|
couchwarrior
Feb 14, 2005, 11:49 PM
Post #1 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2004
Posts: 190
|
I'll be in Argentina beginning next week for a couple of months goofing off and some friends want to do Aconcagua. One of them has summited 3 times. I'm interested but other than being a 7 summit, the peak doesn't seem too interesting. I've done a couple of the Mexican volcanoes and found them boring - not sure if it's worth changing my itinerary for something similar.
I read this in Cam Burns' book and it is hardly encouraging. . .
"Aconcagua is about walking around in gravel, finding tent sites that are not atop piles of human waste, and getting to the tallest damn summit in the Western Hemisphere. Period."
Any summiters have a dissenting opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Feb 15, 2005, 12:18 AM
Post #2 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
I spent a month in Medoza this fall. Great place...worth visiting just to stare at beautifull women.
As far as Aconcagua goes, I think that most people who dis on it are talking about the Standard Route. The standard can be done by anyone with no climbing experience, it's non-techinical mostly scree slog. Therefore you get crowds and a general mess.
If you have some glacier experience step it up a notch and do the Polish Glacier. I have heard very good things about this climb.
The Cordon Del plata is a good place to aclimatize near Mendoza. go spend a week in there climbing some peaks up to 6000m rather then spending a week at the Aconcagua basecamp.
Try to go either in December of Late Feburary to avoid crowds and give youself more bad weather time.
If you have the chance, I would say go for it. It's a dry and desolate area, but the peak itself is pretty beautiful. Also, check out Cerro Tupangato as an alternative.
Aconcagua from the Summit of Cerro Rincon, Cordon del Plata.
http://www.ascensionist.com/...l_DPSCamera_0086.jpg
TR here:
http://www.ascensionist.com/...9&Main=3521#Post6199
|
|
|
|
|
tradkelly
Feb 15, 2005, 4:57 AM
Post #3 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2003
Posts: 278
|
Climbing Aconcagua by any but the south face is bound to be a slog. If you don't mind slogs and do enjoy something interesting, Aconcagua can be wonderful. The Normal Route is pretty nasty, as has been said too many times. The approach for the Vacas is a couple of days long and barrenly beautiful - like parts of the north Kaibab trail in the GC. Were I there, now, I would opt to trek a circuit in Peru or Patagonia, but Aconcagua is very worth the time if you have it. The views off the south face are amazing, straight down for 8k feet - you won't find that in a lot of other places, and the slogish quality of the routes up will make it seem unbelievably steep when you edge up and peer over and down. And the girls in Mendoza are be-yoo-tiful. I'd give it a go if I had a chance.
Trip report: http://www.geocities.com/acon22841/
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Feb 15, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #4 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
i hated everything about aconcagua. even the vacas approach is gross now - camping among the feces piles below the polish glacier is disgusting. i don't mind slogs at all, but i wouldn't go back to aconcagua just because of the crowding and unsanitary conditions.
if i were to do any climbing in that area again, i would go to mercedario or tupungato instead just to get away from the guided hordes.
|
|
|
|
|
esoj00
Feb 15, 2005, 8:01 PM
Post #5 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Posts: 88
|
I was thinking of doing aconcagua but i would not do the normal route, if anything do the south face but thats a bit hard :)
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Feb 15, 2005, 8:14 PM
Post #6 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
hey you guys!
why Aconcagua is non technical???
Avoiding or surviving AMS is a technical skill like rappel technique in rock climbing, and not everyone can survive to itīs sympthoms. The fact is you are going up to 7000 mts and the mendozaīs mountain ridge weather is not friendly. The death list grows every year for this reason: "Iīve heard Aconcagua is non-technical climb", WRONG!!! Itīs TECHNICAL and dangerous.
If you have this cliche in mind you are a very possible death man walking.
If you donīt you are a prudent man/woman, and youīre going to explore a beautiful but desolate and dagerous landscape.
But this is a point of view.
