Aconcagua

>"Scree gaiters: Yes or no? I imagine it can be quite dusty/gritty lower down."

I've been on some scree slopes on which the more protection I had around my ankles, the better. To the point of imagining some 1/8" or thicker CCF wrapped around my ankles, under gaiters. Because those bowling-ball-sized rocks hurt when they tumble against my boney ankles.

"What would you do?"

Well, you're on a forum dedicated to lightweight travel… I did Aconcagua in 2004 and 2005, both times from Plaza de Mulas. Both times I went from PdM to the summit and back in a single day and I would not consider doing it any other way. Camping up on that mountain is a miserable experience by all accounts. My first trip I met a guy in the hotel at PdM who was so miserable at Berlin that he sold his sleeping bag and walked back down.

To move quickly we used light gear. One advantage if doing it this way is that you keep warm by moving. It's still damned cold though. I had 5 layers on my upper body: 2 base layers, a fleece, a puffy and a shell. Three layers on my legs. Balaclava with full face mask and ski goggles, plus an additional fleece hat. For shoes we cheated, using goretex hiking shoes that were 1-2 sizes large to allow for lots of socks as well as chemical heat packs (those things worked wonders!) I used a thin liner sock, StormSocks (great!) plus a thicker ski sock. I think this approach to footwear is better than the required double boots because your feet can actually flex inside the shoes, and this helps with blood circulation. We used Kahtoola crampons and poles – no ice ax needed on the Normal Route. I don't recall using gaiters, though they could be helpful on the scree slopes below Nido.

In 2004 we took a public bus to the TH and then carried our gear into PdM ourselves. As I recall, given the timing of the bus and the long walk with packs we barely made it to PdM before dark. In 2005 we wised up and got a private shuttle from Mendoza to the TH and had our packs carried in to PdM on mules. That was well worth the rather minimal expense. Both times we stayed in the hotel, which was OK.

Here are the reports with photos:
http://pbakwin.home.comcast.net/SA2004/aconcagua1.htm
http://pbakwin.home.comcast.net/SA2005/aconcagua.html

"Camping up on that mountain is a miserable experience by all accounts."

One thing that might be worse is if you need to camp and you don't have any gear to do it. Camping up high isn't so bad if you know what you are doing and have all of the proper gear.

The one major factor that few people seem to understand is the high altitude. If you are really rushing it from the highway to Plaza de Mulas and then up to the summit, you are taking a significant risk of high altitude illness. I suppose you can try it, but I prefer to avoid that excessive risk since rescue up there is extremely difficult. The group that I was in had a completely different strategy. We went slow and camped a lot along the way. From Plaza de Mulas, I think we hit the summit on Day 7. As a result, we got 8 or 9 climbers out of 14 on the summit. The Argentine park rangers reported that the normal success rate was more like 30-35% during the month of January.

In that part of the Andes, the problem is "viento blanco" which means white wind. Basically, it is a windy white-out from the Pacific. When that happens, you might not be able to continue upward or downward, so you need to be clothed such that you can hunker down for an hour or two and not expire. We did it using old school Goretex, down, and wool.

I photographed a helicopter flying a body out from Plaza de Mulas. That happens too often.

–B.G.–

"Because those bowling-ball-sized rocks hurt when they tumble against my boney ankles."

David, most of the tumbling rocks that we dodged were grapefruit size and smaller.

–B.G.–

We will be going slow and camping. For me the trip will be as much about the extended period of time spent on the mountain as getting to the top.
As I said, this will be my first trip of this type so some advice from more experienced people about what works well in those conditions would be much appreciated.

"We used Kahtoola crampons and poles – no ice ax needed on the Normal Route."

That can get bad results.

Two Japanese climbers were on the route a few days ahead of us, and they went with crampons and no ice axes. They got to the slope traverse at the bottom of the Canaleta. One guy's crampon straps were getting loose, so he stopped to tighten them. Once sitting down, there was nothing to hold him in place (like an ice axe) so he fell. His body was recovered 500-1000 feet down.

In some places, you walk on bare scree. In other places, you have two inches of styrofoam snow. Toward the top, you might see a foot or two of fresh snow.

Also, there are some good mule services that will haul your heavy duffle bag up to Plaza de Mulas. That saves a lot of stress on your body.

–B.G.–

If your interested in what NOLS recommends for their Equipment List
for Patagonia…….

GO HERE

Ken, there are many items on that NOLS list that are completely irrelevant to Aconcagua.

–B.G.–

Well, OK, I can understand not wanting to commit to an 8500' day at that altitude. But, I'd say people mostly just follow some sort of "conventional wisdom", which often isn't that wise or attuned to your particular ability/fitness level.

Acclimating: I showed up on the mountain acclimated from 2-3 weeks in Bolivia. I'd say I was way more acclimated than most people there, and I did it by having a fun trip on the Altiplano. You can sit in a bar in Potosi at 4000m and do easy day hikes from town up to 5000+. We did a neat tour of the SW Altiplano and bagged a couple of things over 6000m – again day hikes. Or, you can go to Aconcagua and shiver in a tent while you are getting blasted by the wind for a few days. It's not a nice or hospitable place.

My experience on the Normal Route is that an ice ax would be dead weight. Typically the wind blows all the snow away except what has been packed down by people walking on the route itself. If you slipped and fell you would slide about 3 feet until you hit rocks next to the trail. Anyway, the whole route is very low angle.

If your equipment is light you can get down really fast. Going up is slow because of the altitude – it took me 9 hours the first time, 10 the second. But, going down isn't much different from going down at lower altitude. People say you need to be able to hunker down and survive. I say if the weather starts to go bad get the hell out of there. Which is safer? Which is more comfortable? Depends on you.

In any case, I assume if someone is asking about Aconcagua on BPL they're interested in a lightweight approach. There are tons of mountaineering forums that will give you the conventional "wisdom".

I was in contact with some U.S. Army Special Forces guys who were there a year or so after I had been there. They made their high camp at Piedra Blanca, about 19,500'. On summit day, the weather looked good enough, so they started out. Due to the altitude, they were going slow. When the weather started to close in, half of them turned back for camp. The other half tried to keep going. They also got to the bottom of the Canaleta where they got pinned down. By radio, that half called back to the half in camp to try to get some help, but the weather was so bad that nobody wanted to. Eventually, they all made it down OK, but only one out the whole group had made the summit.

—B.G.—

What I am essentially asking is what I should take gear-wise to be comfortable spending ~3 weeks camping on a cold and windy mountain.
Primarily: Softshell? Hardshell? Windshirt? All three? Insulated trousers?
Just because I am not going fast and have to carry some non-lightweight items does not mean I can't employ some lightweight techniques, hence why I asked on here.
If I went fast and light with little experience it would be a recipe for disaster which is why I am going with a group and guides etc (whose priority is to keep me safe). While I'm there I would like to experiment with some lightweight techniques/clothing so that I can be better prepared and more knowledgeable for future trips.

I agree. Aconcagua is not the sort of place where you want to experiment with going light and fast.

I don't remember everything that I was using, but here are parts:

1. Thin fleece long johns, thick wool trousers, Goretex rain shells over that. During the time on the mountain, I took off the rain shells a couple of times.
2. Thin polypro top, thick fleece top, and Goretex rain shell top. By the time that I reached the summit, I had added in a medium weight down jacket under the Goretex.
3. One baseball cap, one balaclava, and one warm hat.
4. Thin gloves, heavy over-mitts.
5. Wool socks inside heavy leather boots. I was one of the few people on the mountain not in plastic boots.

As I recall, while we were on the mountain, there were no days when the wind slowed enough that we didn't want the Goretex top. Some days had snow with the wind. Only as we left Plaza de Mulas on the way out did we strip down to shirtsleeves.

There were fourteen of us divided up into tent teams of 2 or 3 each, and we camped within shouting range of one another. Each tent team had one white gas stove. If we had had a stove failure, we could have given our fuel to the next team with a stove. That would have been slow, but we could continue. Each tent team had some kind of serious North Face tent.

If you have an outfitter supplying some gear, you might ask what they have in a group first aid kit versus what does an individual need to carry. The majority of our people used Diamox, and the theory is that it contributed to our higher than average success rate.

As I recall, we had one or two short/thin ropes for the group, but we never used them. Everybody used crampons and carried an ice axe.

I started up with 60 pounds total load, so we carried it up in half loads of 30 pounds. By the time we finished, I had 50 pounds left, so there was a lot of gear and not so much food.

–B.G.–

Bob…..You are totally correct concerning the equiipment list for Aconcagua. This list represents equipment that one who is taking the 135-day Patagonia class where the clothing should be functional in the varying environments where the students will be Sea Kayak, Mountaineering, Hiking, and Rock Climbing. I should have given the Denali list:

GO HERE

Yes, I would agree that a Denali list is closer to what you want for Aconcagua.

Aconcagua is much higher in elevation, but Denali is higher in latitude. They are similar in that there is a 14,000-foot camp with rangers on each peak.

–B.G.–

Thanks Bob,
If you were to go again would you say a Gore-Tex shell is necessary for up high and summit day. I kind of assumed that I would only carry a waterproof for lower down in case of rain and just carry a softshell higher up. Do you think a softshell/windshirt/pertex outer of a down jacket would be sufficient protection against wind and precipitation up high? If I'm carrying a hardshell which can fit over all of my insulating layers is there any point in carrying a softshell/windshirt?

Bob to my knowledge unless thing have changed since 1982, the Muldrow Glacier route is patrolled by the Denali Park climbing ranger team and the only National Park Camp is at 14,000′ on the West Buttress route. Has this changed?

"Has this changed?"

Not to my knowledge.

–B.G.–

"If I'm carrying a hardshell which can fit over all of my insulating layers is there any point in carrying a softshell/windshirt?"

I certainly didn't think so.

It was not some spring day walk in the park.

–B.G.–

Bob……."They are similar in that there is a 14,000-foot camp with rangers on each peak.'

In 1982 I know there was none. Max Neale who just complete the Cassin Ridge could give us some insight into this.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/profile.html?u=maximumdragonfly

"In 1982 I know there was none."

For almost twenty years, there has been a seasonal ranger station at Plaza de Mulas on Aconcagua, elevation about 14,400'.

For the last twenty years or so, there is a seasonal ranger station at the base of the West Buttress on Denali, elevation about 14,000'.

–B.G.–

"For almost twenty years, there has been a seasonal ranger station at Plaza de Mulas on Aconcagua, elevation about 14,400'."

>>>That I have no knowledge of that. I passed on an opportunity to climb the Polish Glacier Direct Route in 1985.

"For the last twenty years or so, there is a seasonal ranger station at the base of the West Buttress on Denali, elevation about 14,000'."

>>>That I am familiar with. I also know that Dr. Peter Hackett MD has done research on climbers there on their way to the summit and down…..and some that had to be evacuated. I am not aware of any station comparable to the West Buttress side on the Muldrow side though I do know they monitor this side.

I believe this discussion on the placement of seasonal ranger stations locations at 14,000' came about on the thinking concerning a statement concerning two different mountains….:)