agreed on Denali. god forbid you came up the muldrow. that practically starts at sea level - something like 18k gain or something absurd like that... you could theoretically climb st elias from the beach, but i think most folks get flown to 10k or something... just thinking off the top of my head, don't hold me to it!

course, san gorgonio always gets my respect - especially for a dayhike... sea level for breakfast, 11k for lunch, back to sea level for dinner... always screws me up.

Topologically there should be someway to measure elevation gain. Just like a watershed divides lakes and drainage systems, there should be a similar trough or valley line that divides mountain ranges. If you look out radially from a mountain peak, there should be at some point a closed loop encircling the mountain which is the bottom of a valley (not a real "valley", but a place where the slope goes up on either sides). The only exception of course is if you hit the ocean, in which case, the ocean shore should define the boundary. The distance from the lowest point on that loop to the summit should be the maximum elevation gain.

Fletch wrote:agreed on Denali. god forbid you came up the muldrow. that practically starts at sea level - something like 18k gain or something absurd like that... you could theoretically climb st elias from the beach, but i think most folks get flown to 10k or something... just thinking off the top of my head, don't hold me to it!

course, san gorgonio always gets my respect - especially for a dayhike... sea level for breakfast, 11k for lunch, back to sea level for dinner... always screws me up.

Have you done it, Fletch?(San Gorgonio, that is?) I've been thinking about doing it, or San Jacinto, for awhile now. . .

DanTheMan wrote:Topologically there should be someway to measure elevation gain. Just like a watershed divides lakes and drainage systems, there should be a similar trough or valley line that divides mountain ranges. If you look out radially from a mountain peak, there should be at some point a closed loop encircling the mountain which is the bottom of a valley (not a real "valley", but a place where the slope goes up on either sides). The only exception of course is if you hit the ocean, in which case, the ocean shore should define the boundary. The distance from the lowest point on that loop to the summit should be the maximum elevation gain.

For the climber this may or not be relevant. For example using your heuristic the elevation gain of Pikes Peak may be significant yet one can drive a car to the summit or I could walk from my house to Mt Rainier and gain 14,410 ft. I think a different metric wwould be of more use to the climber. I might suggest looking at the highest point at one must start walking. On Rainier that would be Paradise at 5,500 ft, on Denali it would be KIA at 7k ft.

dskoon wrote:

Fletch wrote:agreed on Denali. god forbid you came up the muldrow. that practically starts at sea level - something like 18k gain or something absurd like that... you could theoretically climb st elias from the beach, but i think most folks get flown to 10k or something... just thinking off the top of my head, don't hold me to it!

course, san gorgonio always gets my respect - especially for a dayhike... sea level for breakfast, 11k for lunch, back to sea level for dinner... always screws me up.

Have you done it, Fletch?(San Gorgonio, that is?) I've been thinking about doing it, or San Jacinto, for awhile now. . .

Oh yeah... brutal day. 80's at the TH and 40's at the top. Plus there is little or no water on the route (and of course we ran out). It's such an incredible "variance" of conditions... only thing I can compare it to is New Zealand or something. Good hike though, you should definitely give it a go.

dskoon wrote:

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:Mount Rainier is over 12,000 feet from trailhead to summit

Which trailhead would that be?

Carbon Glacier?

AlexeyD wrote:

dskoon wrote:

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:Mount Rainier is over 12,000 feet from trailhead to summit

Which trailhead would that be?

Carbon Glacier?

Ipsut Creek.

Ah, I see, I see. Looks like Ipsut elevation is around 2300' or so? What route(s) from there?

dskoon wrote:Ah, I see, I see. Looks like Ipsut elevation is around 2300' or so? What route(s) from there?

Well, hypothetically one could start Liberty Ridge from there, although I think the normal start is from White River Campground. Which, by the way, is also a very respectable 10,000 feet of elevation gain - not a record-setter but close.

I would imagine several routes are "accessible" from the Ipsut camp and trail. Mowich Face, LR, Willis Wall, Ptarmigan Ridge, Curtis Ridge... to name a few. Whether practical or not seems to be the question.

twoshuzz wrote:I would imagine several routes are "accessible" from the Ipsut camp and trail. Mowich Face, LR, Willis Wall, Ptarmigan Ridge, Curtis Ridge... to name a few. Whether practical or not seems to be the question.

Yeah, well, I was just wondering and trying to get at Sierraledgerat's assertion of his 12,000ft. elevation gain post . . .

AlexeyD wrote:

dskoon wrote:Ah, I see, I see. Looks like Ipsut elevation is around 2300' or so? What route(s) from there?

Well, hypothetically one could start Liberty Ridge from there, although I think the normal start is from White River Campground. Which, by the way, is also a very respectable 10,000 feet of elevation gain - not a record-setter but close.

Before the White River Road opens (usually Memorial Day weekend) it makes sense to approach the north side routes from Ipsut creek. I know a guy who skiied from Ipsut creek and climbed and skied down Liberty Ridge in under 24 hours. It was in April so it made sense. A week before some fellas on SP climbed Liberty Ridge from Ipsut Creek, but it took them like a week. Once White River Road opens it makes sense to approach the north side routes from there. I went in this way for Liberty Ridge and Curtis Ridge in the summer and Ptarmigan Ridge in the winter. I think Ipsut Creek would have been a better choice for a winter ascent but we thought the descend down Emmons was less complicated.

Damien Gildea wrote:North face of Namche Barwa is c.5200m (17,175ft) from summit down to where you leave the river to start walking up. Face is unclimbed.

Damien Gildea wrote:No. The mountain has only had one ascent, from the SW. For many years it was the world's highest unclimbed mountain, and was not climbed until 1993, by Japanese. They paid a fortune for permission, the expedition was rumoured to cost around $1M, and they failed the first time, then went back in '93. I have the Chinese map of the area and it actually claims that the drop north down to the river surface is 5332m.

As we spoke about Namcha Barwa, I just added an album with some pictures and info on Namcha Barwa.

dskoon wrote:

twoshuzz wrote:I would imagine several routes are "accessible" from the Ipsut camp and trail. Mowich Face, LR, Willis Wall, Ptarmigan Ridge, Curtis Ridge... to name a few. Whether practical or not seems to be the question.

Yeah, well, I was just wondering and trying to get at Sierraledgerat's assertion of his 12,000ft. elevation gain post . . .

Longmire Trailhead 2,700 feet, climbs up over the Rampart and drops 300 feet before ascending again.

14,410 - 2,700 = 11,710 feet

If you add in the extra 300 feet:

11,710 + 300 = 12,100 feet elevation gain from the trailhead

There may be higher trailheads for Success Cleaver, but when we traversed the mountain Success > DIsappointment that was the only trailhead that was open for that side of the mountain. If I recall there had been a huge flood and many roads had been obliterated.

The 8350 feet from the Middle Fork Of the Kings River to the summit of Spanish Moutain in the Sierra Nevada is often cited as the deepest canyon in the United States . Has anyone ascended that ? It sure looks like a wasteland from the summit of Tehepite Dome.