UKC

'Climbing light' is as much more about the climber's personal desire to climb fast and push their own physical limits, as it is about using lightweight gear, says Dane, author of the blog 'coldthistle'.

It pays to know the game and the rules you will be playing by...

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3441

In reply to UKC Gear:


Eiger North Face in 10 hours with Peter Habeler in 1974.

In reply to Charlie_Zero:

Thanks for the catch Charlie.

In reply to Dane1:

Hi Dane

good article. you don't mention ropes and the various options from the super skinny 41g/m
phoenix 8mm and the like halves to super skinny sub 9mm singles and 7mm twins !

Can make a hell of a difference.

In reply to lithos:

Agreed and good point. I didn't get into specifics because really when you get down to it EVERYTHING can make a hell of a difference when you add it all up. Ropes, tools, spares and the amount of hardware you choose do make a differerence. The idea of the post was to get climbers thinking about what they carry and its actual weight not so much what the lighest bit of kit is.

How about the weights on helmets?!

But if you aren't thinking about it you likely have no idea what it weights or more importantly what might weigh less and be just as good for your project.

Rigid stem Friends come to mind and lighter than I thought they were. Lighter than at least one generation of Tech Friends in some cases.

In reply to UKC Gear: Mark Twight.
Runs for cover

In reply to Dane1:

Totally agree Dane.

After pairing stuff down to a minimum I find climbing most rewarding. The less stuff you've got to carry the more fun the climbing is!

One of the best day's climbing I've ever had was on the Frendo Spur. We took pretty much the minimum I was comfortable with.

We were both wearing: Trango boots, light softshell pants, a thermal top, fleece and a windshirt.

Our rack was along the lines of: 2 screws, 2 slings, 8 extenders, 7 wires and 3 cams. Plus a 60m 9mm rope. We also had a couple of tiblocs.

In my sack I had a head torch, leather palmed gloves, axes and crampons, synthetic vest, food and 3 litres of water.

After a rushed breakfast we got the first lift up and raced to the base of the route in about an hour. We simu-climbed the rock with Jack, the stronger rock climber, in the lead. After about 4 hours we were at the top of the rock. We put crampons on I, the stronger ice climber, led to the top. 1.5 hours later we were at the top.

All the gear we had was pretty light stuff, but not the lightest. How much time do you reckon we would save if we cut down out gear even further and took pretty much the lightest stuff available?

In reply to UKC Gear:

interesting stuff, seeing all the items laid out and the weights makes you think (even if some of the same articles come up with different weights, atom sv, compressor...).

i always enjoy your angle dane1 (your capacity for the minutea is commendable).

not a mention of steve house is a bit of a void i feel. hes become cliched now, but as the baton-barer of twight and a guy whos putting it on the line both in the mountains and the media with his intense committment to the ethic it would be good to hear your views.

as said above theres the whole rope thing. not just for the weight, but the headspace of heading out with ropes rated for different purposes.

as you say, its more about the climber digging into their capacity than just the latest gear (and hype).
any chance that part 2 will go more into this aspect? i mean its nice and all to see everything in grams, but we all know that (even if its not practiced).
an article on the psyche of strealining ones head would be a hoot. we can all get the same gear as marko or ueli - but its their capacity and mentality (some of which is trainable) which makes them use it differently (also something twight goes right into).

as always, be good to hear your ideas there.

cheers again dane1.

Weights? There is so much BS put down in the sales promo info for weights. At least mine are off my actual postal scale. They may be wrong but that is what my scale is telling me if I read it right They aren't something I made up for a XS jacket or a pair of size 38 boots.

House has no doubt taken the Koolaid and gone far with it. But what gets done on the mtn has little to do with spreading the word on how to climb light and fast. Most can't comprehend what gets done or how. The Rupal face is a good example.

Steve climbs full time and then writes on occasion. Good read but Steve has not been (in my opinion of course not that it means anything more than your opinion) the influence to the community that Messner, Bouchard or Twight have been. He may be yet but isn't at the moment.

I'd rather see House or Marko find their own voice, or Bouchard. One voice I would like to hear again today. But as always you then risk the public criticism.

Generally (myself included) it is the guys that have so little to say (but think everything they say is worth while) that speak out. I have zero interest in hearing from some teenager who's mum bought him his first DAS 4 years ago. More appropriatly termed FNG. Hopefully they live long enough that you eventually learn their name.

