|
montaniero
Feb 17, 2005, 5:18 PM
Post #26 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 238
|
Aguante Baigot todavia!!! Y VIVA ARGENTINA, CARAJO!!!! Saludos por la Feliz...que aca en Madrid nos estamos cagando de frio!
|
|
|
|
|
farva
Feb 17, 2005, 7:24 PM
Post #27 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
When did we start talking about routes on the South Face? I don't think that the poster was considering ascending that way, so why is this even remotely relevent? I'm sure the South Facing routes aren't monotomous. No argument there. They are however still covered in shitty rock (there's a theme developing here).
I totally agree with don't go if you don't like the mountain. I'm just giving my opinion based on his dis-satisfaction of climbing Mexican Volcanos.
|
|
|
|
|
montaniero
Feb 17, 2005, 10:20 PM
Post #28 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 238
|
The title of this post is "Aconcagua - worth it?". I don't see the words "Normal Route" on that title. Almost everyone including you Farva, supposed that we should only bitch about the lack of technical difficulty of the normal route.
Guess you can also dis Half Dome via cables or Denali via West Buttress, as per these "normal" routes these mountians both also are lacking in technical climbing challenge. But we don't, because they are beautiful peaks in which everyone can find a route up to his own technical skills. A mountain is not its Normal Route...
A large number of the greatest alpine walls in the world are covered in shitty rock, verglas, neve...you name it (check the norht face of Matterhorn, Eiger, etc.) This doesn't make them less challenging but the contrary.
And in terms of the original poster's question (is it worth?): my answer is YES, even via normal route if your glacier, alpine and mixed climbing skills are not up to the challenge to try the harder routes. Just to know your body's reaction to high-altitude climbing its a worthy goal. The altitude acclimatization process is not only harder than in the Mexico's volcanoes but also than in the Himalayas as at the same altitude the atmospheric pressure is lower in Aconcagua. This means in human terms that at 6,000 mts. in Aconcagua it feels higher than at 6,000 in a peak in the Himalayas. This phemomenon is due to microclimate in Aconcagua given by its closeness to the Pacific Ocean.
And if the acclimatization goal is not your thing but can't hack it in the south face or polish glaicer, the normal route can be quite challenging if you do a couple of things different: Try ascending alpine style, if this is too easy try breaking the speed ascent record as Willie Benegas or your very own and much debated Dan Howitt.
|
|
|
|
|
couchwarrior
Feb 18, 2005, 12:28 AM
Post #29 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2004
Posts: 190
|
My original post concerned the normal route. I have no doubt there are many challenging routes on the South Face - if it's good enough for Messner, it's probably good enough for me. :D
Unfortunately, I won't have the opportunity to try anything more technical, as I am taking advantage of an offer from a friend where all I pretty much have to do is show up and hike. Probably wouldn't be sporting to peel off and go do a different route once I'm on the mountain.
The feedback on both sides has been useful. I don't automatically venerate all mountains - might be a character flaw but I don't think high altitude and untold millenium of techtonic plates crushing into each other is a guaranteed ticket to worship. I do respect that Aconcagua has serious importance both geographically and historically but mostly I should've specifically asked whether the Normal Route is worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
|
swesterhus
Feb 19, 2005, 12:08 PM
Post #30 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2004
Posts: 53
|
Acon is the new Kili...
just my my 2 cent... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
montaniero
Mar 2, 2005, 12:55 AM
Post #31 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 238
|
Couchwarrior:
I also don't think that "high altitude and untold millenium of techtonic plates crushing into each other is a guaranteed ticket to worship", as you eloquently put it . But "worship" and "intolerably monotomous slag pile" are two extremes. I would say Aconcagua is somewhere in the middle, more sided to the "worship" extreme. You can't compare to the volcanoes, its a bigger mountain with many faces and much more routes.