Good Luck,
Vicente
Argentina
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Feb 15, 2005, 8:46 PM
Post #7 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: hey you guys! Aconcagua is non-technical climb", WRONG!!! Itīs TECHNICAL and dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
esoj00
Feb 15, 2005, 9:03 PM
Post #8 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Posts: 88
|
Wait, are you seriously saying its non technical, sure theres a pussy route, that i personaly wouldnt do but the "real routes" are dangerous and hard, what about the south face, and hey last week there were two deaths on acaoncagua, they were two very experienced climbers. The same point can be said that El Cap is a joke, you can just hike up it, it all dependes the route you tajke. Climb something vertical at altitude and you will know its no joke.... ive done it. Dont post if you dont know what your talking about-
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Feb 15, 2005, 9:11 PM
Post #9 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
I consider any route where the most technical climbing skill that you need to know is "self arrest" to be non-technical.
Dealing with altitude and weather are not technical skills by my definition. Skills maybe, but more about knowledge and judgment then technique.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Feb 15, 2005, 9:46 PM
Post #10 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: I spent a month in Medoza this fall. Great place...worth visiting just to stare at beautifull women.
Hmmm...."wide belts"... Yes, spending time in Mendoza really makes the trip, methinks.
In reply to: As far as Aconcagua goes, I think that most people who dis on it are talking about the Standard Route. The standard can be done by anyone with no climbing experience, it's non-techinical mostly scree slog.
I wore tenny shoes to Camp 1 on the Polish side (16.2K feet). Used ski poles all the way to the summit. Had bad enough weather, we cashed our ice tools and went for the traverse (good option!). But, my thought at the time (as was my partner's), was that humping all the way up to the base of the Polish Glacier to just climb 1000 feet of 50 degree neve...ugh...
Big windy pile of dirt, was my first thoughts after gettin' down and back to Mendoza. But...then the allure of the starkness of the desert, the Vacas and Relincho's approach, neat, and it seemed kinda pretty worth while.
Do it if you get a chance. If nothing else, it'll calibrate you on that type of very non-technical climbing. Yeah, altitude is an issue. So are the storms. Take a tarp. That dirt up there, what with the wind, is very abrasive and will eat through the bottom of most tents...
Mendoza...hmmm.....Mendoza...
Spending a week in Rio one night on the way home was pretty interesting too...
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
esoj00
Feb 15, 2005, 10:56 PM
Post #11 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Posts: 88
|
http://7summits.com/forum/index.php?topic=840.msg3049;topicseen
|
|
|
|
|
smeiklej
Feb 15, 2005, 11:06 PM
Post #12 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Posts: 1
|
Just did an expedition to Aconcagua in December '04 and thought it was completely worth it. Traversed the mountain via Guanacos Valley Route up, Normal Route down. Check out the Guanacos -- remote approach, no people. Permit costs a bit more but worth the expense to get away from the hordes. About 3,000 people head up annually -- most on the Normal Route. Dry, dusty, southwestern US-type country. They film lots of Westerns in the area between the mountain and Mendoza -- you'll see why.
Whether or not you have higher-altitude or more technical aspirations, it is a good test and getting your hide up to 22,834 takes some effort.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Feb 15, 2005, 11:18 PM
Post #13 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: Just did an expedition to Aconcagua in December '04 and thought it was completely worth it. Traversed the mountain via Guanacos Valley Route up, Normal Route down. Check out the Guanacos -- remote approach, no people.
Met a guide who did that approach. Sounded pretty neat. The "Mano" off in the distance looked like a great peak.
Speakin' of westerns and history...seems like I recall ol' Butch Cassidy robbed a train not too far out of Mendoza. So, we're at the campsite, Casa de Piedra, and I'm kickin' around in the dirt near camp. I spy an old shell casing. Pick it up. Hmm. UMC .44-40. Union Metallic Cartridge company hasn't been around since...way back when, maybe just after the turn of the century. .44-40 was way more popular as a pistol and rifle cartridge back then (but has seen a huge resurgence in Cowboy Action type shooting events). Guess who carried a .44-40 pistol? Yep. Butch.
Now, I ain't a sayin'....but...is kinda cool to ponder. Especially given that most folks pick up their brass, especially back then, to reload. Except maybe folks from out of town...if you catch my drift...
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Feb 16, 2005, 1:34 AM
Post #14 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
Iīve met a few people that thought the Normal Route to Aconcagua is non-technical or as they said: "I just have to walk, i donīt have to climb at all" and now are six feet under.
SKILLS = is to have HABILITIES to do something.
TECHNIQUE= is havin certain knowledge and the way to use it.
