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

Need beginner advice -Shasta vs Rainier.

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Postby Luciano136 » Mon May 03, 2010 6:22 pm

billisfree wrote:I suggest you try Colorado. They have 75 peaks over 14,000 ft. It's closer to Texas and most of these peaks are scrambles. That will give you a taste for what it's like to climb 3K to 5K ft in a day. It might suprise you, but Mt Rainier is only 14,400, so there's really nothing special.



:?: I think Rainier will put most (if not all) CO 14-ers to shame?
User Avatar
Luciano136

 
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, California, United States
Thanked: 9 times in 8 posts

Postby ScottyP » Mon May 03, 2010 6:36 pm

Bill,

Your comments occasionally (Ok often) frighten me!) Scott
User Avatar
ScottyP

 
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: santa rosa, California, United States
Thanked: 26 times in 21 posts

Postby dskoon » Mon May 03, 2010 6:51 pm

Luciano136 wrote:
billisfree wrote:I suggest you try Colorado. They have 75 peaks over 14,000 ft. It's closer to Texas and most of these peaks are scrambles. That will give you a taste for what it's like to climb 3K to 5K ft in a day. It might suprise you, but Mt Rainier is only 14,400, so there's really nothing special.



:?: I think Rainier will put most (if not all) CO 14-ers to shame?


Didn't get that "only 14,400 . . nothing special," either. . . Nothing special? Hmmm. :?
User Avatar
dskoon

 
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:06 am
Location: portland, Oregon
Thanked: 136 times in 104 posts

Re: Thanks!

Postby Dan Shorb » Mon May 03, 2010 6:53 pm

bird wrote:If you are going guided, go for Rainier. Then you'll either love it and be ready for more, or decide it's not for you. Rainier is spectacular and the guides could get anyone in good shape to the top.


If you're going guided, GO AS BIG AS POSSIBLE. I would definitely go to the most technical spot you can, and take a trip that will give you the skill for personal trips later. RAINIER!! (it even has a hut to sleep in)
Dan Shorb

 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:06 pm
Thanked: 40 times in 28 posts

Postby billisfree » Mon May 03, 2010 7:07 pm

What can I say, Scotty? Some of this "roping up" stuff is overkill.

I've played in the snow since I was child, played king-of-the-hill on large snowbanks, went sleding and had to climb back up the ice-covered hills without crampons. Played outside at 25 below when I was a child and delivered newspapers in bizzards and deep snow, rode my bike in the snow and ice, and walked all over the WSU campus on icy sidewalks.

Now, I'm on the mountains, watching people who spent a lot of money for a guide and expensive equipment - just to learn what I did as a child.

Mt Adams and Mt Shasha aren't exactly "Fear Factor" material... but lots people think it
glorious to risk their lives and go home and brag about being SO dangerous that they had to rope up and use special equipment.

I climb to enjoy the snow and the mountain views. YES, I do use crampons and ice axes - when needed. I focus on what is reasonably safe.

Image
Last edited by billisfree on Mon May 03, 2010 7:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User Avatar
billisfree

 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Postby Jakester » Mon May 03, 2010 7:08 pm

billisfree wrote:...It might suprise you, but Mt Rainier is only 14,400, so there's really nothing special...


billisfree,
Perhaps you meant to phrase this differently? As others have noted, this statement of yours isn't really jiving with the popular consensus. Maybe try climbing Mt. Rainier yourself before you judge it. Or just proof read your comment before posting.

Jakester
User Avatar
Jakester

 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:05 pm
Location: Spokane, Washington, United States
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

Postby billisfree » Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 pm

Jakester... I made NO comments about Mt. Rainier.

I've only climbed to Camp Muir. And I'm not qualified to comment on Rainier.
From what little I know of Mt Rainier, I say, roping up is highly justified.

Steepness, hardness of snow, absense of suncups, crevasse danger all figure into whether roping up is needed.
Last edited by billisfree on Mon May 03, 2010 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User Avatar
billisfree

 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Postby dskoon » Mon May 03, 2010 7:19 pm

billisfree wrote:Jakester... I made NO comments about Mt. Rainier.

I've only climbed to Camp Muir. And I'm not qualified to comment on Rainier.


Bill, see your above quote ABOUT RAINIER!
User Avatar
dskoon

 
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:06 am
Location: portland, Oregon
Thanked: 136 times in 104 posts

Postby Jakester » Mon May 03, 2010 7:21 pm

ScottyP wrote:Bill,

Your comments occasionally (Ok often) frighten me!) Scott


Ditto
User Avatar
Jakester

 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:05 pm
Location: Spokane, Washington, United States
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

Re: Shasta and CO 14ers

Postby Luciano136 » Mon May 03, 2010 7:21 pm

dynamokiev98 wrote:
blueshade wrote:Shasta is not a hard mountain at all, somewhat strenuous (7000' gain) but not dangerous. If you wait until later in the year you can do it in sneakers if you are careful, crampons if you want to be safer. Easily finished as a day-hike if you move quickly.

