3Deserts wrote:

Vitaliy M. wrote:

Franky wrote:Middle pal, northeast face is supposed to be mega classic.

IMO that route is crap.

I'm curious why you think it's crap.

That route is covered top to bottom with round, softball sized rocks just waiting to take off. The perfect size to be easily knocked loose and still have a serious effect on anyone below.

3Deserts wrote:

Vitaliy M. wrote:

Franky wrote:Middle pal, northeast face is supposed to be mega classic.

IMO that route is crap.

I'm curious why you think it's crap.

I thought it is a bit too loose on the way up (took a variation on climbers right). On the way down it was less loose. Would not want to be there if there are people above me. Views are great. Maybe I thought it was crap is because I day hiked Russell and than Middle Pal on the next day. Very hard to match E ridge of Russell by quality and scenery. Although Middle Pal has some nice scenery on the way in (the lakes etc) and has a good view from the top...it didn't live up to my expectations after hearing so much about how great this climb is.

I enjoyed Middle Pal quite a bit. It's got a big mountain feel without any really difficult moves or terribly massive exposure. The views of Norman Clyde, Sill and the rest of the Palisades are absolutely epic.

It's a moot point now, but getting a permit for the South Fork of Big Pine Creek hasn't been too hard this season. The visitors center people scare off the less committed visitors because of the guarantee of getting your feet wet.

All too true about the little stone softballs, but having to be extra vigilant about not knocking down rocks in itself doesn't make a climb crap. I thought it was a magnificent climb. We had a party of three below us on the way up yesterday, and on the way down as well (we spent a long time on the summit, enjoying that view), and we had no problems. I don't mind having to be a little more careful. We went up the Secor route, off the glacier, and down the other side, crossing back to the moraine on the red/white Class Lousy band. Now THAT side is loose. Kind of a drag. That I wouldn't do again, but we were curious to see what it was like.

There were pockets of fresh snow and ice on the route which made things that much more interesting as well, and in lieu of finding the supposed easy 'almost a walk-up' route to the summit block after the little traverse from the summit ridge, we chose a more direct route over a couple of blocks which involved what the other party called a 5.6 move. I'm skeptical, but it did take some thought to solve that problem. Fun!

Personally, I think this climb holds its own against Russell's east ridge just fine. Plus, for me, any mountain that involves at least a little snow, even if it's mellow and easy, is always a plus. I find the glacier walk-offs to be very relaxing and pleasant, and the approach was infinitely more fun than having to travel across the moraine.

Weird sight in the snow: a perfectly preserved Monarch butterfly sitting in a little melt cup; it looked as if it had just landed there.

Gafoto wrote:The visitors center people scare off the less committed visitors because of the guarantee of getting your feet wet.

Ah but you don't anymore! You can cross cleanly, quickly, and dryly by hopping across a few large boulders now. We got across both times in about 30 seconds per person and stayed completely dry. Big improvement over earlier this summer!

3deserts, I am happy you enjoyed the climb. We took red/white rock var. on the way up and down, maybe that's why it was more loose. Higher up it was ok with good scrambling around the summit area. At first we went to the sub summit on climbers right which also involved something more than class 3 which was fun. But still IMHO that peak is a pile compared to many traverses and peaks out there in Sierra.

Ouch. Yeah, if you took that route up AND down, I can see why your view of the route is dimmer than mine. From almost exactly the subtle rib that divides the junction of the two chutes downwards, it's a study of contrasts. Almost as soon as we started down that side, we noticed a dramatic increase in loose, broken junk, and it got worse and worse the farther down we got. And anything that involved that red/white stuff was just complete garbage.

I would submit that by going both up and down that way, you missed possibly the finest rock anywhere on the route outside of the immediate summit ridge, which tends to be concentrated to climber's left of the gendarme, just coming off the top of the ramp from the glacier, up until about the junction of the two chutes.

For fun, give me a couple or three of your favorite Class 3 routes; if they're not already on my list, I'll check them out.

3Deserts wrote:

Gafoto wrote:The visitors center people scare off the less committed visitors because of the guarantee of getting your feet wet.