"the whole rope thing. not just for the weight, but the headspace of heading out with ropes rated for different purposes"

Exactly. I have a hard time talking some of my partners into using a dbl rope as a single or not taking a tat line to get full length raps from. Try talking some of them into using a ice twin as a single! Or a rack of 6 instead of 8 ice screws on a big ice climb.

Head space is as much about trust in your partners and what they are capable of as it is knowing what you are capabale of. Twight has gone there more than anyone else in writing.

Everything can be taught. As Mark once said to me, "open your mind". The real issue I think is not "open your mind" but "what keeps you from opening your mind". And that I suspect is different for everyone. But I have found the "key" that opened my mind 30 years ago for hard climbing is also the same key that opens it now. It is asking the question that starts the journey.

Likely way beyond me but it might be an interesting piece to work over the next couple of months while I am climbing everyday. Thanks for the idea IS.

I absolutely agree about Twight's book; I'm a very occasional and modest grade climber and it changed my approach (and degree of enjoyment and success) fundamentally. I summarised it at the time as:
"The secret of successful alpinism is to move fast, which means you'll need to get serious about fitness and nutrition, so that you can carry less and better thought-out gear, which means you won't be able to escape / survive as easily, so be prepared to back off more often." OK so now you could add "or climb on through the night"
As for weight, in the last few months I've made some permanent but very undemanding changes to my family-man-with
-office
-job diet which mean I've lost about 6kg; more than the weight of a rack or the total gear weight for some of your projects! Most of us part-timers could healthily drop some weight, if we really cared!

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Or leave out some water - a litre will save a kilo so you'll get 200 gram saving by carrying just 200 ml less water.
I'm sure I saw some lightweight low calorie water being advertised somewhere!!!!!!!
Or maybe carry a melt bag, filter tube or small stove.
I try to condition myself to need less without becoming too dehydrated as I've cut down on all the climbing kit and bought the lightest gear so now most of the weight is in the water!!!!!!

In reply to Ron Walker:
Water is a curious thing.

Of all things that are likely to cause you to perform under par, dehydration is one of the most sneaky and hardest to spot. So I am a big fan of hydration.

On the other hand, I notice that with increased fitness and with increased familiarity with what I am doing comes a reduced need for water. When I am unfit, I may go through a couple of litres of water in a day on the hill. When fit, I might do the same day and drink a litre, or even less, and move faster and more comfortably.

I also find pre-loading with liquids is a big help. Getting to the start of the route (whether a climb or a walk) can be a dehydrating business. 2 or 3 hours in a car in winter with the heaters on can really dry you out. So I tend to down half a litre of water or more before I set off.

In reply to Ron Walker:


Is this possible? I wouldn't have thought so from personal experience.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes and no.

You cannot really change your body's physical needs, but you can 'learn' to function with mild dehydration.

A bit like being in very cold environments regularly won't make your body be any warmer or less susceptible to the cold, but you learn to ignore the cold and are able to function in cases were people with less experience would simply shut down.

In reply to TobyA:

No...obviously some need to reread Twight's or any book on hydration and the loss of performance when dehydrated.

In reply to Dane1:
But a fitter person would sweat less and thus need to replace less liquid i imagine.

In reply to UKC Gear: kind of goes in the face of the previous winter article where it recommended carrying two of everything apart from a spare rucksack. However, light is right.

In reply to Dane1:

Twight also advocates 'depletion days' in order to get used to 'work' when having taken little food and water, since regardless how much you drink, you will become dehydrated.

In reply to Nick Harvey:


A fitter person will do many things better. Like generally climbing faster to start with. Spending 1/2 the time on an alpine route allows you to cut way down on gear. Light is right but being more fit is always better. As I said it isn't about the gear it is being willing to push yourself...in many ways including one less pint.

It was a gear article after all but few that couldn't loose a stone or two and be better off for it.

In reply to summo:

Scottish winter where you might climb 3 pitches in 6 hours and thus spend most of your time standing around, often in damp windy cold, is very different from picking your weather window and running up a 1000m alpine face in a similar time. I think if they were climbing a mixed alpine face with sustained difficulties near their technical limit (eg the French who have just done The Harlin), the guys in the photos accompanying the article would have rather larger sacks (or at least the second would, or be hauling them). Even carrying nothing, nobody climbs really fast near their technical limit. This whole "fast and light" thing seems to only really apply to people choosing unsustained routes or routes well within their technical limit.

