trumpetsailor

My Cilo 30:30 GS has ~1.9 years on it now (>80 days?), used as a year-round ski and climbing pack for trips up to 3+ days. It's beginning to show its age in a few spots. There are a couple of <5 mm ski edge cuts in the lighter fabric constrained by ripstop, there are a few tiny holes elsewhere , and the stitching on one of the (important) load lifters is coming apart where it and the lid attaches to the pack. Otherwise, it's in good shape. Waterproofing is getting understandably old. I doubt it'll make it through another two winters. I like the pack; more than I liked my old beat-to-death 60L. A Cilo 45 or 60, with the GS modifications, might meet Tvash's requirements?

Condolences to everyone touched by this accident: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/09/body-of-seattle-climber-recovered-in-north-cascades-national-park/ A big thank you, as always, to those who helped to bring him home.

Nice work, Highlife! Great to meet you at the Terror Basin glacial lake outlet on our way up. Thanks for the knowledge, too. Woodcutter - we were the party of two atop West Mac for the night. Were you the blinkers on the N. Ridge of Terror (I guess we met you in Goodell Creek that morning?)? We thought we saw lights at Picket Pass too. Sublime evening/sunrise.

Thanks for the write-up, Meredith. We were on the ridge ahead of 'Other Party', and chatted with them at the col. We didn't see Green nor Orange all day (wondered why we didn't; we chatted the night before). If our thoughts/photos might be of use, please get in touch (cah49@uw.edu). It's a committing alpine route. Thank you for the clearer perspective on the day's events! Very glad everyone came home safe.

Beckey's description of the route: http://books.google.com/books?id=BHK2xoJhlVoC&lpg=PA332&ots=OyLvF_G55c&dq=cascade%20alpine%20guide%20anderson%20creek&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q=%22anderson%20creek%22&f=false And his description of the lower portion of the route (In my fuzzy memory, I recommend starting east of the creek at the highway, and not taking the tempting road to Swanson's Cabins.) http://books.google.com/books?id=BHK2xoJhlVoC&lpg=PA332&ots=OyLvF_G55c&dq=cascade%20alpine%20guide%20anderson%20creek&pg=PA332#v=onepage&q=cascade%20alpine%20guide%20anderson%20creek&f=false

I edited my reply above with more thoughts/info. I think it was late September/early October, in Indian summer before the turn, but I'm not sure.

In ~2005, I experienced my first "epic" thrashing up and down that valley. At our high point atop the talus field in the lower right of your picture at ~5 pm on a day trip, we grasped the full meaning of the difference between 20' and 40' contour intervals. Then it got cold and rained. Denny's in Monroe the following morning was awesome. Expect notable brush, including devils' club. Our experience seemed to be that the eastern side of the valley was easier. I think we did our return trip on the eastern side all the way to the highway. Much of the upper valley we did in the creekbottom, as it was early autumn. Cale has the right idea with Beckey. The guidebooks are worth the investment. There must be tons of older ones floating around at book sales and such. They're terse, but they're the best single guide to the goods. Most recent edition recommended, but not inherently requisite. With these temperatures, I'd guess that there'll be stuff falling - climb safe! Edit: Looked at your map -- that was the line we'd hoped to scramble. It was too-long ago for me to have photos from about where the "36" is on the map, but I'd guess that there's a way that the route is climbable in summer, too. It'll just be scrappy and Cascadian. From the Beckey guide, it would appear that the first recorded ascent was via Anderson Creek. Beckey recommends "early season", in part to suppress brush.

I run at least wider than average, and in the 30.0/30.5 sizes, I've always done well with Dynafit boots (TLT4, ZZero, ONE). I imagine that you already tried some at Evo though...

If you don't want them, odds are good that I'd buy 'em from you for ~$150+. Older dynafits don't die. Look for cracking near the toe pins after you've used 'em some, but I bet you won't find any.

ClimbingSkinsDirect has 140 mm skins. I've been happy with mine; nice glide, good grip. Tip stretchers are so-so, but the price is nice. In addition, they're now available in faux-chipmunk.

It started with the observation that nobody seemed to specialize in gear weights, and nobody ever quotes an uncertainty for the mass of a piece of gear. Ever wish you could see that a carabiner weighs 28 ± 1 grams? http://measuredmass.com Comments welcome - what would be useful for you?

