Jarred_Jackman Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Well, the route is most definitely IN! Tim Holscher (Crackman) and I did it in about 6 hours this last saturday. Nobody else trying the route that weekend although I can't imagine the conditions get any better. We soloed all but 15 feet. If you go in I would leave the snowshoes at home and skis will only frustrate you I would think. The approach took about 7 hours with breaks. We were able to drive about 1.5 miles up the road past the gate that WAS OPEN. If you feel comfortable steep (70-90) terrain that takes pick amazingly well and feels perfect then you won't need screws or any rock pro. We used two pickets for our little sketchy section. Tim will most likely post his digital pics soon, I hope! Things don't get any better than they are right now, take time off and hit the trail, this route is awesome right now. Maybe not challenging enough for those looking for 2000' of consolidated ice, but we sure loved it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminal_Gravity Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Congrates guys! Glad you had fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Phukkin a dudes, it's good to hear things are in shape somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshs Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 If you go in I would leave the snowshoes at home and skis will only frustrate you I would think. This may be a silly question given that I've never been in the area before, but what are snow conditions like on the approach up to Colchuck Lake? I want to do some ski touring this weekend and I'm wondering if the Enchantments might be a good area to visit. Thanks, Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 The approaches in and out Mountaineer Creek to Colchuck Lake, or in and out Snow Creek to Lake Viviane, are both about 6 or 8 miles and involve a lot of elevation gain (like 4,000 feet or so). The scenic heart of a standard Enchantment trip lies between these two lakes. Current reports suggest that the snow conditions on either approach will be poor, but you may find some good snow left up higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 It's also worth pointing out that if you are looking for a tour that can be an easy ski up and a fun (read: somewhat steep and open) ski down, then colchuck lake would not be my recommendation. The trail is rather windy and while not difficult for a good skier can be a pain if you aren't used to skiing a trail. That said, during *GOOD* (read: probably not this weekend) conditions the ski down from the lake proper to the 2nd crossing of mountaineer creek through the trees can be quite good if you know the way. After that it's all trail though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackman Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Here's some pics from our trip Jarred at the first footbridge My first ever glimps of dragontail Jarred on the on the step below the hidden (1st) coulior In the hidden couloir Pre-sliced and packaged Horsecock The ice runnels between 1&2 The 2nd couloir Summit with Stuart in background Back at the lake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 damn hopefully those work soon, I need mountain porn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleblebleb Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 What do you mean hopefully they work soon, isn't that a pun on the bridge maintenance thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarred_Jackman Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 I would say the trip isn't worth the work if you're just looking at skiing. If you plan to go in heavy and stay in the area for a few days and get a lot of runs then it might work. Otherwise, turn right 1 mile early and head to Cashmere, the relief would be better and the approach shorter. later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COL._Von_Spanker Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Fix those pix.....c'mon....I need my fix man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarred_Jackman Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Can anybody see the pics, Time says they work fine for him but I don't see a thing, just the try again later deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I see them fine. Nice, by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COL._Von_Spanker Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 It says "photo not available due to maintainance, try back later" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 if you load each photo separately in a browser, you'll see them fine. looking at the pics, you guys had very fortunate conditions! nice climb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Looks like styrofoam. Super schweet! Thanks for posting the photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 That's REALLY GOOD conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 (edited) Lammy, Download this attachmen (i.e. click on the attachment then do a "save as", use a .htm suffix when you save it) then open it with your browser. You oughta see the pics then. You might need to make sure your browser knows it's an HTML file. I needed to change to suffix to .txt so the attachment would work. So you might want to save it under a name like TC.htm (something with a .htm suffix). 137909-TC.txt Edited February 13, 2003 by chucK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 OK wait, here's an even EASIER way than downloading my attachment. Just do this (this is the IE way, I'm sure netscape is similar) 1. Click on file then save as 2. Save it as single HTML file (not "web page complete) 3. look in your new documents and click on it. So why does this work, you webpage dudes? Is there some sort of filter on the server that holds these pictures that won't allow "remote linking" or something like that is done by CC.com? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarred_Jackman Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 They seem to be working fine now. You can also copy and paste them into Word, that's what I just did before they started working for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Could the problem be that Jared did not use a full address? Jared used: http://images.ofoto.com/ instead of http://www.images.ofoto.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 That's probably not it Mattp 'cause I just copied the HTML code straight from what CC.com is sending out, and it works fine once the code is on my machine, but does not work when I'm looking at it on CC.com. Once the pictures are cached though it seems to work fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COL._Von_Spanker Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 This would all be solved if he loaded the photos into the CC photo archive and then links to it in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 True, Colonel, but then he'd be filling the "gallery" with lots of pictures that are only of temporary interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I'd say the server is fucked where all the images are stored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.