In reply to Dane1: Hi Dane interesting piece. I (and I suspect yourself too?) don't really buy that title Light is Always Right and perhaps some of the sentiments in your piece. Of course alpinism 'i.e. spending time in the mountains' can be an 'athletic event' but it doesn't have to be, and if you choose to think of it in terms of performance then it doesn't have to be a sprint. There are some who would argue if you're going to the top and back in a day you're not climbing hard enough!

I think it's great to recognise the advantages we have nowadays in terms of lighter kit and how this offers opportunities for increased efficiency but the stop watch is one of the least interesting pieces of kit used in modern mountaineering.

Often when chatting with Rolo Garibotti - Mr speedy efficiency himself, he's confessed that perhaps he has had a less substantial experience on some of his speed ascents than others who've climbed the same mountain routes with a little more kit and a little more time.

I'm not looking to be critical here as I've practised exactly the same weight saving processes myself but just to offer a little balance that super light is only one of many games possible in the mountains.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: I've done the Frendo twice. Once in about 1970 when we carried faaaaaaaaaar too much. I was in my twenties and fit, it was my first alpine route. We had to bivi once at the bottom and once near the top. I didn't enjoy the route at all and it put me off alpine climbing for a couple of years. I did it again when I was in my mid-fifties and not nearly as fit. We did it in the day because we had learnt the lesson that "light is right right" over the years and this time it was an absolute pleasure to climb.

Al

In reply to Mr Lopez:



Some things are not current in Mark's book..leashes, gloves and sports nutrition are good examples. If you are training (or just climbing) you'll get pleanty of "depletion days" in without needing to plan them.

It isn't a case of "no matter how much you drink you will be come dehydrated". That is way over simplistic. There is a specific amount of h2o your body requires to be efficient for the amount of energy it produces. Clothing can help control that in several ways. Like measuring anything you need to know what the "value is". Then you can decide what is optimum. Getting dehydrated on a 8 hr climb may not be a big deal...on a 60hr climb it may well mean failure or success.

Try to remember Twight's EA is not a bible. The ideas and thought processes are generally solid but quoting anything from it will likely be dated. It would be better looked at as a work in progress (for us) as it was originally written 1999. A lot of info is better now on sports nutrition and physiology. Just as the clothing and boot suggestions can easily be bettered.

In reply to Ian Parnell:


Hi Ian, I appreciate the comments. You are right of course. The entire article is more about getting one to think, than it is about gear. No question there are things to be missed when you are in a hurry. And it isn't the only game. If it were I wouldn't still be playing.

In reply to Robert Durran:


"It is always a learning experience. The system I'll climb in this year given the right conditions in late spring? Now I am getting very condition specific with this particular level of kit. Not a lot of leeway here if anything unforeseen happens on the climb. One would be pretty miserable if you had to spend a night out"

What I obviously said so poorly, is screw this up and you'll pay dearly. Light/Right at the extremes aint for standing around for hrs at a belay.
Hopefully some common sense prevails on your own gear choices.

In reply to Nick Harvey:

I recall reading in some book (possibly Mike Stroud's one; Survival of the fittest) that fitter people actually sweat more readily, as their bodies are more adapted to deal with and respond quickly to exertion than those 'less fitter'.

In reply to Dane1:

This is why I always feel terribly vulnerable without the weight of minimal bivi kit on my back on an alpine route! In the end it is a personal judgement call (though I am, obviously, a wuss....)

In reply to PM:
Good book Sir! I guess it depends on what you are comparing - a fit person would sweat less to do X activity in Y time, but maybe sweat more to do X activity at 90% of their capacity (which would be higher than someone less fit, but perceived effort wise the same). If that makes sense...

In reply to UKC Gear:

not trying to be argumentative, but twight still advocates depletion days. if anything, the concept of deglycogenisis and hyperglycogenisis (say that 10 times drunk) is alive and well amongst ultra athletes. as are hydration strategies that look extreme outside the scene.

youre point about the clothing systems effects on all this is bang on - the layers being an extension of the internal hydration process is as paramount as liquid and nutritional intake - which are combined and balanced in interesting ways that twight et al were only beginning to understand in 1999.

its not just the amount, but the ratios that matter to a successful weight:output ratio. get it right and at the right time (depending on the individual) their hydration can be significantly altered.

