montypiton

responding to BirdDog & Mattp - my test/demo of a " backclip" is a simple demonstration of HOW a leader's lateral movement above an apparently properly clipped piece can render a "backclip" (perhaps a less confusing and more descriptive/accurate term might be "declip"). I can reproduce the phenomenon most regularly with bentgate carabiners that also have a projecting "nose" at the gate; I can reproduce it slightly less predictably using any biner with that projecting "nose" -- seems to catch the rope and direct it towards the gate; least affected seems to be an oval-shape with no nose-like projection at the opening end of the gate; wire or solid gate seems to make no noticeable difference - its the shape/geometry of the biner that produces the "declip". the crowd I regularly climb with have chosen to address this issue by including locking biners on some of our draws. An equally effective solution would be doubling/opposing carabiners in squirrelly or spooky situations. What might be noted by anyone reading and carefully analyzing this thread, is the unsettling thought that any design characteristic that makes a carabiner easier to clip, also makes it more prone to declip. My choice to stick with a more secure option obviously imposes some risks - like I have to be able to hold on long enough to make the clip! I'd never suggest that my way is the only, or even best, way - but I strongly believe that climbers ought to be aware of the risks presented by their individual climbing styles...

responding to eldiente: Mattp is correct that I used the term "backclip" to describe the phenomenon of the belay rope unclipping itself from a carabiner by rapping itself across the biner's gate during a fall. I have always understood the term "back-clip" to mean to clip the rope through a carabiner in the "wrong" direction so that a fall would direct the loaded rope back across the outside of the gate, thus likely unclipping itself under load. (if I am mistaken, it wouldn't be the first time...) This is apparently what happened with my friends. The climber was Dave Jaeks, belayed by Mark Shipman, both of Wenatchee. With some informal testing, I have discovered that I can reproduce the phenomenon pretty dependably if I mount a bentgate carabiner on the rope end of a stiff-sewn dog-bone quickdraw -- so I now incorporate that demonstration in the workshops I teach for rescue personnel, and I avoid both stiff dogbone-style runners, and bentgate carabiners...

I would second Mtguide's recommendations, and add one title to his reading list: Climbing Self-Rescue: Improvising Solutions for Serious Situations, by Andy Tyson and Molly Loomis, published by the Mountaineers. Having practiced and taught technical mountain rescue at both professional and volunteer venues for thirty+ years, I have to say this is the most accessible work I've seen for the layman. Tyson and Loomis start with the most basic of basics, the simplest rescue being lowering a climbing partner off of a toproped climb, and build from that to progressively more complex scenarios. Generally, I would recommend exploring your technical limits at roadside crags (the old-school traditional alpinists used to call these "practice areas" a couple of generations back...)and choosing alpine/backcountry objectives well within those KNOWN limits for the first season or two... expect challenges and learn from the occasional mistake: "good judgment is the product of vast experience, much of which may be the product of poor judgment..."

I may get laughed off the site for this, but I avoid bentgates entirely. (the occasional booty-bentgate, I immediately retire to "utility" non-climbing use) Yes, they're easy to clip, but they're also noticeably more likely to "back-clip". A buddy of mine from Wenatchee, climbing at Red Rocks a few years back, took what ought to have been an inconsequential lead fall and ended up twenty feet below his belayer after FOUR QD's in a row failed/back-clip. Since then, I and most of my regular partners are now setting up about half of our draws with lightweight LOCKING carabiners on the rope end. My typical setup is either two wiregates, or a wiregat-and-locker. This works for us old farts who don't focus on "sport" routes but are happy on trad and alpine routes to about 5.11. I'm more than willing to allow that a locker on the rope-end of a draw may be too "fiddly" for hard sport routes, but the minimal difference in clipability between a wiregate and a bentgate would not justify, for me, the increased risk of using only bentgates on leads at the limit of my abilities... to sum up - at least consider setting up a few draws with lockers on the rope-end, as extra insurance in squirrely situations...

