You mean the routes indicated on the photo? I'm confident we were generally to the climbers right of those routes. Like you, I think we hugged the ridgeline the great majority of the way. We could also see down into Avalanche Gulch at times The only time we came low was to go through the wine/hour glass. This isn't shown on our GPS track because the device seems to have cut out between 12,800 and when we were on misery hill. The photo with routes was not ours - it was just the best I found that I think shows the wine/hour glass. Make sense?
ExcitableBoy - May 18, 2011 1:49 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Hourglass?
Ok, gotcha. I misinterpreted the photo, I thought the red line indicated your line of ascent, but I see now it is someone else's photo. You and I must have made a very similar line of ascent. What is marked on the photo with an X (the wine/hour glass) is what I now believe was the spot I was down climbing when I met those fellows climbing up the CR. Right after that I climbed back up the Hourglass and traversed skier's right back towards the West Face before dropping to the ~11k level and a level traverse back to our bivi. I clearly remember the spot that forced a steep climb perpendicular to the ridge crest on 45 degree neve as being steeper than the Hourglass by exactly three degrees. Give or take 5.
I did this route last year, and was wondering where the hell did I go. Now I finally get it.
http://www.summitpost.org/casaval-routes/204288/c-155538
I went to the right of the red x and traversed on a steep slope right bellow the rock band. And we climbed up a very steep rime covered gully up. Exposure there was big (in that gully).
Than when blue line goes up and leads to 'catwalk,' I hooked a right before and passed under the rock band on the right. That was VERY narrow and I called it 'ratwalk' in my trip report. Cuz compared to it catwalk was nothing.
http://c0278592.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/original/621588.JPG
it is cool too see all the route variations. And wonder which route did original people who graded it as Class 4 took. If not for the move in the gully and exposed 'ratwalk' thing I would call it cl. 3. Especially knowing that Green Butte/Sargent's is considered cl. 3. I am actually headed there today for last climb before I head out to Alaska on Tuesday...
ExcitableBoy - May 18, 2011 9:25 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: FINALLY!
I wonder if anyone has stuck to the east side of the ridge. That looked harder.
Your route (from the picture you provided) looks pretty intense. You're right about the ratwalk. We started down it but it got sooo narrow and sloped with iffy snow/ice that we felt it wasn't worth the risk so we cut up to the catwalk. The catwalk was exposed but not nearly as much. Overall, you're probably right about class 3 vs class 4.
ExcitableBoy - May 19, 2011 11:01 am - Hasn't voted
Re: FINALLY!
Can someone exlain the class sytem used on Shasta? I think of class 1, 2, 4, 5 as YDS classes. Is this a grading system particular to Shasta, like the Alaskan Grading system of 1 - Westman/Puryear/Haley errr, I mean 6.
On the Mount Shasta Avalanche Center website, it says that Casaval is a Grade III climb using the "National Climbing Classification System". It says Green Butte is a Grade II. On the other hand, the Mount Shasta page on summitpost says that both Casaval and Green Butte are Class 4. It doesn't say what system is being used. So I guess, in spite of my concurrence with Vitaliy, I don't have a clue. I do know that there were certain parts of the climb that were pretty "intense", shall we say.
ExcitableBoy - May 19, 2011 2:17 pm - Hasn't voted
NCCS Grades
I had to Google "National Climbing Classification System"
NCCS grades, often called “commitment grades,” indicate the time investment in a route for an “average” climbing team.
I and II: Half a day or less for the technical (5th class) portion of the route.
III:Most of a day of roped climbing.
IV: A full day of technical climbing.
V: Typically requires an overnight on the route, or done fast and free in a day.
VI: Two or more days of hard climbing.
VII: Remote walls climbed in alpine style.
jpsmyth - May 18, 2011 1:40 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Hourglass?You mean the routes indicated on the photo? I'm confident we were generally to the climbers right of those routes. Like you, I think we hugged the ridgeline the great majority of the way. We could also see down into Avalanche Gulch at times The only time we came low was to go through the wine/hour glass. This isn't shown on our GPS track because the device seems to have cut out between 12,800 and when we were on misery hill. The photo with routes was not ours - it was just the best I found that I think shows the wine/hour glass. Make sense?
