responsible for island-arc volcanism, in enhanced pore pressures responsible for intermediate-depth seismicity, and in transport of soluble chemical constituents from slab to mantle. While supercritical fluid water is liberated during dehydration of most slabs, the stable phase of H2O is solid ice VII along portions of the geotherm for the coldest slabs. The substitution of ice VII for fluid water as a product of dehydration reactions has significant implications for the physical processes by which H2O is generated, stored, transported, and released within cold subduction zones. The locations and slopes in P-T space of dehydration reactions change, potentially affecting depths of seismogenesis and magmagenesis. Significant amounts of ice VII can be accumulated during progressive dehydration of mineral solid solutions during subduction. As the sinking slab warms, melting of this pure ice will occur at a single temperature and pressure, releasing large amounts of water in a small spatial region over a short time. This univariant melting reaction has a significant positive volume change and may trigger seismicity. The initially chemically pure liquid water that is formed, being undersaturated with respect to all dissolved constituents, will react strongly with the surrounding rock, with possible implications for trace element distributions and metal transport. Accumulation of ice VII in a cooling planetary interior (e.g., Mars) may eventually lead to a decline in or cessation of tectonic activity.

I wonder what subduction model their evidence is based on. Most subduction zone models put the 600 deg C isotherm at a max depth of 120km on the cool, descending slab. Much warmer in the mantle wedge and descending oceanic lithosphere adjacent to it. It could get cooler at the same pressure for a more rapidly or steeply descending slab, but not that much cooler. By that depth in most arcs, amphiboles have dewatered. Hard to picture that water turning to ice, since it is what we attribute to be a primary cause of partial melting in the mantle wedge. Where's the link to the whole NYT article? I wonder if it is causing debate among earth scientists, or if some think that its a crock...