Colonial and Big 4 conditions update

[layton]

Checked both of em out. Same story. Good snowpack and cover, but the steep parts don't have much ice. Need more melt freeze. Give em another storm and sunny period and they may be good to go. I may be wrong so go anyway and rub it in my face.

[JuanTwoPunch]

Michael:

 

I have a question concerning access to the N. Face Bowl on the right side of the amphitheatre below the N. Face of Big Four. Two of the three times I've gotten above the lower headwall (in efforts to climb the N. Rib 1942 route in a day in winter/early spring all three times) I've headed up the avi debris on the far right of the amphitheatre and encountered very easy mixed rock and snow for a short distance to reach the bowl on its far right side. This is how one starts the N.W. Ridge route (pg. 47 in green Beckey). Those attempts were in Feb. and March last year. In March the previous year, Matt P. and I tackled the headwall straight on. Sporty with a layer of wet snow on it, but it took too much time and energy.

 

I went up there with Erik recently to climb Hall Peak from that side (before the recent weeks of snow fall) and we were disappointed to find that the lower wall was about 100 ft. high, steep and wet. In other words, the avi debris is the key to quick access to the N. Face bowl because it covers up the lower cliffs and provides a ramp. My question is whether this has started piling up. Did you get up there to have a look, or were you looking from the road in which case you can't tell?

 

Thanks much, and hope you manage to climb that fucker this winter. And remember, if you can't get to the bowl, you may as well smoke a bowl.

 

John Sharp

[layton]

Avy debris is the key to accessing the N.Face. There is NO avy debris in any of the chutes off the headwall. It would be awfully wet trying to get to the face right now. Expect a bushwack to the right of the face if you're planning on climbing it right now. May need to wait a month till the debris fills up the chutes enough to climb.

[Mr._Natural]

yeah, avy debris or a nice pitch or two of water ice will do the trick. I guess Bart and I got lucky with the start since no one else seems to have found it thick enough to do. I think our line was farther to the left. good luck guys.

 

 

[JuanTwoPunch]

Doug and Michael:

 

In the three times I've tried to do the N. Rib in a day, I've never seen the ice you guys encountered to get out of the bowl. I'd say you hit it just right. I've rappelled down the bushes/slide alder/Alaska Cedar, etc. on the far right in the dark with Matt P. At times we had to push our way down through it, which gave us no desire to climb up through it. Ever. Better to wait for the avi debris or the ten-year ice build-up down low. The last two times I tried that route we had good avi debris. The last time (last March), at around 10:45 a.m., a massive slide came down the slot that feeds the waterfall just left of the greenery on the far right. My nephew and I were at 5,000' on the N. Rib at the time and looked back to see it. The whole mountain was coming alive in the sun and warming temps, and our next move would have been to get in the gully to the left of the N. Rib. We thought that too dangerous, so bailed. We walked down the aforementioned new debris on the way out, and concluded that it could have buried a car. Big heavy slide.

 

Basically, I hate that mountain, but still want to climb it. Maybe. Perhaps the Dry Creek Route in early spring if it's really cold. Plenty of objective danger there too, but cold conditions would allow a quick and relatively safe passage.

 

Cheers,

 

John

[mattp]

John-

I was up there last weekend and it appeared to me that you could probably have climbed the slabs on the right without encountering too much technical difficulty. It looked like a lot of wet rock, but It apeared that there was a way through it with no more than very short sections of 25 degree rock between large ledges and the shortest part of it was no more than a couple hundred feet high. However, a friend of mine has bolted a route that he says is 5.10 in that area, so perhaps my "from the ground" analysis was incorrect. Also, the passage right next to the main waterfall that you and I rejected as too dangerous when we were there looked to be a reasonable option -- on that day. If the upper part of the face appeared to be in shape and one of these options didn't look good, I'd be willing to fight my way up the bush to the far right and I'd be interested in going back there with you. I'm not kidding - I think Big Four is cool.

-Matt

[layton]

Just for the record, I didn't finish the route last year. Yes the avy debris way EZ going to the face (see Kearny's guide for the line we used to access the face). But it was late March and the second I hit the actual face it turned into a wallow in very deep sloppy snow. I hippo waded to the base of what people think is the Spindrift Coulior, and climbed to the intitial ice pitches to find them mostly melted out...evil. Then the sun came out and BLASTED us. I got the hell off that face quick as it turned to a 4000' slurpee. I fell into a crevasse 1/2 way and had a hard time getting myself out!

I think folks are not climbing the Spindrift coulior when they say they did. I was talking to Jason Martin yesterday and he mentioned that it may be just to the right of where folks are climbing...more up the face of the right hand mini-peak. Who knows, but Nelson's updated Selected Climbs will show us the actual route, as Well as Jason's upcoming book (which will have many routes listed on this peak). Jason thinks that the Spindrift Coulior may be as hard the the intitial reports claim, but then again, maybe not.

 

Either way, I think the line folks are taking looks totally awesome. Kinda like a Stairway to Heaven that's been stretched out and pitches separated by miles of snow slogging.

[mattp]

John, I think you may be wrong about the "true" Spindrift couloir. I know that Bart published a "correction" where he redrew the line on his picture and said the Spindrift Couloir was one gully to the right, but when I looked at a copy of the AAJ right after our climb last year I thought that the features shown on that real cool topo pretty much exactly matched what we saw. Maybe I just imagined it into what I thought it was supposed to show and indeed the Spindrift Couloir is one to the right, but maybe not.

 

In the conditions that we found it, the entire climb was pretty firm and there was not much "snow slogging" between ice pitches. The snow climbing on the fluted upper portion of the climb was continously exciting.

[Mr._Natural]

 

This is the line that Bart and I climbed which he later named "Spindrif Coulior" This is the route that Matt climbed last year. I saw that correction in the AAJ, that was not the line we did.

[Juan]

Thanks Matt and Michael.

 

Matt: I think you meant "Michael" on the last post re: location of Sprindrift Couloir. However, on Sat. night, I saw Jim's proof pages for the new book. Jim has six routes outlined for the N. Face of Big Four in winter, running from left to right. The route that Bart and Doug are said to have climbed is "F," and is the furthest right. The route that I believe you and Dan, and Sean and Andreas, climbed is "E" and is the bigger gully that leads to a saddle between the right-most subpeak, and the one to its left. Jim seems quite confident in the research. So, I'm not sure which one is really the Spindrift Couloir, but it all looks good.

 

In any event, glad to know that things are shaping up on Big Four. With Jim's upcoming second ed. and Kearney's book, there is bound to be more interest.

 

Erik and I intended to do Hall Peak that day three weeks ago, and didn't poke around too much. If you want to go back up there for Big Four, let me know. I could be talked into it.

 

And way to go on the Dome.

 

John

[Juan]

Doug:

 

Can't pull up the image.

 

John

[Mr._Natural]

try here

[Juan]

Um, I only see one line here, in red. Maybe I'm not seeing the second line. But this is what Jim calls "E." I forget who he says climbed it first. This is what I thought was the Spindrift Couloir, and I think others did too. He shows a line to its right, "F," which he says Doug and Bart climbed. At least that's what I saw on Sat. night after two beers.

 

Someone who has climbed this thing better straighten it right now as they are in proof pages. Matt and Doug: Phone Jim.

 

John Sharp

[Mr._Natural]

I am washing my hands of this tired discussion. The line that I drew on Phil's pic is the one that I remember climbing. It was the obvious gully above the center of the bowl. We were not trying to make it any harder than we had to. This line looked like it would be the most straight foward. The terrain to the right looked steeper and had less ice. Matt, when you topped out, (we had to chop through a cornice) did you find a big bouler right above you with an ideal #1 camalot placement? We did. This could straighten out this whole thing.

