by mountainseverywhere » Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:37 pm
by Sunny Buns » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:57 pm
by ExcitableBoy » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:20 am
by radson » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:16 am
by Buz Groshong » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:48 pm
i would be in my mid 60's before having that kind of money to spend on an Everest expedition.
by whatdoIknow » Mon Jun 09, 2014 5:46 pm
by radson » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:24 am
by Fletch » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:58 am
by RickF » Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:53 pm
by fatdad » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:18 pm
Fletch wrote:I'm not an expert climber, nor do I aspire to be. I'm as enamored with Everest as the next guy, but I have no desire to join in the shit show that is Everest. I'm fairly confident that I could climb it, but likely not without oxygen and Sherpa support. That's ok. For me, there is a real cost (price) to my time, and dollars aside, it's just not worth three months of my time.
by radson » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:24 am
by johngenx » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:26 am
by radson » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:57 am
johngenx wrote:I'll preface my remarks by being clear that I have no desire to climb Everest. I see the clusterfuck of climbers lined up on fixed ropes, going hypothermic at bottle-necks and that in itself is enough to turn me off.
That said, were I set on Everest, I'd start on Denali to get some 6000M time and experience working in the cold. Then maybe Aconcagua for some 7000M work. I'd do both of these self-supported, carrying my gear, being self sufficient, and making decisions at altitude.
Then heading to Everest, I'd go with one the opinion of one of the previous posters and eschew bottled O2, Sherpa assist, and so on. I'd do a "Steck" and try to head up ahead of the Sherpas at the start of the season and lead it myself.
To me, it's the difference between "climbing" Everest and "summitting" Everest. I would want to do the former.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests