Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Mera Peak in Nepal

Regional discussion and conditions reports for Asia. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the Asia Climbing Partners section.
 

Re: Mera Peak in Nepal

Postby Andinistaloco » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:11 am

basecamp wrote:Hi! I need some advice. My friend and I are thinking of going to Nepal for 2 weeks. We were wondering if it would be a good idea to trek to either Mera or Island peak. We don't have any climbing experience. We've been to Everest base camp and Annapurna base camp. Is Mera/Island peak doable with no prior climbing experience and also given the fact that we have only 2 weeks. I'd like to go over 6,000m. Any feedback will help. Thanks!


My answer would depend on what matters most to you. If it's elevation that's your goal, it's far easier to go over 6,000 in South America than in Nepal. You can climb over 6K in SA and not get your boots wet. Mera and Island are not the best first climbs; though not technically hard, it'd be best if you had a Rainier or Hood or Shasta or, well, something, under your belt first.
User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona, The Great Southwest, United States
Thanked: 68 times in 42 posts

Re: Mera Peak in Nepal

Postby km_donovan » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:50 pm

Andinistaloco wrote:My answer would depend on what matters most to you. If it's elevation that's your goal, it's far easier to go over 6,000 in South America than in Nepal. You can climb over 6K in SA and not get your boots wet. Mera and Island are not the best first climbs; though not technically hard, it'd be best if you had a Rainier or Hood or Shasta or, well, something, under your belt first.


I second that advice. I did Orizaba before going to Nepal along with a bunch of 14'ers and some mountaineering schools.
User Avatar
km_donovan

 
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 5:48 am
Location: Arvada/Silver Cliff, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 4 times in 3 posts

Postby Palisades79 » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:21 pm

Take a look at the posts on Stok Kangri in Ladakh. The costs are lower ,the access is shorter ,and the season is our Summer. Have a great climb !
Palisades79

 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:45 pm
Location: sacramento, California, United States
Thanked: 23 times in 20 posts

Postby John Duffield » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:55 pm

Palisades79 wrote:Take a look at the posts on Stok Kangri in Ladakh. The costs are lower ,the access is shorter ,and the season is our Summer. Have a great climb !


+1

Is the two weeks incl travel time? With connections, it could be you could lose 2 days each way getting to Katmandu. Then there's the queue for the flight to Lukla. Katmandu is like 1500 feet (500 M) or something and you won't be acclimatizing like you would in other places. So even if you totally bag sightseeing in Katmandu, you still won't begin running the altitude clock for at least three days after you leave.

Bottom line. I don't believe a two week trip to Nepal will get you where you want to go.

A plug here for the article I wrote a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.summitpost.org/article/55012 ... alaya.html
User Avatar
John Duffield

 
Posts: 2443
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: New York City, , China
Thanked: 871 times in 477 posts


Return to Asia

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.