[mattp]

Natural:

Yes, I believe we did find a big boulder that matches that description though it was Dan who led the pitch and he would have a better memory of what size Camelot he used there. Also, the finish that we took was not quite the same, I think, as the one that was used by the parties that climbed the route a few days later. The top of the couloir curved somewhat right and I believe they climbed more directly to the summit ridge than we did. As you note, the terrain to the right of what was the more or less obvious line looked steeper, had less ice, and I don't think there was any continuous couloir over there. The "landmarks" in our gully sure seemed to correspond with that drawing in the original article.

[Jason_Martin]

Jim is going to call the line in the drawing the Calstad/Folsom line. He spent a long time with Cal Folsom going over the photo and discussing where their original route was and he believes that this is where it went.

 

He also has a drawing from Bart Paull which shows the Spindrift Couloir as being in the next gully over. If this is really where the Spindrift Couloir is located it is far more likely that the 1996 climb by Paull and Littauer was a first ascent.

 

In my research I've found that many people have had a tremendously hard time identifying their exact route. Some approached the face and climbed the most feasable line which may or may not have been exactly where they thought it was. Others climbed it so long ago that they aren't sure where they climbed anymore.

 

It appears that in the early seventies there was a rush on Big Four. But it also appears that most people referred to it as simply the North Face of Big Four... In many cases, they did not discuss their exact route. The result twenty years later is all of this confusion.

 

It is likely that both gullies on the far right hand side of the face are very similar in nature. From a pure climbing perspective it really doesn't matter who did what first. But from a historical perspective, I can assure you that Jim and I are both doing our best to present as accurate information as possible in our books. I've spent many many hours researching this mountain as has Jim... It is likely that with the publication of his book in the spring and my book in the fall, even more information will filter in concerning the history of this mountain. I will personally continue to do my best to present as good information as possible.

 

Jason

Edited January 14, 2003 by Jason_Martin

[daler]

Juan,

 

Having climbed the route a couple of days after dan and matt I'm pretty sure this is spindrift as bart and doug desribe it. My guess is that bart and doug had leaner conditions contributing to the grade they gave it. I looked very closely at the gullies to the right and in the conditions that I saw (a fat year) they would have been considerlably harder than what Bart describes. I know we climbed the same line as matt and dan because I recovered one of Matts petzl spirits that had been dropped. We topped out more to the left following sean and andreas through the cornice at the top.

I'm not saying Bart and Doug coudn't have climbed a harder route to the right but it would have been way harder. W6- and much hard mixed climbing.

A very cool mountain with much potential for harder routes.

 

Dale

[JuanTwoPunch]

Dale:

 

What you say is exactly what I think too. I've sold my collection of Climber, R&I, and AAJ, and thus don't have them in front of me. But I remember taking a copy of the AAJ up there with Matt the year before last and being quite certain which gully Bart and Doug reported. This is also what Doug now maintains they climbed, as I understand it.

 

When Matt and I walked under the gully on our way down, it sure seemed like the correct line to us. And of course Matt later climbed it with Dan, and they believed it to be the Spindrift Couloir. Any line to its right would, I believe, be considerably harder than the gully climbed by you, Matt and Dan, and Sean and Andreas, last year. This seems to be agreed upon by those who have recently climbed the face.

 

Why Bart would allow three publications (I think there were three, but I know I saw at least one magazine plus the AAJ) to report this same line (with photos, as well as a detailed, hand-drawn topo in the case of the AAJ), and later amend the line and move it right, is simply beyond me. If Doug now agreed with Bart on this, that would be one thing. But I don't believe they agree at this point in time. Am I right about that?

 

So where does this leave us? I know that Jim and Jason are working very hard to report accurate information in their books. And I know that egos, and to some extent reputations, can come into play when first ascents are involved. But I still think someone should answer the following questions, at a minimum:

 

(1) What does Rich Carlstad say about his 1974 ascent with Cal Folsum? Has anyone talked to him? Word is he lives in Seattle.