Ah but you don't anymore! You can cross cleanly, quickly, and dryly by hopping across a few large boulders now. We got across both times in about 30 seconds per person and stayed completely dry. Big improvement over earlier this summer!

That's odd. Did someone toss some rocks in there or did the water level just drop lower? I know for a fact that the trails crew for the INF hasn't done anything more than clean a couple water bars and log out that trail this year.

Water level is down. The same spot a couple of months ago was not crossable. I suppose it wasn't exactly a hop, but rather, an awkward stretch on to a boulder with a ledge on one side, a step down on to some jammed tree trunks/barely submerged rock, then two more lower, smaller boulders that are pretty easily stepped across with a couple other low, wet rocks as optional steps to the bank on the other side (going up). Whatever you call it, you can still get across in under a minute with no fuss and no filth.

Cbuelow tipped me off earlier in this same thread, on page 1 (thanks Cbuelow!):

palisades-region-best-class-3-4-to-solo-t59882.html#p849237

3Deserts wrote:
For fun, give me a couple or three of your favorite Class 3 routes; if they're not already on my list, I'll check them out.

I will be honest, I did a lot of 3rd class but can't name too many favorite routes because 3rd class everywhere tends to be loose and not that fun. My favorite scrambles are NW ridge of North peak, N ridge of Conness, Matthes Crest, Cockscomb but these are more than class 3. From class 3 I liked east ridge of Russell and West Ridge of Darwin. Royce Feather col to Feather peak, Green Butte ridge on Mt. Shasta, Mt Abbott by standard route, & East or West couloir on Matterhorn peak is also very enjoyable. I like clean rock and scenic places.

Vitaliy M. wrote:

3Deserts wrote:
For fun, give me a couple or three of your favorite Class 3 routes; if they're not already on my list, I'll check them out.

I will be honest, I did a lot of 3rd class but can't name too many favorite routes because 3rd class everywhere tends to be loose and not that fun. My favorite scrambles are NW ridge of North peak, N ridge of Conness, Matthes Crest, Cockscomb but these are more than class 3. From class 3 I liked east ridge of Russell and West Ridge of Darwin. Royce Feather col to Feather peak, Green Butte ridge on Mt. Shasta, Mt Abbott by standard route, & East or West couloir on Matterhorn peak is also very enjoyable. I like clean rock and scenic places.

Middle Pal is crap, but the Mount Abbot standard route is not (based on looseness)?

Dont get me wrong I've done both and like them, but I found Mt Abbot to be much looser than Middle Pal on the Lower half of the climb. Of course, this was later in the yaer when much of the snow was gone.

I found it easier to avoid knocking rocks loose on Abbot, perhaps due to the difference size and shape of them and many are in sandy areas as I recall. On Middle Palisade there are a lot of areas with round rock sitting on a clean, hard surface just ready to roll.

granite4brains wrote:Middle Pal is crap, but the Mount Abbot standard route is not (based on looseness)?

Jesus Christ.......I gave OWN opinion on the whole joy of hiking middle pal. My opinion does not have to be identical to yours. Obviously there are 100s of other factors that influence my opinion. The variation of the route taken, the style in which it was done, my mood on that day, how tired I was after previous day, temperature, scenery around etc etc etc etc..AND as you see I note that I usually do not enjoy most of Cl 3 routes anyways bc most tend to be dirty, so I usually take other factors into consideration when I come up with an opinion of how enjoyable some peak is (for me).
Facts: Friday we went and did Abbot. Saturday we did Russell and Carillon. Sunday we day-hiked Middle Pal at last and drove back to BA. Compared to day-hiking Abbott (or Russell), it is a less enjoyable day IMO. Less enjoyable based on scenery, based on having to boulder hop forever, based on loose crap that is easy to drop on your partner (maybe due to variation we took). Abbott you hike in a very scenic area along pretty lakes and views. Than you take a snow couloir (nice variety), and when you do get up to loose ledgy cl 3, there is no big risk of dropping crap on your partner because usually you are traveling on the same ledge. Sending 500lb boulders down the face is also pretty fun. Great day.

