If you're climbing with a guide they're going to force you to carry something extremely heavy. I'm going with IMG this summer, and doing some AAI classes on Baker later, I'm a noob to glacier travel (east coast climber and hiker), hence the guided climb and classes. I ended up getting a Rab Neutrino and I dig it so far, packs down small and the pertex shell sheds moisture pretty well. Like everyone said though, if it gets wet you're going to be in trouble.... I would listen to ExciteableBoy and crowd, they know the area and gear better than most anyone around here... IMG pretty much said they'd force me to rent a down jacket if I didn't have something like it, or a synthetic equivalent. Hopefully you won't have to use it during the summer, but you never know... I'm a surfer so I get cold pretty easily haha

Re the above

I would take issue with your description of

"If a private party goes up unprepared, as many on here suggest, then no 3rd party liability - no big deal. Many youngin's today do not have the muscle to carry adequate survival gear so they tout the "go light and shiver" theme."

I think you are not reading this post correctly. Nobody in this Post, at least that is my interpretation, ever suggested that people go anywhere unprepared. The post has been about APPROPRIATE gear for the activity.

Appropriate gear is at the heart of this debate, not going unprepared. And if people have incorrect gear, they are really unprepared !

Regarding young people substituting light weight for "lack of muscle", I will let others address that. In my experience, today "youngins" are miles ahead of us when it comes to "MUSCLE". Fitness, speed and light gear are the name of the game today. The light is right concept has been on for at least 20 years...

Edited for spelling, sorry guys..

Regarding light weight, I was climbing with Colin Haley back when he was still in high school. We were sitting down, drinking water.

He looked over at me and said, "Your water bottle has a sticker on it."

"So?" says I.

"But E.B., stickers weigh!"

One time I was climbing the DC route on Rainier in mid September with several friends, one of whom had climbed Mt. Everest, Lhotse, and Aconcagua in a stunning 60 hour round trip AIRPORT TO AIRPORT.

Anywhoo, a group of young Russian climbers, maybe late teens, early 20's, showed up intending to climb the DC. They were completely unprepared gear wise. They were wearing leather tennis shoes and had semi automatic crampons, leather belts instead of harnesses, and something akin to hardware store braided plastic rope.

My friend, Brian, was really upset. He kept asking if he should say something to the climbing ranger, which he eventually did. The ranger shrugged his shoulders and basically said they paid their climbing fee and he had no authority to stop them. Fortunately, an early season storm had deposited snow that formed perfect neve' so they had very forgiving conditions and they all survived the experience.

ExcitableBoy wrote:Anywhoo, a group of young Russian climbers, maybe late teens, early 20's, showed up intending to climb the DC. They were completely unprepared gear wise. They were wearing leather tennis shoes and had semi automatic crampons, leather belts instead of harnesses, and something akin to hardware store braided plastic rope.

Classic!

I've seen Russians in street clothes in some of the strangest places, e.g. hiking down the Grand Canyon on snow in loafers. Never underestimate a Slav on a mission.

Sunny Buns wrote:IMG understands something about Rainier: you can have winter any day of the year up high. They are covering their rears - if they allow you to go up without adequate gear and you die because of that, then they are liable. If a private party goes up unprepared, as many on here suggest, then no 3rd party liability - no big deal. Many youngin's today do not have the muscle to carry adequate survival gear so they tout the "go light and shiver" theme. It's OK - it's a marginally free country - each of us has to decide what level of safety we are comfortable with.

Some don't. There are those who do the full Cirque traverse in a day. Do they lack the muscle to carry the gear, or do they simply not need it because they're so fast? I'm not a "young n"....But I can handle 18,000 ft of vert over 100 miles in a day. Probably because I'm not hauling 3 coats. However, in the Army, I carried 90lb rucks over 20 miles. I can haul it....But what's the point? It's obsolete. I prefer the smarter lighter gear because it allows me to be safer by keeping me fresh with energy reserves and mental alertness. I'm not advocating Climbing Rainier in swim shorts...Just saying that down has had its day....And that's OK.

Sunny Buns wrote: Many youngin's today do not have the muscle to carry adequate survival gear so they tout the "go light and shiver" theme. It's OK - it's a marginally free country - each of us has to decide what level of safety we are comfortable with.

I've been mentoring several younger climbers. These young men are single and work as software developers and, therefore, have a lot of disposable income. They make elaborate spreadsheets to find and buy the very lightest weight gear they can get their hands on, regardless of cost. One of them said to me, "We spend all this time and money acquiring the lightest gear, you just don't bring anything." They also spend a lot of time training; lifting weights, trail running, hiking with heavy packs, participating in ultra marathons, ski mountaineering races, and Brazilian Ju Jitsu, so their fitness is undeniable. I've yet to meet a climber who goes light because they are weak. They go light because they are smart.

I go light, but I also carry enough gear to survive a night out, even on day trips. That doesn't need to be a lot. I have a folded closed cell foam pad that makes up the frame of my Serratus Genie back pack, a Primaloft parka, extra socks, a bivi sac, and a tiny butane stove. Total 'extra weight'; about 2 pounds. I would be carrying the foam pad and parka anyway, only the socks, bivi sack, and stove are 'extra'. Having unexpectedly spent the night out, it is all weight well worth carrying.

Steve Swenson once said during a winter climb on Rainier regarding his tiny pack, "It's a big mountain, and I don't want to carry any extra gear if don't have to." He is one of the fittest, not to mention most accomplished, alpinists I know. Again, Colin Haley frequently questioned my long held beliefs about techniques and gear when we climbed together. His obsession with going light is widely documented. He was also the first person I met who could natively keep my pace. Make no mistake, he is very fit.

Since this thread was originally about down vs. synthetic, I will say one last thing and then get back to finishing The Mediocre American Novel. Down has its place; in cold dry environments such as Alaska and Antarctica. The PNW is not that cold, but it is very wet. Why buy a more expensive, less useful item? A hooded, 100 gram Primaloft Gold (I don't understand why they manufacture inferior products now) belay parka sized to fit over all other layers is perfect for Rainier in May and pretty much everywhere else in the contiguous U.S., B.C. Coast Range, Canadian Rockies, etc. It's similar to the all mountain, full shank, insulated leather boot. Perfect for the majority of your alpine climbing trips.

Would be interesting to see a more comprehensive list of mountain ranges and the insulation technology recommended for them in the summer. I assume anything>6k =down. My attempt below.

Cascades-synthetic
Sierra-synthetic
Rockies-synthetic
Alaska-down
Alps-synthetic
Mexico-synthetic
Andes-down
Kili-down
Himalaya-down
Antarctica-down
Caucasus-down

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me when packing for a trip the decision of down vs. synthetic boils down to more than just general tendencies of the area/range and forecast. I think they both can be used in a variety of locales, ranges, and conditions with good preparation and appropriate companion gear pairings. My $0.02

I used a down puffy and down sleeping bag on both of my Rainier trips. Worked perfectly, although we never had bad weather.