 

(2) Why do Cal, Fred Beckey, and Alan Kearney identify three different lines as being the Carlstad/Folsum route? Fred says it is a gully east (left) of the N. Rib; Alan says it is west (right) of the N. Rib; and Jim says it's the line that I believe Bart initially reported as the Spindrift Couloir. I find this confusing.

 

(3) Since I have never been above 5,000' on the face in winter, why am I involved in this debate in the first place???

 

Whether any of this gets resolved before publication of Jim or Jason's book remains to be seen, but I do think that because this debate has taken on a life of its own, it deserves a fair and agreed-upon resolution.

 

I also think that however this plays out, anyone contemplating any winter route on Big Four should be extremely careful and pay very close attention to snow conditions.

 

Be safe, and let me know whether you guys think I'm blowin' smoke out my butt anymore than I normally do.

 

John Sharp

[Jason_Martin]

John,

 

A lot of these guys simply don't remember exactly where they went. i.e. the whole "I climbed the North Face of Big Four" phenomenon I talked about in the previous post. That compounded by twenty years makes it very difficult to identify what's going on.

 

I did look into Becky's source for what he purports to be the original 1974 line. He credited his source as an obscure magazine called "Off Belay." I got a copy of this magazine and found that it sighted a very different ascent than Fred reported. Indeed the line written up in there was completed by Warren Stage and Dan Gold, not Carlstad and Folsom. Somewhere in his research, Fred made a mistake.

 

The Alan Kearny line doesn't purport to follow Carlstad and Folsom's line. The line drawn in Kearny's guide may have been a first ascent, that is if an obscure climber named Jack Lewis didn't complete it before him in the eighties.

 

Lot's of questions and too few answers.

 

Jason

[mattp]

if an obscure climber named Jack Lewis didn't complete it before him in the eighties.

 

Jack was quite an accomplished climber and he made some good packs, too -- the only packs I have ever seen that had a zipper on the back, a vertical zipper between the pack stays. These were great winter day-climbing or small-overnight packs that allowed you to put the thing down in the snow and rifle through your gear without getting the part that you were next going to put against your back all muddy or snowy. I would not hesitate to believe that Jack could have climbed up, down and sideways all over Big Four, and he might well have done it alone and then thought it not such a big deal as to be worty of reporting.

[Bronco]

Big 4 Johnny:

 

I'll see if I can help you out here,

 

1) Obviously, it's a big gosh darned face with lot's of route options, climbers memories fade from years of "medication" and altitude. The appearance of that face changes all the time. It's probably not intentional and while I think the discussion here is important, it seems to me like you guys may be splitting hairs.

 

2) see #1

 

3) considering you've made 3 attempts, that's a lot more time on the face than most of us have logged and that makes you a "foremost authority".

 

The real question is- are you gonna get after it again this winter?

[wdietsch]

He credited his source as an obscure magazine called "Off Belay."

 

 

your dating yourself there Jason, "Off Belay" isn't that obscure for those of us that started climbing in the '70's .... I still have a couple dozens issues in the archives ... you should check out some of the late Paul Boving's comical artwork

[Off_White]

while we're talking Big 4, anyone else ever try the Tower Route, over on the left side of the North Face? Climbs the series of towers visible in the left edge of the photo the link leads to. I made a summer attempt, and it was the first time I was thrilled to have devils club on the route, because when you didn't have that for a handhold you had to resort to ferns and that get's really scary.

[daylward]

Not to re-open any cans of worms, just to clarify:

it was Dan who led the pitch and he would have a better memory of what size Camelot he used there.

 

I don't recall seeing a boulder with a #1 camalot placement when I topped out, but there was much snow that could have been covering said boulder. The anchor I used was my cordalette wrapped around the very large & horizontal trunk of a very wind-affected but otherwise healthy-looking tree, about 20 feet back from the ridge.

 

[mattp]

Dan-wasn't there a boulder there, near and perhaps just above that snag? Maybe I'm imagining the whole thing just like I imagined the topo to match what we saw in the couloir.