You mean to know AMS and the way to prevent it or treat it is a SKILL and not a TECHNIQUE????
When youīre in a mountain that high you need to know some things and the way to use those things...you certainly need to have skills, but thereīre some technical stuff you need to know, and more important, you need to know how to use it to survive up there...
You donīt need to have a 95š ice wall to have a "technical" route...you just need to have the urge to properly use some knowledge to have a technical route.
Is what i Think,
|
|
|
|
|
couchwarrior
Feb 16, 2005, 1:57 AM
Post #15 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2004
Posts: 190
|
Sounds like the general tone of the responses is that Aconcagua might not be worth going round the world in and of itself but if you're already in the neighborhood, with some time to acclimatize and friends who are locals, why not take a peek?
In reply to: SKILLS = is to have HABILITIES to do something. TECHNIQUE= is havin certain knowledge and the way to use it.
Baigot - I think there is a difference between technical concerns and objective concerns on a peak like Aconcagua. Everyone on the thread understands that your blood can thicken or your brain can swell or a storm can arrive or you can accidentally burn down your tent trying to make waffles. I think the theme was that if you are reasonably fit, the mountain by the regular route poses no technical hurdles (just objective hazards common to the altitude, the remote environment, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Feb 16, 2005, 2:17 AM
Post #16 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
ok. no more. but i understand that modern climbing are focus in vertical climb (so am i, i rock climb) to define it as Technical climbing, and the rest is not...
To me, weather or meteorology, orientation, and other things involved in an ascention of this matter, is a technique. Sorry if iīm not consider those as skills but iīve seen a lot of newbbies in the field lookinī a compass and not knowing what to do...
ex. In aconcagua in the regular or normal route, donīt know orientation is the same as in a rock wall you donīt know how to put your pro or make a safe rappel anchor.
Ok, to me, to be a technical route not depends, and itīs not related to a vertical wall or an objective problems. Just because all is mountaineering and related.
with all my respects to you,
Vicente Marino
Mar del Plata, Argentina.
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 17, 2005, 4:32 AM
Post #17 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
If you found the Mexican Volcano's boring then I'd say you will find Aconcagua untolerable.
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Feb 17, 2005, 4:50 AM
Post #18 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
It really irks me when people call a specific mountain or climb intolorable...or use the word hate to describe it.
It's a mountain, if you have hatred or disgust towards a particular mountain then maybe you should think hard about why you actually climbin in the first place.
If you have hatred towards the other people at the mountain then that is a different issue, and you have to at least acknowledge that you are part of the very problem you complain about.
I do agree about the mountains in the Mendoza area being unsanitary though, they should really enforce some policy on waste there....and not just Aconcagua. I was basicaly sleeping top of shit at basecamp in the Cordon del Plata. And our water source had streamers of TP floating through it...
Any thoughts on this Vicente?
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 17, 2005, 6:05 AM
Post #19 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
Way to Hijack his thread lamboner. Did you even read his post or did you just feel like talking about what irks you & the ethics of calling a mountain shitty?
The guy wanted opinions on Aconcagua. Based on his dislike/boredom of Mexican Volcanos. Do you think he is going to have a blast doing something very similar at higher altitude for 10 times as long? I think not.
Call it what you want, but Aconcagua is a slag pile. When you go out to eat, would you rather eat ground beef or steak? I see climbing the same way. If you have the choice of spending your free time climbing something of quality, why waste it flogging around in endless fields of scree instead? The guidebook we had on the mountain even made many references to Aconcagua being an "intolerably monotomous slag pile". After 3 weeks on the mountain, I have to agree. People only climb it because it is the highest point outside of Asia. If it was 1000' feet lower, it would be nothing more than another really big pile of Talus somewhere in Argentina.
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Feb 17, 2005, 6:18 AM
Post #20 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
whoa, look the forum policia!:shock:
I am not hyjacking anything. I think it is a great mountain, it's beautiful, it has my respect. I think every mountain is great. I think the fact that we have a chance to spend our time climbing mountains is a great thing. Sure I have more fun on some climbs then others, but I think it's foolish to dismiss anything as a "slag pile" or waste of time.
I think these thoughts are very relavent to the topic, infact they are what the original topic is about.
