SummitPost.org

Hi,

I'd like to do a glacier climb in the Northwest, partly as preparation for the Mexican Volcanoes later in the year, and I'm trying to decide whether to do Rainier ($1200), or save money and do baker or shuksan instead ($750). The climb will be in late may. I know that Rainier is higher and more technical, but if baker or shuksan can provide a sufficient preparation, then I prefer to save the money. My only experience is basic mountaineering courses (rope work, selfarrest, no glacier skills), ice climbing, and Colorado 14ers.

Thanks for providing input and opinions. Let me know if there's a better forum for this question, by the way.

Thanks

I don't agree that Rainier is necessarily more technically difficult. It all depends on the route you're doing. The DC and Emmons routes are a lot less technical than the Fisher Chimneys on Shuksan or the Coleman Headwall on Baker.

Correct me if I'm wrong, however. Aren't the Mexican volcanoes technically very easy? I thought they were really just high-altitude snow slogs. Unless I'm wrong, the main challenge of the Mexican volcanoes is the elevation. If that's the case, I don't know where you live, but you might as well just stay in Colorado and just pick up some glacier travel skills. For elevation in Washington State, there really is only Rainier (and to a lesser extent, Adams).

Why don't you re-ask this question on the Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean discussion thread here on SP?

That's a good point about elevation vs technique. As far as Baker and Shuksan, the guided itineraries I looked at were for easton glacier and sulphide glacier, respectively.

Humor me, WHY does it cost $1200 just to climb Rainier???

the number of guiding companies permitted to operate on rainier is restricted, so there's less competition. and the demand for guides on rainier is quite high. I know that the three and even four day climbs on other mountains are as low as half the price. and the time involved for the guides is no different. one could reason that the risks are higher on rainier though, as a more difficult climb.

owenel wrote:That's a good point about elevation vs technique. As far as Baker and Shuksan, the guided itineraries I looked at were for easton glacier and sulphide glacier, respectively.

I've done both of those routes, and they are very technically easy, involving only really the need to know self-arrest and crevasse rescue skills. I suppose the top of the climb for Shuksan is technically harder than anything you'll do in Mexico. The summit pyramid is pretty steep, and depending on what route you take, involves some skills using an ice ax or being on steep, loose rock.

So $1,200 is the going rate for a guided climb up Rainier. Wow. RMI may (or may not) get you to the top of Rainier, but I'm not sure how much you're going to learn. They give you the most basic training and then haul you up one of the dog routes on Rainier. Where do you live? If you're close to Colorado, and you've already got ice ax and self-arrest skills, I'd take you and your partners up in the mountains, get Freedom of the Hills, and teach yourselves a Z-pulley system. You'll be good to go.

Thanks. Other options I was considering are Mt. Hood and Mt. Shasta, but my impression was that these are even less technical than baker and shuksan.

From the looks of those Mexico volcanos... they may be higher (highest is 18,000 ft) but since you are farther south... there is far less snow on them.

The 3rd highest looks like no snow at all.
The 2nd highest looks like an easy vertical climb of 500 ft of snow.
The hightest looks like 1,000 feet of snow climb.

And there apears to be NO glaciers.
Why do you need to learn all this technical stuff?

I've been up Mt Hood (6 times, summited 2 of 3 serious attempts),
Mt. Rainier(4 times summited 0 out of 3 serious attempts),
Mt. Adams (5 times, summited 1 out of 3) and
Mt. Shasta (1 time... 0 for 1)
Mt. St. Helens (3 out of 3)

IMHO, the most technical and hardest workout of the 5 is still Mt. Rainer.

I rate Rainer and Hood as the most dangerous.

St. Helens, Shasta, Adams are really very safe mountains... unless one does something pretty stupid.

I would think those Mexico mountains are pretty safe... your only limitation is to climb without getting exhausted or sick. Just get some thin-air experience before trying Mexico.

No technical skills beyond self arrest and snow travel are needed for the MX volcanoes. The only crevasse I saw on the Jamapa glacier when I was on Orizaba in December was the width of a pencil. Rainier is a great mountain to climb, but not necessary to tag a summit in Mexixo.

I get tired of saying this, but danger on snow is all about conditions.
And people have died due to conditions on Orizaba, apparently because it occasionally turns to blue ice, and is steep enough to go for a long, long slide in such conditions.

But generally you can expect what we found- good crampon snow. No crevasses on the standard route.
And it IS high enough to give a solid case of AMS.

So any peak that provides a good steep hike and gets you to elevation is good prep. Have fun- it's a beautiful area.

Rainier is more physically exhausting than any of the Mexican volcanoes, but I feel Orizaba has the potential to be a little more sketchy for someone with limited experience, simply because of the potential for long stretches of gnarly ice. Still relatively low angle, but I went with a guy who had climbed before and was a little uncomfortable on the top half of the Jamapa. So, again, all depends on snow conditions. Rainier and other Cascade peaks have more objective dangers.

etsnyd wrote:I don't agree that Rainier is necessarily more technically difficult. It all depends on the route you're doing. The DC and Emmons routes are a lot less technical than the Fisher Chimneys on Shuksan or the Coleman Headwall on Baker.

I agree. IMNSHO, Baker offers training opportunities on par with Rainier.

I have done Orizaba in Mexico...it is a volcano..very high but no crevasses...just a long slog to the top but worth doing. It was crampon and rope team travel....learn that on any big NW mountain and you should be good to go.

ExcitableBoy wrote:

etsnyd wrote:I don't agree that Rainier is necessarily more technically difficult. It all depends on the route you're doing. The DC and Emmons routes are a lot less technical than the Fisher Chimneys on Shuksan or the Coleman Headwall on Baker.

I agree. IMNSHO, Baker offers training opportunities on par with Rainier.

+1

Baker is by far my favorite of the Cascade Volcanos (I am biased, I lived in Bellingham for 7 years). I believe that the only thing that Rainier has over Baker is altitude. Baker is a magnificent peak without the permit issues of Rainer. You have a wide varaiety of amazing routes and they can all be done in a day for the motivated climber. I miss having Baker at my back door step.

jordansahls wrote:Baker is by far my favorite of the Cascade Volcanos (I am biased, I lived in Bellingham for 7 years). I believe that the only thing that Rainier has over Baker is altitude. Baker is a magnificent peak without the permit issues of Rainer. You have a wide varaiety of amazing routes and they can all be done in a day for the motivated climber. I miss having Baker at my back door step.

+2