scott_harpell Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 ditto... I brought a 30 meter 7.8mm on fischer and didn't even bring it outta the pack. Quote
scott_harpell Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 ...and if you think that is reckless, tell me where roping up will save your life if you fall. In the chimneys, you are gonna hit so much shit you will wish that you were dead if you fall in there. I would think that the added time you spend hauling/placing/cleaning gear would be more dangerous then protecting that jazz. Quote
mattp Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 I don't think you even need to rope up on Fischer Chimneys, so what's the point of using it as an example? Also on Baker N ridge there is what, 2 pitches of technical climbing...again seems irrelevant. Â Are you suggesting that the North Ridge of Mount Baker or the Fischer Chimneys are not alpine routes? On the Fischer Chimneys, most people rope up for the glacier travel. Perhaps you would not. For those who did, a 70m or 60m rope would be no better than a 50m rope. I believe the same is true for the N. Ridge of Mount Baker. Â Most Cascade alpine climbs involve a lot of walking, scrambling, and other type of travel besides just climbing straight up and the advantage of linking pitches or making longer pitches is generally fairly small - and in my opinion generally offeset by the disadvantages of carrying and using the longer rope. Â Of the literally thousands of technical alpine climbs or non-technical alpine climbs that include some glacier travel listed in Beckey's guidebooks, I bet a longer rope would be beneficial on less than 5% of them. Â Â I acknowledged that on some alpine rock routes such as those described in NOLSe's sample trip reports, particularly those involving a fairly vertical or direct line on a multi-pitch climb, the longer ropes may be an advantage. (These are really more like cragging than what you or I would call "alpine climbs" but I didn't see it necessary to make such an observation.) The same might be true on longer ice faces or gully ice climbs that require an ongoing belay, but there are few if any of these in the Cascades. Quote
Dru Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 They are "mountaineering routes" but have minimal, or no, "alpine climbing". The question asked relates to "alpine climbing". Quote
mattp Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Whatever, Dru. I'm not really interested in arguing the defintion of "alpine climbing." I believe most around here would consider the W. Ridge of Forbidden, N. Ridge of Baker, and Fischer Chimneys to be "alpine routes," but if you don't just revert to my first list of three climbs: Nooksack, Liberty Ridge and North Ridge of Mount Stuart. Or maybe these are not really alpine routes either? In that case, go back to Canada. Quote
Dru Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Did you notice the question is in the NEW ROCK CLIMBING FORUM by chance there old bean? Quote
mattp Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Whatever, Dru. What we probably need is the new "what is really an alpine route" forum because, to me, the crag climbs at Washington Pass are not really alpine routes. We could talk about Mount Slesse or Mount Goode, though, and I'd still be making pretty much the same argument. Quote
John Frieh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 WA pass isn't alpine... its just another road side crag just like those in Yosemite... only smaller. Â Each route will dictate what rope, or lack of, system/length works best... Â Unless AJ is a trust fund baby chances are he can only afford initially one system... a pair of 60s will do him fine. Quote
John Frieh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Don't ruin this thread with arguments over what is alpine... if you guys want to discuss what is alpine start another thread. Quote
Dru Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Back on topic.. I have climbed 2 routes on the same face. One was 12 50m pitches long because we had 50m long ropes. A neighbouring route was 10 60m pitches long when we brought 60m ropes along. No doubt if I'd had 70's I would have climbed 9 70m pitches. Quote
mattp Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Back on somebody's topic. AJ's? Maybe. Anyway, even here I do not believe that for me a 70m rope would result in your argued 25% savings in pitches - nor a reduction in rapelling. Quote
scott_harpell Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Unless you are climbing straight vertical cracks that are 2,000 feet long, then I would get myself a 70. Quote
Dru Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 ...I do not believe that for me a 70m rope would result in your argued 25% savings in pitches  Well hmmm if I wanted to disprove someone elkse's point I could have used a 30m rope and done it in 20 pitches too, but so what? Longer ropes meant fewer belays on similar terrain on two separate but adjacent routes climbing a wall of the same height. If we had been drilling anchors on a clean slab the effect would have been even more pronounced and resulted in fewer anchors too. Quote
RuMR Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 hello lamppost...do you like to hear me talk? I like to hear me talk... Quote
John Frieh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 And if it was alpine it would be less bolts for me to chop. Quote
chucK Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Think of all the belays you could skip with a pair of 100m ropes! Quote
scott_harpell Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Longer ropes meant fewer belays on similar terrain  depends. rope drag...and the likelyhood of the first ascentionist probably using a 60 or less rope. I highly doubt that you will save 25%. Quote
Dru Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Think of all the belays you could skip with a pair of 100m ropes! Â actually Scott Flavelle used to use a 100m 9mm rope, the leader ran out 100m pitches on easier ground and doubled up and climbed 50m pitches on harder ground. Quote
John Frieh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 If you are getting rope drag with a half rope system it is your own fault... one of the man advantages of a half rope system is it almost eliminates rope drag. Â chucK: Obviously there is a fine line between saving time on # of belays vs rack weight... Steve House and friends opted for an 85 m rope on a few of the climbs they did the ruth gorge... I would love to get a pair of 80s but haven't found any yet... but that's me... Quote
John Frieh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Think of all the belays you could skip with a pair of 100m ropes! Â actually Scott Flavelle used to use a 100m 9mm rope, the leader ran out 100m pitches on easier ground and doubled up and climbed 50m pitches on harder ground. Â Word up. I do that a lot with a single 8.6 mm 70. Does anyone know who makes offers 80 m+ ropes? Quote
Dru Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 buy a spool dude. but 60m is the perfect length so prepare to suffer! Quote
chucK Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Something makes me think Steve House et al were doing very steep, icy stuff. Rope drag would not be an issue for that terrain. Â And Dru, I was talking about a pair of 100m ropes! Please stay on topic. Â Single, skinny 100m rope sounds like a pretty good idea. It is basically the double 50m setup I have been advocating, with the extra bonus of having a 100m rope if you really want it, no knot to hang up rapping. Quote
scott_harpell Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 dare ya to yell take on those babies. Â Â weeeeeooooop Quote
iain Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 except you have 100m of skinny rope that is all the same color. fun times! Quote
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.