I'm sorry you had such a shitty adventure on Aconcagua, it must be terribly hard to have to fly to the southern hemisphere with friends and spend you time doing such a stupid thing. You have my sympathy...really you do. And thank you for letting us all know that the tallest mountain on the entire western hemisphere is not worthy of your presence or precious energy.
If I may suggest, please remain in Utah where the mountains are perfect because you most definately would not appreciate the volcanic choss heaps we have in Oregon.
cheers :roll:
How Vicente must feel to sit behind his computer and read people dissmis his countries tallest peak as a big pile of shit. I am sorry Vicente, not all North Americans are such complete assholes. How anyone who has been to Argentina can recomend others not to visit is beyond me, Aconcogua is worth visiting just to help support the struggleing Ar. economy...let alone climb the mountain. Ciao amigo
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 17, 2005, 7:10 AM
Post #21 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
No, his post is the first one at the top. Try reading it again. He wants to know what the mountain is like compared to Mexico. I give him a real answer based on his enjoyment of similar. Everything you have posted so far involves how blessed we all are to walk amongst rocks, trees, & bunny rabbits. He just wants if it his worth his time, or should he spend it elsewhere
I never said I had a crappy time on the mountain. Again, try reading the posts before responding. My point is Aconcagua is a slag pile compared to others I have done, including the Mexican Volcano's he speaks of.
In reply to: If I may suggest, please remain in Utah where the mountains are perfect because you most definately would not appreciate the volcanic choss heaps we have in Oregon.
That explains why you think Aconcagua is so great. You should get out more.
In reply to: How Vicente must feel to sit behind his computer and read people dissmis his countries tallest peak as a big pile of s---. I am sorry Vicente, not all North Americans are such complete assholes. How anyone who has been to Argentina can recomend others not to visit is beyond me, Aconcogua is worth visiting just to help support the struggleing Ar. economy...let alone climb the mountain. Ciao amigo
There you go getting all sensitive again. He probably doesn't give a crap what I think. I didn't say don't visit Argentina. Once again, read! Mendoza is awesome. I'm just saying their are better mountains to spend your time on than Aconcagua
Here's his post again. I've made it easy for you. I highly recommend reading it this time:
In reply to: I'll be in Argentina beginning next week for a couple of months goofing off and some friends want to do Aconcagua. One of them has summited 3 times. I'm interested but other than being a 7 summit, the peak doesn't seem too interesting. I've done a couple of the Mexican volcanoes and found them boring - not sure if it's worth changing my itinerary for something similar. I read this in Cam Burns' book and it is hardly encouraging. . . "Aconcagua is about walking around in gravel, finding tent sites that are not atop piles of human waste, and getting to the tallest damn summit in the Western Hemisphere. Period." Any summiters have a dissenting opinion? |
|
|
|
|
lambone
Feb 17, 2005, 7:18 AM
Post #22 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
while you are at it, read my first post agin...it is right under his.
.
|
|
|
|
|
montaniero
Feb 17, 2005, 12:36 PM
Post #23 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 238
|
To Farva, Cam Burns and all the others that called Aconcagua "untolerable", "intolerably monotomous slag pile" and "(...) piles of human waste", I invite you to climb one of the "technical" routes in the south face. Let's see if you find these up to your "enjoyment" standards...
I assure you won't find the 10,000 ft. south face "monotonous" and furthermore: you don't have to worry about the piles of shit, as the only one you are going to find is the one between your legs, as you are striving for your life in one of the biggest alpine walls in the world
|
|
|
|
|
esoj00
Feb 17, 2005, 4:20 PM
Post #24 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Posts: 88
|
U tell em!!!
You will also find dead bodies on the wall, they havent retrived them.
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Feb 17, 2005, 5:06 PM
Post #25 of 45
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
Iīm not going to argue...this one
2 Things...
1) For those who donīt like Aconcagua? DONīT GO THERE
2) For those who didnīt like Aconcagua cause had a severe enviroment? DO NO COMING BACK AGAIN, and.. WHY YOU CLIMB? Or you climb only mountains whic are "nice" with you?
And for conclusion...
"you can go anywhere in the world trying to find the beauty, but you wonīt if you donīt have it inside you". Louis Audobert dixit...
Maybe my proud being Argentinian, but to me Aconcagua worth the attempt.
good climbs
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