I would agree with mtguide about the toe-welt, and would avoid the cevedale for that reason. I would not necessarily rule out plastic boots, either. There is a very wide variation in function among plastic boots, and some are surprisingly nimble. I have a pair of Lowa Civettas that I have owned since 1990, which are as light, flexible, and comfortable as many heavier leather single boots. Although I prefer a lighter single boot for higher standard climbing, I still prefer the civetta for snow/ice trips longer than a single overnight, because they don't freeze up, and my feet stay warm and dry. If you're planning to do be out for days at a time on snow, I'd definitely re-think your position on plastic. If you truly decide against plastic, I would look for an all-leather boot, like the Sportiva Nepal Extreme, or even the Makalu if you're not looking at highest-standard technical climbing. I've seen plenty of guys out climbing grade IV waterfalls in Makalus or equivalent. While the synthetic singles may be lighter, virtually all depend on goretex or some similar membrane for waterproofness, and all have multiple seams in the uppers. Seams are weak points and leakpoints, so, the fewer the better. And all waterproof-breathable membranes will eventually leak - limiting the functional lifetime of the synthetic single boot. So - either a plastic with a relatively soft/flexible upper, or an all-leather with a one-piece-full-grain upper (expensive). Either will most likely do the job. A high-quality leather boot may well cost more than its plastic cousin, and will require maintenance that the plastic boot will not. If you're looking to spend much time on snow/ice, and cost and long-term durability are significant factors, I would lean towards a light, soft (rigid-soled, of course) plastic model. One last thought - maybe totally irrelevant - if you ever want to use them with skis, the plastics will definitely outperform the leathers...

I've used L-glutamine for ten years or so, as an aid in resolving DOMS ("delayed onset muscle soreness"). I began after referring to some studies indicating its effectiveness for that. I don't use it all that regularly, usually only after an unusually heavy workout. My wife, a "retired" mountain bike racer and still a fairly formidable cyclist, tried using it after long hard rides, and now swears by it, which may not mean anything if it weren't for the fact that as a physician's daughter, she poo-poos the whole supplement concept as a matter of principle. She only tried it at my suggestion that it might be better than the quantity of ibupofen she was consuming. For me, a teaspoonful in about sixteen ounces of water or diluted fruit juice within an hour of an uberworkout seems to make a big difference in how I feel forty-eight hours later. Google it and read some studies if you haven't already done so. If you decide to try it, I've found Optimum Nutrition's version a cost-effective solution, purchased through Bodybuilding.com.

update on the padded mechanic gloves: I climbed four pitches of soft/wet ice/mixed on 3/14. My hands stayed warm, but the thin leather palm got pretty wet. I dried 'em out and waxed the palm (ski-wax and a blow dryer, adding wax until it pooled on the surface of the leather, then rubbing off pooled excess). Now I can hold the gloves under running water without absorbing, and the palm/fingers are slightly tacky. The feel is far more sensitive than the rubberized knit gloves -- but I'll have to put a couple more days on them for a final opinion. So far, so good...

I've tried several variants on the thin glove theme, including the thermofits pictured above, the chilly-grip version,(never liked the tactility of that rubberized palm) a couple of different soft-shell types ( liked the MH "torsion" but after wearing through a couple pairs, decided I needed something less expensive...). Tried a neoprene paddling glove, but didn't care for the clammysweats. (even on "warm" days, my hands would get damp, then cold...) recently discovered mechanic specialty gloves in hardwear stores -- padded knuckles, leather palm (reinforced, no less!), and "water resistant" (which I've yet to fully test). The thin leather palm/fingers present acceptable tactile sensitivity, and the padded knuckles serve the same purpose for wrenchers and icebums. They're about halfway between the thermofit/chilly-grip type and the adventure-sport softshell type in terms of price (the ones I got were about $30 with sales tax...) I figure its worth a try -- gonna be a while before I know for sure.

hey g-spotter - anytime you feel like unloading those Leeper Zs, just lemmee know!

and if you ever come across a cache of old Leeper Z-pins, take what you think you want, then let me know, and I'll take the rest of them!

Rat is right - so few lines form consistently the same from year to year that most of them don't have "official" names, or a few of us have names that we use so that we can figure out which area we're talking about from time to time. -- In a winter like this one, with an extended melt-freeze cycle, most shaded pockets hold ice which would be buried under snow in a "normal" winter. For instance, in a heavy snow year, the wi4 bottleneck in the chimney described above would most likely be buried... I took a camera both times, but Tarver dropped it off the first pitch on the first trip, and I found the battery dead (the wife had used it and not recharged it...) on the second trip, so, sorry, no pics. But Andy Barber and I are headed up there tomorrow morning, and I can try for some photos then...

Trip: Hubba-hubba hill - that chimney - Date: 2/27/2009 Trip Report: having walked past this feature on the way to the Funnel for almost thirty years now, I finally got around to taking a closer look, and was most pleasantly surprised. What looks like it might yield two pitches of climbing actually turned out to present four, and the second pitch, where the chimney narrows, is distinctly sporty! - WI4, THIN (very short screws or very large testicles...)and dead steep. First pitch goes WI2-3 & mixed, depending on conditions. I was up there with John Tarver two weeks ago, & we climbed the first two pitches before I had to get back for work. Left two pegs for a resident rap anchor at the end of the second pitch, and a 60m rappel from that anchor gets you back to the start. From that anchor, Mark Shipman and I found two more pitches of WI2 & mixed to top out. There's now a v-thread at the end of the third pitch. For those of you who have grown bored of the Funnel, this chimney, about 150 yards left, will make your day. Both the Funnel, and this chimney are still plenty Fat, and should last a while, as they're on the shady side of the canyon. If ya decide to give 'er a go, take a handful of stoppers, cams, and a couple of thin blade pitons, in addition to a handful of medium & SHORT ice screws...

