Aconcagua Photo Essay and Gear List

That was a good article.

It was not stated where they started from.

–B.G.–

i haven't read it yet, but i will surely enjoy when i get to it on my kindle.

thank you for publishing it so all people can read of your adventures. I will share this with my friends as well

Good Luck in your next adventures

There are no down jackets mentioned in the gear list. Did you really go without down jackets. It looks like the person on the right of the summit photo has a down jacket.

I climbed it last March and it was very cold (-25oC) the night I was at high camp (Berlin). I also met two climbers with frostbite. One from taking his mitt off to take summit photos for ten minutes. Care needs to be taken.

I carried 36 kilos from Horcones to Mulas and after me and my sense of humour recovered I developed a keen interest in ultralight :)

This year for Bolivia and Peru my base weight for similar peaks is around 10-11 kilos minus food fuel and water. A little easier.

I have to admit that I'm really surprised at the tent you took, 72oz three-season tent? I've heard the weather can really nuke there up high, what made you comfortable bringing such a light tent? I like tunnel tents in the alpine but the crossed pole pup-tent surprised me

Hi Robert-The MontBell double wall tent we took on this ascent seemed to suit the situation in a couple ways. On Denali, all of our ultralight shelters rely on digging into the snow or using snow blocks for protection. We didn't know what to expect using volcanic rock and dirt to make walls for wind protection. So we chose to bring a more standard double wall cross-pole tent. The small size of the MontBell gave it a low profile to hide behind walls that can not be built very high. It's also very compact and therefore has a very small surface area to catch wind relative to the cross-pole design. Whereas our ultralight tents need care in orientation to high winds, this little tent was able to shed gusts from any direction.

Another consideration was that the MontBell tent was made of a solid nylon. Our experience has shown volcanic rock to destroy silnylon at an alarming rate.

That sounds awesome Buzz! It's all about what appeals to you. We prefer to go light and slow as we really enjoy camping in amazing places for days at a time. Our permit for Aconcagua was for 20 days. We used every one of them.

Wow. I see some huge variations of opinion. I was there in January 1996, so I guess a few things have changed since then.

Trying to go from Mendoza to Plaza de Mulas in a day is a crazy way to bring on altitude sickness. We had gone up to the 9000 foot trailhead in one day, then took two days to hike to Plaza de Mulas. Even that knocked the snot out of some hikers. Trying to go from 14K to almost 23K and back does not seem like easier and safer, not by any stretch. I think we had summited on the seventh day out of Plaza de Mulas.

When I was there, there were two Japanese climbers who were trying to go up the Canaleta with crampons and no ice axes. Well, one's crampons got loose, so he sat down to adjust it. With his weight off, he slid on the ice and then fell to his death, and his body was recovered the next day. Not a good scene.

I will agree that trekking poles are good to have. The Argentine park rangers never spoke to us until we had summited and had returned to Plaza de Mulas. I had hiked in substantial leather single boots.

–B.G.–

Excellent Comments.

Time: People said we were super tough to do it in a day. Matt just said he spent 20 days up there. I'd say he and his lady are the tough ones! I'm too old and lazy to camp. Seriously though, sleeping at altitude is very debilitating. Coming out of the Canaleta, we were passing people on the summit ridge like they were standing still. That's because they almost were: we were well rested, while they were shot. I believe the traditional advice should be reconsidered (read next).

Acclimatization: Most of what we've heard is old wives tales; the science is different. There is a very high variability in people's response to altitude, and a number of conflicting factors at work, but here are two quickies:
1) For most people, it is far better to go as high as you can, as fast as you can, and then get out of there even faster, rather than move slowly; that traditional method simply exposes you to the deleterious factors longer. But if you can't get out of there fast, you're screwed. It's all or nothing.
2) It takes 19 days to make a red blood cell.

Chemical Heat Packs: We used the same thing you'll find in REI or any hardware/hunting store: air activated (iron). Work great. Big mittens/boots insulate, but if your hand or foot is already cold, insulation has no effect, so don't even think of comparing these. Heat packs ADD warmth, which the most massive insulation cannot do. As someone noted, the higher you go, the less oxygen, so the less heat, but that's almost better; they are normally too hot, and the low O2 means they last longer.

Falling to your death while sitting down on ice wearing slick nylon pants to adjust your crampons: Definitely happens. I don't recommend it, as stupidity is often fatal in these environments. A great partner is probably the safest piece of equipment you can have, followed by training, experience, and judgement. Equipment would be #5.

Good points, and good story Bob.

Yup, altitude is it's own parameter; it is somewhat unrelated to other factors. There is a big trend toward grandiosity in today's world; people swarm all over the Big A because it's one of the 7 summits, while ignoring wonderful shorter peaks, where they could hone their skills and experience.

In keeping with our shared "everyone is different" viewpoint however, I will still suggest people "consider" the best way to climb high. The higher I go, the better I feel, while others get sick at 10k. My son lives at sea level and arrived 10 hours before the starting gun to run the Pikes Peak Ascent, and reported feeling rotten until he got above 12k, whereupon he felt "great". We are told the opposite should have been true. There's a lot going on, some of which is false, and some of which science doesn't understand …

Matt's original story was terrific, you shared excellent thoughts, and I hope mine added to the available perspective's.

The people who seemed to have the most problems with the iron oxide warmers had them stuck on their socks, inside their boots. However, I don't use them, so I can't say.

I have found the sodium acetate phase change warmers to be pretty good, primarily because they are reusable.

–B.G.–

"… many people who would like to see your references."

OK. Here's one:

"It takes 19 days to make a red blood cell."
– Dr Tom Hornbein
First ascent Everest West Ridge, first traverse of 8,000M peak, highest bivouac ever; Professor University of Washington School of Medicine, leading authority on high-altitude physiology. Direct personal quote.

Your turn.

Buzz, let me see if I can crystalize my thought here. In reference to Aconcagua, you stated that the climbing is easy.

(Yes, relatively so, but surface conditions can change pretty rapidly up there.)

You stated that the danger on this mountain is the camping.

(That's a pretty silly statement, if you think about it.)

If spending nights up high is what makes you sick, tired, and dehydrated, then you are doing several things wrong.

What I think maybe you meant was that the danger on this mountain is in sleeping overnight. If you are going up so terribly fast as you were, then spending a night up very high would be dangerous. However, that kind of a stunt is done successfully by only a tiny percentage of people who go there. In other words, if you are a "Viesturs" kind of guy, then I say "more power to you." However, for the remaining 99% of us, doing the rush ascent like that is extremely risky, at least from a medical risk point of view.

It has often been said that most of the severe forms of high altitude illness take 12-24 hours to set in, and they take at least 24-36 hours to become fatal. I think your strategy was to run up and down the mountain and escape before the bad problems could set in. I've only done a little of that myself, but never this seriously, and never this high. I mean, the summit is approximately 80% the height of Everest, so it is a no-fooling-around mountain.

Despite all of this, there are some forms of high-altitude illness that can be fatal in single-digit hours (ex., HACE). If you had the bad luck to get hit with something like this when you were topping out on the Canaleta, rescue would be almost impossible, and fatal consequences follow. I've been up on high mountains before when climbers got sick like that, and I would personally strive to avoid those situations as much as possible.

So, I suspect that you ought to get tested by some physiology lab. Maybe you have the same genes as Ed Viesturs. If so, that would explain a few things. The rest of us mortals may have to continue to plod up the big peaks in the traditional fashion or else risk meeting our Maker.

–B.G.–