KathyW wrote:The weather forecast is not so great for this weekend for that area:

http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.ph ... tType=text

A 40% chance of rain/snow usually means that 40% of the area will receive snow/rain (typically the highest elevations), not that there is a 40% chance of rain/snow. It might not be much fun on the high peaks in Palisades with a forecast like that.

That's not quite correct Kathy -
"Q: What do forecasters mean when they say things such as, "There is a 30 percent chance of rain"?

A: The National Weather Service says, "The probability of precipitation is the likelihood of measurable precipitation (0.01 inches or greater) for a specified forecast time period, and occurring at any point for which the forecast is valid."

A reasonable English translation of this bit of government speak is: The probability gives the odds of any one place in the area covered by the forecast getting wet, whether it's from rain or snow. The 0.01 inches or greater comes from the fact that any less rain or water from melted snow or ice can't be measured. If the bottom of the rain gauge is wet, but the water isn't deep enough to measure, that's called a "trace' and really doesn't count.

A forecaster assigns a precipitation probability that shows his or her confidence in the forecast, how much of the forecast area is likely to have precipitation, and low long the precipitation is expected to last.

The important point is that the odds are for the rain or snow to fall on any place in the area covered by the forecast."

Deb wrote:That's not quite correct Kathy -
"Q: What do forecasters mean when they say things such as, "There is a 30 percent chance of rain"?

A: The National Weather Service says, "The probability of precipitation is the likelihood of measurable precipitation (0.01 inches or greater) for a specified forecast time period, and occurring at any point for which the forecast is valid."

A reasonable English translation of this bit of government speak is: The probability gives the odds of any one place in the area covered by the forecast getting wet, whether it's from rain or snow. The 0.01 inches or greater comes from the fact that any less rain or water from melted snow or ice can't be measured. If the bottom of the rain gauge is wet, but the water isn't deep enough to measure, that's called a "trace' and really doesn't count.

A forecaster assigns a precipitation probability that shows his or her confidence in the forecast, how much of the forecast area is likely to have precipitation, and low long the precipitation is expected to last.

The important point is that the odds are for the rain or snow to fall on any place in the area covered by the forecast."

This is not quite correct either.

Probability is not odds.

The odds of an event A is defined as P(A)/1-P(A), or the probability of desired outcomes (depends on your interpretations of precip lol ) divided by the probability of undesired outcomes. You can also substitute in number for probability.

The probability of an event A is defined as lim(n-->inf) n(E)/n, or the limiting proportion of times that E occurs in n repetitions.

It is also not a fact that we cannot measure precipitation amounts less than 0.01 of an inch, we can, however most intstruments (rain gauges or tipping buckets) generally do not measure to an accuracy less than 0.01in. Other methods do exist to measure 'trace' amounts, e.g. the 'hotplate'. But for all intents and purposes this isn't really a big deal. The high spatial variability of rainfall can result in two rain gauges being located side by side and measuring different values.

It is also important to note that the 'point' forecasts generated by the NWS are automated using model output statistics algorithms based on results from the numerical models. The individual forecaster can change these values if dynamical signals are present that lead them to interpret the forecast differently (here is where the confidence of the forecaster manifests itself). If you read the discussions, this is what they are doing when they state that they are "changing the grids".

Just wanted to clarify things...

The fact is regardless what the NOAA/NWS computer model probability forecasts as far as %'s, isolated intense TSers happen regardless their potential forecast %'s.

20-30% last weekend and I still came the closest I ever have in over 40 years to getting nailed by lightning (10' or so feet away) in a heinous lightning storm that brewed up and swept my vicinity very quickly. Myself and my clients hunkered down, allowed the TS squall move off to the north and we high tailed the fk from our location immediately. Oh, several inches of graupel in less than three minutes overwhelmed us as well leaving a decent that was like moving down in a UPS packing store. Five other parties pretty much ran for their lives as well. Bad Juju!! Most likely the exact same cell that the OPist here experienced.




Computers.....sheeeeeeeeeesh!

Common mountain sense dictates.