What's your background/experience? If you've made a solo traverse to the North Pole, the Ptarmigan will be a (bumpy) walk in the park in comparison. A wintertime Ptarmigan trip is a notable thing. Crevasses will be hidden, but bridges will be thinner than than Springtime. Trailhead access gets difficult as soon as the real snow arrives. Weather rules everything in the Cascades. A strategy is to have a number of tasty and diverse objectives in mind and compare all of them against forecasts. It's rare that there's not something in condition in the state (~2 weekends/yr). Bomber high pressure in concert with stability can appear only once or twice per winter; be ready to capitalize like a hungry fiend. A partner and I turned around on a route with stringent snow/weather/avy requirements in January 2009; I'm patiently waiting for a second chance. For ski intuition, watch reports on turns-all-year.com , and follow the old hands. They're rarely involved in a rainy mess. As above, when conditions are right, there will be a sudden flourish of burly trip reports. If you look backward through the TAY archives, you can develop a sense for which winter conditions make the big trips succeed. The state has a number of climates (the strongest division is the Cascade Crest: sunny/dry east, cloudy/wet west) - figure out how they each behave, and you can figure out how to plan around the weather. November is a time for opportunism. It's also a time that I spend with non-outdoor friends/family that I neglect for the other 11 months. My typical season (I climb to ski, unless the climbing's much better than the skiing): Oct: last warm/sunny rock/alpine, hope for pow Nov: Family, rain, pow please? Dec: Cold powder by Christmas Jan: Cold powder, especially early Jan. Low snow levels, pray for high pressure. Feb: Winter, maybe a Pineapple. Mar: Lots 'o pow! So deep. Good coverage. Apr: Beware death slurpee. Long volcano lines, traverses. Pow in Canada. May: Nirvana begins: Corn/pow/stability June: Nirvana: Big corn lines everywhere. July: Ski nirvana ending, but still excellent. Summer alpine climbing begins in earnest. August: Alpine climbing excellent, still corn in spots September: Perfect weather, shorter days, no bugs, gorge on alpine, scratch for turns. Repeat. Lowell has useful traverse thoughts: http://alpenglow.org/skiing/high-route-tips/index.html Winter routes in the Cascades are a treasure whose value is magnified by rarity.

WSDOT/Alpental need to practice with a new artillery piece this autumn in order to assure that they can hit what they're aiming at when they can't see. This exercise won't correspond with avalanche conditions. Information hotline: 425 434 6793 Official announcement: http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=25855.0 h o w i t z e r gets edited by the board software? Odd. Howitzer.

At least in the ski world, fit is paramount. If it won't fall apart and it fits, it's your boot. Lightweight wonderboots that hurt will make you slower going uphill than a comfortable boot that weighs more. Good luck!

It is possible for corrosion to have deleterious effects on the strength of metal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_corrosion_cracking If I were in the market for pitons, I'd probably give yours a look; that's quite a set.

No problem . Looking at this stuff again this morning, I'd like to make an addendum. In the case of the anchor, it's also useful to think about the peak load applied to the anchor. The stretching and unstretching of a rope doesn't just dissipate energy, it also provides a softer catch as it reloads again (spreading the impact over time and reducing the peak load on the anchor). If the argument that the rope doesn't have the distance to unstretch as the anchor comes apart is correct, then the second and third pieces will see peak loads that are comparable to the one that forced the first piece to pop. This may be similar to when a loaded rappel rope shifts a little; the jolt you feel is sharper than a similar (tiny) fall on an unstretched rope. It's interesting to consider a mechanics problem from both momentum and energy perspectives. One is often more clear, or applicable, than the other. In the anchor's case, I now believe the momentum/impulse/peak load/impact-time perspective is more appropriate than energy/dissipation. Rope stretch is still the key. Aside: In the first couple years of grad school, we had a course where the Physics Education folks would distribute questions like these (but simpler) to ~30 grad students, all of whom did well as undergrads. It was rare that more than half of the class would get the Just-So story correct. Similar studies with professors would see at most two-thirds get it right on the first pass. These questions are simple to pose, but the answers are sometimes subtle and counter-intuitive. I'm amazed that nobody's countered my argument yet; it might be wrong. It's the internet, after all.

tl;dr. Marginal placements are good and may help, badly equalized anchors with bad placements are bad. I opened this thread expecting to find a discussion of heavy gear. Fromage is right. It's Nerdville. Mike wanted a PhD physicist's opinion, so here's one (almost - this thread is an enjoyable distraction from finishing my thesis analysis): While I know something about mechanics, my climbing qualifications have a lot more to do with skiing than trad rock anchorbuilding. Physicists frequently disagree. This post represents my best answer at present, but it is not valid without experimental confirmation. Don't die. Rope stretch is the primary way energy is dissipated in a fall. Mike's questions come down to rope relaxation. After loading, even partial relaxation will soften a subsequent load. I don't think a rope has the distance, not the time, to un-stretch very much in the case of a disintegrating anchor, but it does in the case of a failing marginal placement. Think about the stretch you get hanging from a dynamic rope. 5 kN will introduce at least 5 times that much stretch. If the rope remains mostly stretched before getting re-loaded, it won't stretch again. Marginal placement: This is correct, excepting nonlinear properties of the rope/knots/body (on which I'm not expert and which were part of the original question). Pages 16 and 22 of Kurt's article addresses those effects (claiming that the rope unstretches fast); form your own conclusion. As noted above, it's somewhat like using a Screamer. The energy associated with a fall will be dissipated into heat, one way or another. The "work" (<-- technical term) done by stretching/relaxing the rope before/after the piece pops (mostly), and by ripping out the piece itself (a little bit), will consume some of the fall's energy. Again neglecting nonlinearities, the next piece down the line will then see loads equivalent to those of a fall that began at a lesser height. Whether the second piece will rip will depend upon the initial runout above the first piece, the strength of the first piece, the distance to the second piece, and the strength of the second piece. All else being equal, I'd put in the marginal piece. Your mileage may vary. Kurt's article is interesting. Unequalized anchor: This is a different story. The purpose of an anchor is never to absorb energy; that's the rope's job. The anchor's job is to never fail. Cascading failure scenarios are possible (three people can lift a piano together than one at a time cannot). To bank on the disintegration of an anchor for energy absorption is to ask for trouble. The energy consumed by anchor-component failure alone (and not a relax/stretch cycle of the rope) probably isn't very big. As an anchor comes apart, the rope may not relax significantly; it's still under load and being stretched. If there's not much stretching/unstretching going on, there's not much dissipation, and the anchor's just getting weaker. For Mike's original question, it's possible to assemble an equalized anchor that might hold 10-15kN out of three placements that can hold 5 kN each. Three incorrectly-equalized, but otherwise correct, pieces that each hold 5 kN are clearly safer than two (also unequalized; equalized can hold more than 5kN) or one, but whether it will hold a fall that exceeds 5 kN in initial load will depend on the details of the fall, the rope's properties, and the details of the anchor's construction and subsequent failure. Equalization is a good thing. From a strength perspective, I can't think of a downside to proper equalization. Force Vs. Energy: BD2510 is correct. A fall does not increase in force (kN) as it gets bigger (though the forces applied to the braking system will tend to increase somewhat.); the falling climber's momentum and kinetic energy increase. To bring a climber to rest, his momentum must be changed with an "impulse" (<-- technical term meaning integrated force times time) and his kinetic energy must be converted to another form, usually heat, through "work" (integrated force times distance). More anchor strength, in kN, is better, but it's not the whole story. System failure is determined by peak forces, not total dissipated energy, which is part of why dynamic rope is so important. See this DMM video for 22 kN slings failing with an 8 foot fall.

Mighty fine. The volcanoes are a special breed.

Timeless. May your effort inspire similar a similar centennial in 2112.

We climbed Boston on 9/16. N. side of Sahale had the tiniest patches of remaining new accumulation in the shadiest spots. Boston was dry. I'd guess it'll all melt before the next storm? Smoke column over near Agnes was impressive.

Awesome!

Seconded.

Helium. On a more practical note, here's a place to start: http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/solutions/freeze.html For whiskey, note that the freezing point of pure ethanol is -114 C. There's an interesting aside in Mike and Allen's "Really Cool" backcountry skiing book that, while still liquid, very cold liquids can cause frostbite on contact with skin/mucus membranes. Molten water isn't just liquid, it's comparatively warm. Also useful: http://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb_e/scha/index.html?/chb_e/scha/scha_18_02.html

Thank you. Excellent work.

One could do worse than Cornell. Plenty of illegal ice on campus/in-town (attached to crumbling shale), and more ice within a day-trip's drive. The learnin is pretty good too.