It's funny to me when I find a book that describes a mountain like Aconcagua as "intolerably monotomous slag pile". First, because no serious climber with some respect for his passion would talk about a mountain of such dimensions in such a way. And second, if he wants to market to the non-climbers how attractive this label would be to represent the sport you cherish.
After reading all the post, it seems that "effort" is subjective, a different thing for different people. At the end of the day, the only one that can answer the question that gives title to this post is you. And the only way you can answer it is by climbing the mountain. Have a great summit day!
|
|
|
|
|
gineth
Mar 3, 2005, 8:42 PM
Post #32 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Posts: 16
|
Worth it? Yes very much. Aconcagua is a great mountain and a very big one. I just climb it on January, I think people who says is a slag pile" are the ones who didn't summit.
Mountains are beautiful places, with snow or without it. I climb Aconcagua up with no to much snow, and after the summit got some snow.
If you find a mountain boring you really don't have passion for climbing.
So if you have a negative aproach better stay home, and give the space for the ones who really love it.
To all Argentina, you guys are very lucky to have the Andes, special Aconcagua. :D
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Mar 3, 2005, 9:43 PM
Post #33 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
Aconcagua Worth it? YES, even the normal route, Try it and survive it.
Good Climbs,
Vicente Marino
Mar del Plata-Argentina
|
|
|
|
|
rocknut1
Mar 4, 2005, 1:28 AM
Post #34 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 99
|
Its all about choosing the right route.
The standard route is a no rope,trekking pole, high altitude climb up steep sections of scree.
On the other end of the spectrum are routes that only a hand full of people in the whole world could climb.
And if you want to climb those your on your own.
The guided climbs stick to the standard and polish glacier routes.
I rec. sticking to the snow and glacier routes the wind and dust is miserable on the normal route.
|
|
|
|
|
epicsaga
Jan 12, 2006, 10:24 AM
Post #35 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2003
Posts: 226
|
In reply to: I´m not going to argue...this one 2 Things... 1) For those who don´t like Aconcagua? DON´T GO THERE 2) For those who didn´t 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 won´t if you don´t have it inside you". Louis Audobert dixit... Maybe my proud being Argentinian, but to me Aconcagua worth the attempt. good climbs
But what about the piles of shit and unclean water, is that just as bad now? Or have toilets been installed/holes been dug?
How much is the peak fee for the regular route?
|
|
|
|
|
epicsaga
Jan 12, 2006, 10:26 AM
Post #36 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2003
Posts: 226
|
In reply to: When did we start talking about routes on the South Face? I don't think that the poster was considering ascending that way, so why is this even remotely relevent? I'm sure the South Facing routes aren't monotomous. No argument there. They are however still covered in s--- rock (there's a theme developing here). I totally agree with don't go if you don't like the mountain. I'm just giving my opinion based on his dis-satisfaction of climbing Mexican Volcanos. |
|
|
|
|
burundanga
Jan 12, 2006, 3:28 PM
Post #37 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2003
Posts: 15
|
Each mountain has its own personality. I am not familiar with Aconcagua, but I do know a bunch of Ecuadorian peaks and only one Mexican volcano. They are hard to compare to each other, in fact, hard to compare with themselves during different times of the year.
Take for example Cotopaxi. A year 1/2 ago, in august, I tried to climb the peak during a night of perfect conditions ( little wind, no clouds, snow just right ), until a rope member got altitude sickness and we all had to bail out. Now, the same peak in December ( I was there during last Xmas season) the peak had so much snow, that for 4 days nobody could pass by the base of the of Yanasacha (18600 ft). It was like a different mountain altogether.
So, my advice, if you can, give them a try, at least you will know you were there.
|
|
|
|
|
bluefunk
Jan 12, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #38 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 43
|
I just got back from Aconcagua last week and I am very confused why people say that mountain is ugly. I went up the Vacas and thought it was very beutiful, sure there was garbage at the high camp but if everybody that goes there takes out some extra garbage and puts in a little effort to clean the place up maybe people will stop dissing the mountain. It isn't technical but that doesn't stop people from dieing.
|
|
|
|
|
acacongua
Jan 12, 2006, 4:56 PM
Post #39 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 657
|
I'm so worth it. :wink: Oh wait, I spelled my username wrong!
