Luciano136 wrote:surgent wrote:Similarly, for those who like the 8000m peaks, why not ask them why they're climbing the 26,240-ft peaks?
Yeah, but the metric system makes sense
I agree, with mountain heights. It makes more sense to me to be concerned with 4000 meters than 13,123', or 14,000'. The rest of the world knows 4000 meters, but not feet measurements. I used to be on a 14er kick, but got off it pretty fast when I went to CA and discovered some great peaks that had far more prominence or prominence over the neighboring valley than any CO 14er and yet were only 12,900' or so. I can't think of any CO 14er where I could stand on the summit and look out a few miles and down 8,000'. Not to bash CO 14ers. My altitude goal is to try and get over 4000 meters once a year, for no particular reason other than to be able to say I did. Oh, and I prefer a scramble over a walk up. I've been lucky with that since 2007 and will try to make it this year.
I'm starting to think altitude is over rated unless you just want to work really hard to breath. A friend of mine did a few 5000 meter peaks in South America back in January. He basically felt that adding altitude didn't do much more for a mountain than make it harder to climb because of the lower atmospheric pressure. He indicated that he would prefer technical summits at a lower altitude, one where cerebral edema is never a threat. I was looking at some peaks in Glacier NP. even though only 9300' feet or so, they were very impressive looking scrambles with 4000 feet of prominence. That can be more interesting than just shear height of a peak. Lastly, some places in the world people live on level ground at 14000'. Flagstaff is at 7,000', and I'm finding that it isn't that great after a while unless you just want to be acclimated to higher altitude all the time.