ExcitableBoy - May 18, 2011 1:49 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Hourglass?Ok, gotcha. I misinterpreted the photo, I thought the red line indicated your line of ascent, but I see now it is someone else's photo. You and I must have made a very similar line of ascent. What is marked on the photo with an X (the wine/hour glass) is what I now believe was the spot I was down climbing when I met those fellows climbing up the CR. Right after that I climbed back up the Hourglass and traversed skier's right back towards the West Face before dropping to the ~11k level and a level traverse back to our bivi. I clearly remember the spot that forced a steep climb perpendicular to the ridge crest on 45 degree neve as being steeper than the Hourglass by exactly three degrees. Give or take 5.
Vitaliy M. - May 18, 2011 4:46 pm - Voted 10/10
FINALLY!I did this route last year, and was wondering where the hell did I go. Now I finally get it.
http://www.summitpost.org/casaval-routes/204288/c-155538
I went to the right of the red x and traversed on a steep slope right bellow the rock band. And we climbed up a very steep rime covered gully up. Exposure there was big (in that gully).
Than when blue line goes up and leads to 'catwalk,' I hooked a right before and passed under the rock band on the right. That was VERY narrow and I called it 'ratwalk' in my trip report. Cuz compared to it catwalk was nothing.
http://c0278592.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/original/621588.JPG
it is cool too see all the route variations. And wonder which route did original people who graded it as Class 4 took. If not for the move in the gully and exposed 'ratwalk' thing I would call it cl. 3. Especially knowing that Green Butte/Sargent's is considered cl. 3. I am actually headed there today for last climb before I head out to Alaska on Tuesday...
ExcitableBoy - May 18, 2011 9:25 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: FINALLY!I wonder if anyone has stuck to the east side of the ridge. That looked harder.
jpsmyth - May 18, 2011 10:06 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: FINALLY!I agree. But I haven't seen any trip reports with that route.
Vitaliy M. - May 18, 2011 10:23 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: FINALLY!I did partially, but if you would keep east of the ridge you would be traversing trinity chutes, that's all
jpsmyth - May 18, 2011 10:58 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: FINALLY!Your route (from the picture you provided) looks pretty intense. You're right about the ratwalk. We started down it but it got sooo narrow and sloped with iffy snow/ice that we felt it wasn't worth the risk so we cut up to the catwalk. The catwalk was exposed but not nearly as much. Overall, you're probably right about class 3 vs class 4.
ExcitableBoy - May 19, 2011 11:01 am - Hasn't voted
Re: FINALLY!Can someone exlain the class sytem used on Shasta? I think of class 1, 2, 4, 5 as YDS classes. Is this a grading system particular to Shasta, like the Alaskan Grading system of 1 - Westman/Puryear/Haley errr, I mean 6.
jpsmyth - May 19, 2011 1:09 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: FINALLY!On the Mount Shasta Avalanche Center website, it says that Casaval is a Grade III climb using the "National Climbing Classification System". It says Green Butte is a Grade II. On the other hand, the Mount Shasta page on summitpost says that both Casaval and Green Butte are Class 4. It doesn't say what system is being used. So I guess, in spite of my concurrence with Vitaliy, I don't have a clue. I do know that there were certain parts of the climb that were pretty "intense", shall we say.
ExcitableBoy - May 19, 2011 2:17 pm - Hasn't voted
NCCS GradesI had to Google "National Climbing Classification System"
From: Alpinist Magazine online: http://www.alpinist.com/p/climbing_notes/grades
National Climbing Classification System (USA):
NCCS grades, often called “commitment grades,” indicate the time investment in a route for an “average” climbing team.
I and II: Half a day or less for the technical (5th class) portion of the route.
III:Most of a day of roped climbing.
IV: A full day of technical climbing.
V: Typically requires an overnight on the route, or done fast and free in a day.
VI: Two or more days of hard climbing.
VII: Remote walls climbed in alpine style.
Holk - May 19, 2011 5:20 pm - Voted 10/10
Short "pre" TRhttp://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1017389
jpsmyth - May 19, 2011 6:20 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: ShortVery nice!