I know of a guy who climbed this the past two years and he's also from Peru (but he lives in Michigan now). He doesn't ever look at this website, but if you'd like me to connect you two, I know he'd be happy to talk to you about. Heck, I think he wants to climb it again so maybe he'll go with you!
Shoot me a PM if you're interested. If not, no worries.
|
|
|
|
|
epicsaga
Jan 19, 2006, 11:05 PM
Post #40 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2003
Posts: 226
|
I looked at the peak fees on aconcagua.com and they are confusing. Do you pay one climbing fee that covers entry to the park and summit attempt for 20 days and thats it? Looks like its around 700 Argentine dollars depending on date. Are there other extra fees like if you need help, or camping, etc? Is there an infrastructure near base camp with vendors, huts, food, services or anything?
Also does anyone know if the injury and death rate is lower on Aconcagua regular route the the regular route of Denali?
thanks
James
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Jan 19, 2006, 11:22 PM
Post #41 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
epicsaga:
I send a PM responding your questions. But let me say a few things:
I have some experience in Andes High Mountains like Aconcagua, and the rates doesn´t matter, you need to apply you high mountaineering skills and intuition to climb a mountain in the Andes, the same way you apply them in Denali.
Storms, Altitude, and dificult enviroment are the worst things in Aconcagua...you have to deal with those, statistic doesn´t matters.
Good Luck, Aconcagua is a beatifull place to visit, and hope you can summit if you´re goin to climb.
Vicente
Argentina
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Jan 20, 2006, 2:48 PM
Post #42 of 45
(7716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
when i was there a couple of years ago the fee was $200 US, and covered normal use. i'm sure you would be charged if you needed a rescue - a good reason to join the american alpine club.
death rates on both would be misleading because they are both subject to hordes of gumbies, but the easiest route on aconcagua is certainly much less of an ordeal than the west butt on denali. the only dangers on the normal route are the altitude and bad weather. don't underestimate either one though - i tried to push my acclimatization schedule a bit and got HAPE, which was seriously unpleasant.
keep in mind that the polish glacier is now much harder than then guidebooks and guide services make it sound - its very icy now, so plan on endless 30-55 degree glacial ice instead of a typical glacier climb and bring a couple of long ice screws.
when i was there, an awful lot of guide services were selling the polish glacier, and then scaring their clients in to switching to the normal route after they saw the conditions. nice racket for the guides - charge twice as much when you know the route is going to be too hard for your stock broker armchair mountaineers, and coerce them in to bailing. i saw lots of inexperienced guides up there as well. caveat emptor if you use a guide - i taught one "expert" how to guy down a tent and why the vestibule maybe shouldn't point directly into the wind.
basecamp on the polish side was a circus. if you bring a lot of cash, you can get pizza, beer, and cigarettes(!). i'm sure the other side is even worse. the good thing is they have outhouses, so they aren't nearly as disgusting as the higher camps.
someone asked about ecuador vs argentina. the ecuadorian volcanos aren't as big, but the routes are a lot more fun and you could do 5-6 of them in the time you can do aconcagua. i would definitely recommend the volcanos over aconcagua, though mendoza is a much more enjoyable place to spend time than quito.
|
|
|
|
|
ande-svertical
Jan 23, 2012, 9:41 AM
Post #43 of 45
(3276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2012
Posts: 9
|
if you need information about aconcagua you can visit www.andes-vertical.com
|
|
|
|
|
FullertonImages
Feb 8, 2012, 5:53 PM
Post #44 of 45
(3189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2009
Posts: 40
|
Booooooooo revival of a 6 year old thread for a personal plug...!
|
|
|
|
|
|