However, I also would recommend a Colorado 14er first. A lot closer, a little easier (depending on the mountain), and you can do a lot more of them if that is your desire.


I did Shasta in my running shoes late July last year, but only because I did not know anything about proper way to do it. I think it is not only dangerous, but stupid. There are storms that may come VERY quick since we don't see what's over the ridges. Storms with thunder and lightning, or whiteouts. When you want to get down the mountain quick I wouldn't want to get caught even on avalanche gulch (when it is not appropriate for glissading). Last weekend I actually encountered 2!! people that F***** themselves up on AG. One attempted to glissade and went out of control (it was too icy), other was going up, somehow slipped and flew down for 50-100M..1st one ad scrapes on his face 2nd had just bumps and bruises as I understand, but she was wearing crampons and it could of been a lot worse if she caught her leg with one. No matter how easy the begginer route on Shasta is, it is still a big mountain and people do get hurt on this route. Of course people do summit in running shoes, but chances of being hurt if you do that are higher..anyone is free to take their risks, but I wouldn't suggest hiking up in running shoes to a begginer asking for good advise on safety. lol

good luck


+1 !
User Avatar
Luciano136

 
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, California, United States
Thanked: 9 times in 8 posts

Re: Shasta and CO 14ers

Postby dskoon » Mon May 03, 2010 7:28 pm

Luciano136 wrote:
dynamokiev98 wrote:
blueshade wrote:Shasta is not a hard mountain at all, somewhat strenuous (7000' gain) but not dangerous. If you wait until later in the year you can do it in sneakers if you are careful, crampons if you want to be safer. Easily finished as a day-hike if you move quickly.

However, I also would recommend a Colorado 14er first. A lot closer, a little easier (depending on the mountain), and you can do a lot more of them if that is your desire.


I did Shasta in my running shoes late July last year, but only because I did not know anything about proper way to do it. I think it is not only dangerous, but stupid. There are storms that may come VERY quick since we don't see what's over the ridges. Storms with thunder and lightning, or whiteouts. When you want to get down the mountain quick I wouldn't want to get caught even on avalanche gulch (when it is not appropriate for glissading). Last weekend I actually encountered 2!! people that F***** themselves up on AG. One attempted to glissade and went out of control (it was too icy), other was going up, somehow slipped and flew down for 50-100M..1st one ad scrapes on his face 2nd had just bumps and bruises as I understand, but she was wearing crampons and it could of been a lot worse if she caught her leg with one. No matter how easy the begginer route on Shasta is, it is still a big mountain and people do get hurt on this route. Of course people do summit in running shoes, but chances of being hurt if you do that are higher..anyone is free to take their risks, but I wouldn't suggest hiking up in running shoes to a begginer asking for good advise on safety. lol

good luck


+1 !


+2
People have also climbed Hood, and I'd imagine, many other of our mountains whilst wearing very simple garb. Rumor is a woman once climbed Hood in high heels while wearing a dress. And, Hood has supposedly seen a volleyball game, (of sorts, I'm sure), played on its' summit.
But, I think those are the rare days the Gods are smiling on you. Kind of like how people used to drive around with their babies/infants without any car seats or restraints. Sure, you might get away with it sometimes, but, when you don't, you/ or the child, will pay the price.
Is it really worth it to roll the dice?
Having said that, I've climbed St. Helens on a perfect day in July, with nothing more than a fanny pack and hiking boots. (my uncle, however, was planning for anything, and carried a huge pack; needless to say, he was much slower). But, I'd say Shasta and certainly Rainier, are different beasts than St. Helens.
Last edited by dskoon on Mon May 03, 2010 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User Avatar
dskoon

 
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:06 am
Location: portland, Oregon
Thanked: 136 times in 104 posts

Postby billisfree » Mon May 03, 2010 7:29 pm

dskoon wrote:
billisfree wrote:Jakester... I made NO comments about Mt. Rainier.

I've only climbed to Camp Muir. And I'm not qualified to comment on Rainier.


Bill, see your above quote ABOUT RAINIER!



Which one? I don't see any.
User Avatar
billisfree

 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Postby dskoon » Mon May 03, 2010 7:32 pm

Look a little closer. . . . . . .
User Avatar
dskoon

 
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:06 am
Location: portland, Oregon
Thanked: 136 times in 104 posts

Postby billisfree » Mon May 03, 2010 7:39 pm

OK, I'll edit it. Hope you like it now.
Last edited by billisfree on Mon May 03, 2010 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User Avatar
billisfree

 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Postby Luciano136 » Mon May 03, 2010 7:39 pm

No matter what mountain, steep snow can be very dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. People end up in the hospital every year trying to climb the Baldy bowl, which could be considered as 'easy'.
User Avatar
Luciano136

 
Posts: 3734
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, California, United States
Thanked: 9 times in 8 posts

PreviousNext

Return to General

 


  • 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.