from what im exposed to and experimented with (as a runner, climber, rescue operator and earlier, military) theres not a lot can be done about h2o requirements ONCE you hit a level of physical capacity (body fat %, oxygen uptake max, strength to weight etc).
but what you CAN affect is the way your system processes its water needs across a 24hr (and maybe larger) cycle.

some of this is pre-hydration, some of its learning to work with dehydration, some of its rehydration, a LOT of its nutrition, most of its timing.
integrated it can save you carrying weight WHEN CLIMBING by shifting your main hydration periods to the start and end of the 'day' (however you define that).

personally im a fan of all this when applied to light and fast trips, as the minutes and stopping of drinking all add up to hours across the time spent out there, and time standing still with a pack off can be times of vulnerability.

again, its the paradigm of committment. gram obsessing is easy, but its training and preparation where the real gains are made.

In reply to ice.solo:




>its the paradigm of committment. gram obsessing is easy, but its training and preparation where the real gains are made.

I suspect we agree more than we disagree. I am not a Gym Jones follower but not surprised where Mark has gone with his own compulatioon of a number of training ideas. Some I agree with and some I don't. But then I am not making my living from selling training either. The differerence bewteen a 10hr Ironman time and doing Slipstream in 6 is immense. Two 5 hr half IM0s don't make a 10hr Iron man.

But no question it is committment, preparation and training that makes this game. You get out of it what you put into it.

In reply t:

All this is well and good, and I don't necessarily disagree with any of the technical details, but ... so what?

Isn't the whole point of this stuff to actually climb things better? And by extension, all these 'advancements' and 'improvements' should be pushing the top end of the game - new routes, alpine style on the biggest hardest mountains. At that end, things have not improved since the 80s:

G4 west face kurtyka/schauer? 1985
loretan/troillet everest supercouloir 43hrs? 1986
bohigas/lucas annapurna south face alpine style new route? 1984

why have none of the supersponsored, GymJonesed, gram-counters got higher on the N ridge of Latok than the nylon and wool guys in 1978?

Weeping Wall and Polar Circus were linked solo in the 80s. The three big N faces in the Alps were linked solo in winter, in the 80s.

None of the young Brit boys counting minutes in the Alps these days have done anything like what Kekus and others did in the 80s (Ganesh II, AIII etc).

Fact is, en masse, in recent history, the hardest route were climbed with the oldest gear. There are exceptions, like Jannu N face and K2 west face, and it is interesting that both were pilloried in the Brotherhood of the Maxtreme for their lack of 'style'. At lower levels, more non-famous people are climbing 'harder' things in the Alps and Rockies, but that is mostly a function of new gear, better beta, changing psychology and disposable income.

Mick Fowler has climbed more impressive new routes in the Greater Ranges than Twight, by some margin, and his mountain breakfast is a lukewarm cup of tea and a Twix bar. If results are the measure of success, Mick's performance nutrition system is far superior to Twight's. Twight's is just numbers and packaging. Going by current results, I'd rather know how Ueli Steck or Denis Urubko train and eat, than what Mark Twight's peons do in some pretentious anti-gym.

There are several intangibles that lead to climbing success - skill, fitness, experience, psychology, weather, time, logistics, and more. Much of that intangibility is a key aspect of alpinism. Nothing is certain. The blend of variable strands can, when successful, seem like an art.

But intangibles are hard to sell, and Twight needed a job. Americans, in particular, love their 'athletes', their training, their rankings, their quantifying, numbers, times etc. Mark took a couple of those intangibles and marketed systems, structures and an alternative micro-culture around them (with no small amount of borrowing from Fight Club, Crossfit etc!).

To be fair to Mark, he knew that many climbers, more by the day, were relying on intangibles to make excuses for poor performance or laziness or fear and he probably felt some quantifiable benchmarks for ability were needed (though conveniently, he has never felt actualy summits to be suitable!. So I admire his desire to cut the bullchit out of things, but I think he just replaced it with more bullchit, only this time it was HIS bullchit, and he was packaging it and selling it.

In reply to Damo:

Geeze Damo, another anti-Twight rant? Seriously, why do you bother?

I've not argued Twight's climbing resume or his abilities. Dr. Doom aside, I'd doubt Mark would claim any more than, "a small fish in a big pond". I have said his book is a good outline for climbing success. House seems to have done well enough for himself with that back ground as part of his own resume. Bouchard had some success himself and was the first I know of to start counting oz. publically. Few did so seriously in the '70s.

As I said I think Twight's greatest success was his writing not his climbing. I'll give credit where I think it is do.

Many amazing climbs were done long before Twight started climbing in 1980. And many of those were done while the climbers were working on their on "light is right" philosophies. Too bad no one else has written it down so succinctly, before or since. I've lived through 4 decades of alpine climbing. At some point you stop caring what others have climbed and start noticing how others impact the community. Just as no one will care about what you climbed there, only that you wrote a good book about the area, ‘Mountaineering In Antarctica: Climbing In The Frozen South’.

If you are starting at zero, I doubt you can offer a better outline for an aspiring alpinist that "EA". If you can please point it out to me. Books don't make climbers any more than gear does. Both are just tools to be used. Lucky for us we get to choose when and how.

In reply to Dane1:

Because it's there.

In reply to Damo: Hi Damo, good point which I almost agree with... However I think it's easy to get all misty eyed about the past. Perhaps in the Himalaya GIV West Face is still the high point but it's definitely been matched - Anderson and House on Nanga Parbat seems directly comparable except they made the summit Schauer and Voytek didn't. The shorter technical routes are definitely more technically difficult nowadays i.e. Tengkampoche N Face or the Hubers on the Ogre. Agree there's not been the quantum leap forward yet that those signature 80s ascents but you seem to be painting a too typical picture that those 80s ascents are still well ahead of what's being done now.

The other issue is that the talent doesn't go to the Himalaya now but to places like Alaska and most noticeably Patagonia. Patagonian climbing recently has been extraordinary - for me as impressive as GIV West Face.

In reply to Ian Parnell:

You're right, thanks for questioning it. I wax and wane on this subject, depending on the week and the latest news. One week we have a Great White Jade Heist, the next, Jordan Romero.

The TK route, and a few others (Changabang N face etc), are probably harder than a lot, most, of what was done in the 80s, but I think the relative volume of hard alpine-style ascents, relative to the knowledge, gear etc is lower now than then. I think with more people climbing, with better gear, better beta, better access, there 'should'* be more hard new routes, but - proportionally - I don't think there is. (I'm deliberately excluding hi-alt big wall aid climbs on Trangos and Brakks etc).

I don't really agree with you about AK. The 24hr daylight is a massive plus there, and again, I think the relative volume of new, really hard stuff is low. More people *are* climbing pretty hard stuff, but a lot of it is repeats, esp on the MFlower and Ruth etc. Like in NZ, more people are climbing water ice and hard mixed crag-style routes, but less people are getting out on the big hard alpine routes. Maybe it's a period of transformation, a step that's taking longer to bear fruit than we'd like to see, as we're watching it?

I've not climbed in Patagonia, so I can't really comment. I agree the standards and activity has exploded amazingly. I think the climbing there has been affected more by:
1. refinement in Yosemite speedclimbing, affecting technique skill and fitness
2. the associated changes in mental approach (longer days etc)
2. better weather (debatable, and relative)
3. better facilities in Chalten (maybe too good :?)

Anyway, no one's curing cancer here ...

D

*on the 'should' is to acknowledge something I haven't read for a while, that Kennedy wrote about years ago, about questioning the magazine promotion of alpine-style as he thought it riskier and more dangerous - a moral issue. Their FA on the Infinite caused him to question it, but the (UK?) emphasis on the purity of alpine-style seemed to prevail make his doubts unfashionable. Maybe I'm misreading him - you should ask him

In reply to UKC Gear: I kind of agree with damo a bit here, but also you dane. however i dont agree that twight strength was in his writing, i think it was the otherway round. his climbing spoke volumes but his books and gym, while undoubtedly hardcore, were elitist. im sure twight himself would consider himself more than a small fish!! twight is always cited as the man when it comes to lightweight fast ladida, but there are others who shout less loudly who are equally as inspiring. steve house for example. anyhoo, gouranga!!

In reply to Damo: Again I almost totally agree with you. I think AK you're right the standard of repeats has gone up massively but whilst the volume of hard new routes has not been massive there have been some really significant things done. Dracula on Foraker is a top drawer effort, and the Ruth gorge has seem a whole string of impressive stuff - Blood from a stone, Mahonney and Gilmore on Mooses Tooth, and perhaps more impressive as away from the info Entropy Wall on Mt Moffit.

On the British scene I agree you'd expect a bit more, having said that there have been some reasonable performances Fowler and Ramsden on Siguniang, Mr Parkin most trips, Twid and teams efforts in Kitchatna, Bracey and Helliker on Mooses Tooth, Cross and Cartwright on Ama Dablam, The Knowledge, Bullock and Houseman on Chang Himal, Annapurna III SW Butt, Kedar Dome SE Pillar (sorry to blow my own trumpet theres obviously loads of others ascents, but that thing did rock!).

Ok none of those have revolutionised alpinism but they are solid ascents and I think that body of ascents would stand up in any decade of mountaineering.

In reply to UKC Gear:
Nice article Dane. Without getting embroiled in the 'is Twight the messiah or a very naughty boy' debate it's interesting to reflect on whether or not things have changed in the alpine area, and how much the lightweight kit 'revolution' has helped...

For the elite, who are psychologically and physically able to cut everything to the minimum I'd argue that in a way not a huge amount has changed ‘weight-wise’- as nothing weighs much the same in 1960 as now.

Taking Messner and Stecks' Droites exploits as an example their kit list (with the exception of a beard) was probably much the same and probably not a massive weight difference in it. Where Steck has a modern advantage is that the kit is much better - think what Messner could have done with Nomics etc., and the technical climbing level on the Droites is trivial compared to the stuff that Steck is able to train on away from the mountains. Messner didn't have M12's, WI7's, french 8b's etc. to practice on - in 1969 the technical difficulty of the Droites was much much closer to the upper limit than it is now (for example Bridalveil Falls FA was nearly 10 years later).

Where 'fast and light' approach and kit has made a huge difference is probably to the ascents that average climbers can make. Lots of climbers are now capable (and do) climb classic alpine north faces in a day, and bigger 'hard' alpine classics (Alaska, South America, Patagonia etc..) are also climbed much much faster on average these days.

Partly, this is due again to technical improvements (not necessarily lighter but better) to basic kit like axes, and facilities to practice away from the mountains making the climbing easier. It’s also come about from people embracing a different approach (courtesy of Twight and others publiscising light and fast ‘philosphy’) including techniques (moving together, drytooling rather than aiding etc.) and that with modern kit carrying basic bivy gear, a reasonable rack etc. is no longer cripplingly heavy.

The other massive advantage of modern kit is that it really works when things go wrong, enabling average climbers to push the boat out a bit more. In great weather with everything going to plan a pair of jeans (while possibly uncomfortable) would probably function OK, it’s when the weather turns and benightment in soaked cotton beckons that they become a liability. The great example of this is the modern synthetic belay jacket – pretty much no matter what gets thrown at one it’ll be able to keep you warm enough to survive while you bail/sit-it-out/carry on.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I would like to present a view from another perspective.
I am not an elite climber, and never expect to be an elite climber.
I still push my limits sometimes, but my limits are a lot more constricting than many other people's!

For me, there is another aesthetic at play besides getting there fast, and that is taking time to enjoy the place and the company I am with. For example, my last overnight winter trip saw a hipflask of Laphroaig in my pack, and that decision had nothing to do with optimising my metabolic performance! And my last bothy trip saw me carrying in a load of wood for the fire, despite the fact I didn't really "need" a fire.
I totally agree that light is better than heavy for the same thing - I use aluminium alloy tent pegs and krabs rather than steel ones, for example. But for me a trip in the mountains is not just about getting from here to there as quickly as possible. For me, it is worth a wee bit extra effort to have a wee bit of luxury and pleasure!

In reply to almost sane: hear hear. lovely bit of balance there chap that im sure all of us understand. thanks for the reminder.

Great discussion and some fair points made.

I only mentioned climbs from 1969 to present. 40 years of climbing.
My thought would be gear/info has lowered the committment levels and raised technical standards over several decades.

But I don't think alpine climbing has gotten harder. Easier in fact in many ways as the technical numbers have gone up. Ask your self who was the most committed and pressed....Messner or Steck on le Droites?

The Scots in '07 on "The Gousseault" or Desmaison in 1971.

Who is to say the 4 on the Eiger in 1938 didn't have a better adventure or try harder than the four on Xuelian West for the "The Great White Jade Heist? Or that their commitment level wasn't similar.

In reply to Dane1:

The easiest way to get faster in the hills is still to get fitter, not buy a new rack to save a kilo.

