non-14er comparison

Items that do not fit the categories above.
User avatar
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:12 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

non-14er comparison

Postby bohlsen » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:40 pm

This is a bit of a random thought, but after going out to Utah and climbing Angels Landing last summer I was wondering how that upper exposed section compares to our 14ers. Technical difficulty-wise, which 14er do you think is most similar to Angels Landing? How about in terms of exposure? How about some other popular hikes such as Half Dome or Mt Whitney?
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

User avatar
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:04 pm
Location: Tabernash, CO

Re: non-14er comparison

Postby MtHurd » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:44 pm

The standard route on Whitney is like the standard route on Long's without the Homestretch. Booooring. Do the Mountaineers Route at least if you want any fun.

User avatar
Posts: 1806
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: non-14er comparison

Postby nyker » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:29 pm

Angels Landing is somewhat unique as a hike/climb with those paved switchbacks and the short cable section. The exposure area up top (where there is a cable) I suppose is similar to some of the exposure on the short cable section of Whitney at the top of the 97+ switchbacks and then where the cable stops on Angels, the exposure is not too bad, not as much as after the Keyhole on Longs (where there is no cable).

The Half Dome route from Happy Isles is a long hike (16-17 miles, +5000ft), though only reaches 8850ft at the top (the same elevation of some 14er trailheads). Half Dome's cables are a bit more hairy since the exposure is longer and if you lose your footing on that section and fall, you are likely to have some serious consequences if not be dead. No Class 1 or 2 standard routes on 14ers have this risk, though theere could be on the Class 3-4 routes.

As far as 14er comparison to Angles Landing: The Angels Landing hike is fairly easy and is also roughly half the height of a 14er, so keep that in mind in making comparisons for time, distance and effort. For easier 14ers, I suppose you can say the standard routes up Bierstadt, Grays, Sherman. Elbert is also straightforward but is longer and you gain 4500+ft.

User avatar
Posts: 6417
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 10:46 am
Location: Craig

Re: non-14er comparison

Postby Scott P » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:58 pm

Technical difficulty-wise, which 14er do you think is most similar to Angels Landing? How about in terms of exposure?

In technical difficulty and exposure, Longs is probably a fair comparison. Angels Landing would be more exposed than Longs (Keyhole Route) if it weren't for the chains, but with the chains it doesn't seem as exposed as say the Narrows on Longs.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.

User avatar
Posts: 7841
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:23 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: non-14er comparison

Postby Jim Davies » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:18 pm

As I recall the chained part was fairly easy class 3 with huge exposure. I guess you could compare it to the final stretch of Wetterhorn.
Climbing at altitude is like hitting your head against a brick wall — it's great when you stop. -- Chris Darwin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests