dbconlin

I guess I would use them for steep snow slopes above the more technical terrain and/or for crevasse rescue purposes. I remember placing some on the Kautz route and my partner placed one or two on the upper part of Triple Couloirs. They can definitely be useful given the right conditions. For more technical applications, leave 'em home.

man, wish I had seen ice like that anytime recently. way to go!

I definitely carry a couple of cams. You have to evaluate every placement, but I often find good cam placements. Not too many though, unless you like to carry extra weight for "training". A good light alpine mixed rack might include 0-6 screws, 0-4 pickets, 6-12 nuts (emphasizing middle sizes), 2-6 cams (emphasizing middle sizes, depending on route), a few tricams, and YES a half dozen or so pins. As others have said, emphasize knifeblades/bugaboos with a couple of small angles and avoid Lost ARrows (heavy).

Probably the best suggestion so far. Expect rain, much wildlife, and beautiful terrain.

Excellent suggestion. I did this many years ago, not in March though. It is an excellent trip. Depending on the snow year, I wouldn't be suprised if there is still snow there that time of year, although probably not too deep. It is south facing for the most part. Last year in March in Leavenworth (at comparable elevation and climate) there was still a fair amount of snow.

This is really basic, but hasn't been mentioned yet. Drop the heel. That helped me a ton when I was starting, and I continue to have to remind myself from time to time. It is a little counter-intuitive when you are on the ice, especially at first and if you don't trust your feet so much to begin with. But once you get used to it, it really helps your feet stick and take the weight off your arms.

Panoptix at Sierra Trading Post

I have a question: why is it important to have a shock-cord/stretch leash? Why not just use some thin accessory cord?

I totally disagree! Everyone says so, but if you are a dedicated alpinist and weight matters, you will minimize it no matter what size your pack is. I have carried a 60L pack while my partner carried a 30L, but I bet the difference in weight was negligible (and I had a lot less stuff hanging on the outside). This is on a carry-over route on Rainier and I will admit that when weight is not so crucial, I may pack in a few extras, which I can because my pack is big enough. And when you are backpacking, not carrying your pack 10,000 vertical feet over the top of a huge mountain, it may be worth it to pack those luxuries. That said, skiing with a heavy pack sucks.

Ha ha. But if you are small, you probably weigh a lot less yet still have to carry the same weight of fuel, stove, climbing gear (!), etc. I find that I am usually carrying a higher proportion of my body weight on my back than most people I climb with even though I have my system pretty dialed/lightweight/minimal! That said, a 55-60 L pack should get you through anything up to 4 days in length in winter, 6 days or more in summer. And new lightweight designs will compress for shorter trips, won't weigh you down. Look for sub 4 lbs, I would say. Osprey and BD make some great options in this realm, and I am sure others. Course, could depend on how lightweight your system is. If you are willing to spend a lot on the latest greatest, you can carry a smaller pack. If you are still using your old school boy scout stove, etc., you might need a little bit bigger pack.

I love my Grivel Alp Wings. You can add the pinky rest for waterfalls, or leave it at home for alpine.

Heavy? Shouldn't be, unless maybe you need to upgrade to a lighter weight hard shell. This is essentially a softshell (driclime) set up, with a hardshell for when it gets nasty. There are full performance hard shells as light as 7 oz now, Patagonia makes a 10 oz hard shell that features stretch fabric (but costs $250). Yes! This is essentially a softshell setup, if you define softshell to mean higher breathability and not fully waterproof. Although I don't think the houdini has much stretch and I'm not sure how form-fitting it is. Why? Depending on how you define softshell (patagonia makes the distinction between waterproof versus weather-resistant; others may distinguish based on having some sort of insulative quality and/or stretch; personally, I think Patagonia's definition makes for the most workable one, but then there is still alot of variability in the properties of both hardshells and softshells), I think the biggest advantages are breathability, form-fitting-ness, and stretch. However, as I mentioned, Patagonia makes a hardshell with stretch fabric, futher blurring the lines and weakening the case for softshells. Is it also form-fitting? If so, I would take a hard look at that option as it bypasses the main CON of softshells, which is weight (unless you count garments like the houdini, which seem like more of a wind shell than a softshell, but again it depends on the definition). Otherwise, almost every softshell is heavier than a comparable hard shell. The argument could be made that it takes the place of more than one layer, so maybe heavier weight is then made up for. It may depend on whether you choose a light shell style softshell (wind- and water-resistant, breathable, no insulative value) versus an insulated softshell (same qualitys plus insulative value, i.e. it replaces your fleece layer too). I am a proponent of light shell type softshells, like the Patagonia Ready Mix, which is light but not as light as many hardshells. It is very windproof, very breathable, and quite water-resistant. Combine with varying amounts of baselayer depending on conditions, then add a belay jacket when not moving or conditions really suck. Other fabric types with pros/cons that I have observed: Windstopper adds a membrane, which reduces breathability, increases weather resistance, adds weight, and makes for less versatile but warmer piece. Same could probably be said for Scoeller WB400 which I have not used. Schoeller Dryskin Extreme is awesome stuff, a bit heavy, but breathes very well, sheds weather very well, dries extremely fast, and is lightly insulating. Main disadvantage is wind-resistance, which is low and you would probably want an additional wind layer if conditions were very windy. Schoeller Dynamic: very durable, moderately wind and water-resistant, not very insulating, kind of course feel/i.e. not very soft.

for a starter rack, though, I would focus on 0.75, 0.5, 0.4 sizes which I find I use much more often than 3+

Pay a pro to do it. It is worth it.

The only time I DON'T wear Mythos is...well...never!

I think you have a good, workable set up already, but in praise of softshells: I did not wear anything else on my top half last winter. I endured days with constant snow all day long and was just as dry, if not drier, than my hardshell-clad colleagues. I made an early season attempt on Rainier's Ptarmigan Ridge in the spring. Both of us wore softshell tops, I had hardshell bottoms and my partner had softshell pants. We left the car in RAIN. A little higher the rain turned to SNOW. It did not let up ALL DAY, yet we were both comfortable (though not exactly dry). By morning we were both completely dry, it was still a whiteout blizzard, and we bailed, descending back to the car. NO PROBLEMS with the clothing system in conditions that prevented us from climbing anyway.

If I was at Eldo (or Lumpy for that matter) and limited to only single pitch routes, I think I would shoot myself. The Monastary is mostly fairly hard sport routes, but there are some moderate ones too. Shelf road is fun, but not too close to any resort towns. Independence Pass has some really good bouldering, but I haven't climbed much of the roped routes there. Might be a good bet for what you want. Really beautiful. Penitente Canyon is also really good, mostly sport (some trad) one pitch routes on volcanic rock (I think; lots of pockets/huecos anyway). Also, not too close to resort towns though

I've had good luck using graphite lock lubricant....another option I guess, but White lightning sounds like a good idea. Maybe I will try that next time.

...plus you can carry a lightweight static cord for rapping paired to your lightweight single enabling raps just as long as with doubles, but lighter (maybe) and less hassle...

I am thinking about the mont-bell UL thermawrap parka...anybody have any comments on that one?

External frames distribute a really heavy load better. It is less important how you pack the bag. They aren't as comfortable. Internal frames depend to a large extent on a skillful pack job. The weight is closer to your back and results in a lower center of gravity, for keeping balance in awkward positions. They are lower profile for bushwacking. More comfortable (if packed right, and load is not excessive).

I've had expereinces in the alpine, the wind is howling, visibility is terrible (partner out of site anyway), hard to communicate, wishing I had some of these radios. So I went and bought a pair, very light/small, rechargeable battery. I've brought them out a couple of times now, and never had a need, and they've been more trouble than they are worth. I guess it is Murphy's Law. When you need them, you won't have them. When you decide to bring them, you won't need them. Maybe I just suck at predicting conditions, etc...

I've got Scarpa Alphas with Intuition liners. I think the Omegas should be warm enough for anything in the lower 48. I haven't climbed in Alaska, so I am not sure about that. They should come with Thermofit liners no matter where you get them, not just at BD. Are you talking about the fit that is free? Other shops would probably charge 20-30 bucks to fit you if you don't buy them at the shop. You can do it at home, but you better know what you are doing. If it is a first-time thermo liner for you, better get it done professionally. Thermo liners are much much warmer than old school foam ones. REgarding warmth, I had similar questions when I bought mine. I already had scarpa tele boots with thermo liners, so I had some experience to base my decisions on. I wear only a very thin ski sock under my tele boots and they are very warm. so when I went to buy thermo liners for my Alphas, I asked why not just where a thin sock and let the liner do all the insulating. Nobody seemed to think this was the best idea and everybody always recommended getting a slightly insulating sock or better. however, think of it this way: there is a fixed amount of volume to fill between the shell of the boot and your foot. you can fill this space with the liner or your socks or (in reality) a combo of the two. Wearing a warmer sock doesn't seem to me to necessarily be a warmer overall boot. YOu could be filling that same space with expanded foam liner material, which is really warm. I went with a mid-weight ski sock in my Alphas and they are warm. I do not think I would have gained any warmth by increasing my sock thickness. However, you do gain cushoining.

My new ride:

For Sale: 1991 Toyota Truck 4x4, reg cab, matching topper, bedliner, 4 cyl, 5 sp, BFGoodrich AT tires in good shape, 180k but recent tranny and head/head gasket/valves promise to keep it running for a long, long time. $4300 obo. SOLD