In reply to Dane1: Dane - totally changing the subject, but inspired by your writing I had go wearing my RAB Photon jacket (primaloft fill) whilst ice climbing today. I was on my own and a few hours to get out soloing between taking my kids to kindergarten and picking them up again so had to move reasonably fast. I was doing laps on a little cliff near me, probably about WI3-ish, and I reckon I did about 100 or 120 mtrs of climbing - with out really stopping; it's only a minute or two to walk back down to the start - so you can just keep going.

I started off with a merino base, then my hooded MEC hoody (exped weight baselayer), but got far to hot, so took off the merino. With just the hoody under the RAB, it was better but I still was getting pretty warm. The Photon feels very light and slim but is 133grs in the body and 100 grs in the arms. Is that much heavier than the Arcteryx one that you use? More of what you call a super-light belay jacket?

I'm off to Norway in few weeks to hopefully do some bigger routes, but might well stick to my more regularly used clothing systems...

In reply to TobyA:

Hey Toby,
Yes the 133/100 is a much heavier and not as well vented as what I am using with the Atom Lt. A 133/100 is something I would use as a belay jacket on top of a Atom LT. Atom LT is 60g body and arms but most importantly well vented with Polartech strip under the arms and down the sides. Although hard shelled for the most part The Atom LT is a sweater weight garment and not a jacket is my thought.

I only wear a R1 Hoody as the *heaviest* layer I'll use under the Atom LT and generally prefer a lighter merino wool top like a mtn hardware long sleeved T or more preferable, the Sherpa Ad. Gear Khushi hooded top. If I need more I'll add a wind shirt under the Atom LT. Then if I need more a 100g belay jacket on top of that.

In reply to TobyA:

Here is the difference in weight on a 100g jacket and the lighter sweater weight garments like the Atom lt. Doesn't sound like much but a marked and obvious differnce in weight and warmth.

100g garments, marginal belay jackets:
Arcteryx Atom Hoody SV 538g
Mountain Hardwear Compressor Hoody Primaloft 561g

Lightly insulated hard shells: (belay sweaters)
EB Downlight Hoodie Pullover XL 455g
Arcteryx Atom lt Hoody large 14.4oz / 429g

Arcteryx Gamma MX soft shell Hoody XL 24oz / 710g

In reply to Dane1: Cheers Dane - that makes sense. RAB actually do the Generator pullover at 100/60 and then the Xenon at 60/60 which both would probably be more in line with the Atom Lt, but the Photon is one I happen to have at hand to try.

Another thought from last weekend, after the delightful if rather rare experience of ice climbing in the sun! ( http://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/02/magical-muurla.html ) Do you not get wet legs from dripping ice whilst wearing softshell pants? I've been using the same very simple Patagonia guide softshell pants since I think 2002 - with just the occasional stitch here and there, they seem pretty indestructable. And when on slabby ice they are always fine, but once things get a bit steeper and you might be negotiating around or below icicle fringes etc, I always seem to find that when my knee is bent, hence my whole thigh exposed, that is exactly the spot where and icicle above will be releasing a steady trickle of water to splatter down onto my leg and get it all wet! It kind of seems on harder climbs - exactly where the stretchy light feel of the softshell troos is so nice, that's exactly where you want some old school goretex trousers on to stop the drips wetting through! Oddly its my legs that seem to get much wetter from water dripping down icefalls - much more than my top half, so some sort of non-hard shell approach works better there.

In reply to TobyA: "wet pants?"

Sure if the ice is runninng water. I try to stay out of such things. Seriously. But have been soaked through and water running into and out of my boots once they were filled up, several times over. Nasty that!

The trade for me is the breathabiliy and keeping the body temps down with soft shell pants as opposed to a hard shell with better protection and less mobility.

Check out the pictures of Haley and Steck on the Droites. Both in soft shell pants. But one is Goretex Pro Shell and the other I'd bet a pair of Patagonia guide softshell pants.

Tops are easy to layer on or take off. Pants not so much. You are pretty much stuck for pants once you get started generally. I have a tendency to choose clothes that I want the weather and conditions to match. If that all works out it is a nice trip, if not, it may well end the trip or at the least make it less than fun.

In reply to Dane1:

Isn't that contradiction in terms?

Also in my experience you much more likely to encounter running water when waterfall ice climbing than on an alpine north face.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Quite right. I mispoke..hard shell and soft shell.

"in my experience you much more likely to encounter running water when waterfall ice climbing than on an alpine north face."

Not my experince at all. I suspect you intended to say, winter, alpine north faces.