a few of us who've been eyeing the recurve as a possible ice/mixed line have taken to calling this flow "consolation prize" since it's more often in shape than the recurve dihedral itself. wouldn't go so far as to say we've "named" it, but it's a way to understand one another...

recurve dihedral - Paul Myhre wrote an account in the American Alpine Journal, I think '78, but I'm not certain, of a climb that he and Roger Osborne made on this feature. Paul told me their route stayed out on the face just left of the actual corner - said the corner itself looked pretty grungy... I've been about halfway up it when it was iced in about five or six years ago, but backed off as I had commitments I needed to be down for the next morning. Rolf (rat) told me he'd also been partway up it as an ice route. It does ice up, but not every year. I'm waiting to get back on it if it ever fills in fat again...

Great thread! I tend to agree with most of what's been said. Can't say I really understand the new-age mixed game. I still can't quite wrap my mind around why a move is classified "aid" if the climber uses a bat-hook, but the same move is classified "mixed" if the same climber uses the pick of a modern ice tool... makes my brain hurt to try to figure it out. But as to standards & technique & tools: I remember listening to Don Peterson (you know, Tis-a-ack?) back in '78 pontificating about how "it's not possible to climb vertical ice with a 70cm ice axe". I had to respectfully disagree with him, having previously climbed overhanging serac faces using a 70cm interalp cerro torre (similar geometry to the Chouinard piolet) and a first-generation Chouinard alpine hammer. Around that same year, I remember Jeff Thomas and Ed Newville made the first ascent of Multnomah Falls during what the locals called a "silver thaw", and Newville raving about the Forrest Mjollnir hammer with the Skye pick. By '89, I had made the switch to "hooked" tools, and continued to use a pair of Cassin Antares until just a couple of years ago, when I traded them to John Tarver for some help building my shop. I had used them on Louise Falls just a couple of winters ago while letting my 12-year old son use the new Aztars, which were much lighter and better fitted for his (at that time) smaller hands. Got to put up with a lotta folks oohing and aahing "I can't believe you're climbing this with straight shafts!?" Guess that's just part of being on a popular classic on a busy day... I gotta say, that experimenting on climbs with the old Antares in one hand, and a Quark in the other, I could hardly tell the difference... (so I never bought Quarks...) For me, personally, I find an index-finger support greatly improves the effectiveness of my swing. Feels like power steering for the pick. For this reason, my current rig is a pair of DMM rebels - the adjustable grip presents supports for the pinky, the index finger, and for matching, has a spike for plunging, and is narrow enough that my hands so far have remained attached past the point where I feel too pumped to hang on. (On climbs where I expect to have to use pitons, I still carry the venerable old Chouinard alpine hammer -- much easier than trying to drive pins with the curved shaft) The result is, in my mid-fifties, I'm cruising stuff that I would not have attempted twenty-five years ago. I prefer to climb leashless, but having dropped a tool a couple of times (on the lead both times, but neither time in a terribly serious situation - transitioning from steep to low angle) I am resigned to getting accustomed to an umbilical rig. Modern screws are a god-send. What a treat to be able to place a screw on vertical ice, and not have to clip to a tool or hang from a leash, or chop a starter-hole to do it. I have to agree that the ability to meaningfully protect difficult ice has been a huge factor in expanding my "box". In the final analysis, for me, the improvements seem to boil down to what's efficient. Hooking seems to be more efficient than swinging tools, clearance shafts allow more efficient use of featured ice than straight shafts, leashless means one less bit of cluster to deal with, screws place more quickly without tools or starter-holes and hold greater loads, and dry-tooling is more efficient than bat-hooks and stirrups. Besides expanding everyone's concept of "possible", this bundle of efficiencies makes ice and mixed climbing way more fun and way less terrifying than it used to be, and I like that. Almost makes me want to live long enough to see another "revolution"...

we tried to get there over MLK weekend, but the road was unplowed, and the Subaru had insufficient clearance for the rutted snow. if you can get to it, it ought to be in reasonable shape...

there's a load of us in the Wenatchee valley, spread from Wenatchee to Leavenworth. While it wouldn't be truly accurrate to say we NEED partners, another is always welcome. pm me and I'll put you in the email loop

stick clip is a form of top-rope, and, as such, is as acceptable as top-roping. this option didn't seem to be available as a voting position...

If you're really serious about maximum improvement in minimal time, spend the $$ for a PRIVATE lesson, and specify your objective - backcountry skiing, perhaps with a pack. A decent ski-school should be able to match you with an instructor (take time to interview more than one) who will take you off-piste, ski your brains out, and larn ya more in a day than you could accomplish in several seasons of self-learning. No, I'm not an instructor; however, I did benefit immeasurably from many a day with a certified instructor during my 14 seasons as a professional patroller...

If you're really serious about maximum improvement in minimal time, spend the $$ for a PRIVATE lesson, and specify your objective - backcountry skiing, perhaps with a pack. A decent ski-school should be able to match you with an instructor (take time to interview more than one) who will take you off-piste, ski your brains out, and larn ya more in a day than you could accomplish in several seasons of self-learning. No, I'm not an instructor; however, I did benefit immeasurably from many a day with a certified instructor during my 14 seasons as a professional patroller...

A larger tent will permit you to stay drier, especially if you have to sit out a storm in it for several days. A sturdy shovel is not just an emergency tool on a Denali expedition. Your shovel may well get more & harder use on this trip than in the entire rest of your life. As a veteran of several Alaskan expeditions, I would consider the shovel more critical than the tent... If my shovel fails in the Cascades, I'm never more than a day's ski from a trailhead. On my Denali trips I was happy to have the short-handled steel-bladed grain scoop we carried... A minimum of two field-maintainable stoves is a must. You cannot stay alive on Denali without a working stove. Most successful Denali climbers travel relatively heavy - and the use of freight sleds makes this more manageable. If you're reasonably competent on skis or snowshoes, I predict you'll have an easier time with a 100lb load on a sled than with a 40lb load on your back. I carried a pressure-cooker as my main cookpot on my Denali expeditions. Yes, it weighed many times what a "backpackers/climbers" pot normally weighs. However, the weight saved in fuel more than made up for the weight of the pot, and the cooker allowed me far more latitude in my menu planning, because I was not limited by the boiling temperature of water at altitude. It's a real bummer to discover, after you're already there, that water does not boil at a hot enough temperature above 14000' to cook rice... The West Buttress of Denali is little more than a long trudge on snow with a couple of steep spots, but this presents its own unique challenges: Many extremely competent technical climbers fail on Denali because they neglect to develop the skills necessary for living comfortably in the arctic environment for extended periods. On this route, your snow-camping skills may well be more critical than your climbing skills.

After seeing Lowell Skoog's presentation of an early film of Otto Lang sticking his skins to his skis with Klisterwax, I tried that method, and was gratified to find how well it works. I don't use glue on my skins anymore... just a relatively soft wax before I start uphill, the skins seem to adhere to that just fine, with no glue. If I guess just right, (occasionally do), I can just peel the skins at the top and make my run down with no other prep...

I survived precisely this scenario descending after climbing the N. Face of Mt. Robson in 1979. Having summitted near midnight, we chose to wait for daylight to descend, since we would be descending a route unfamiliar to us. By daylight, fog had moved in, and we had a full on whiteout. Knowing that our descent followed the south ridge, we used compass and rope to navigate a straight south bearing (one climber stationary, watching the rope pay out, and calling directions to the moving partner who was invisible). We found a line of tracks leaving the ridge towards the Robson Glacier, which was where we had camped, so we followed them, descending the Kain Face without visibility. At the base of the Kain Face, we found ourselves in a crevasse field, still with no visibility. At that point, we sat down and waited for the fog to lift or clear. One bivouac later, we had visibility again, and threaded our way through the crevasses on the snow dome, and down to our glacier camp. Expertise with map, compass, gps, and altimeter will all expand your capabilities, but none of these will get you through a complicated crevasse field. Wands only help if you're retracing your previous route. Sometimes, you have no choice but to simply sit it out.

threads do help a screw stay in the ice, but a greater factor in the screw's holding capacity is refreezing -- once the tube stops turning, assuming the ice is below freezing temp, the tube freezes in place, and both the threaded exterior surface and the smooth interior of the screw present bonding surfaces... this has led, on occasion, to some terrifying experiences on warm days / sloppy ice...

I've climbed on twins almost exclusively since the mid-eighties, and find the versatility of the system hard to beat. Yeah, sometimes I'll just carry one and double it over, but I usually carry both. I think you'll find the cluster factor will resolve itself with some practice -- I can remember (rather not say how many years ago)some pretty nasty clusters with single-rope belays when I was first learning. Like single ropes, twins have gotten thinner over the years - I don't really notice much difference in the handling, other than the lack of weight (bonus) and needing to update belay devices occasionally (probably a good thing, too).