Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
aholle88
Posts: 368
Joined: 3/24/2015
14ers: 57  24  26 
13ers: 300 29 3
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Post by aholle88 »

@Ben, I totally get the objective measures and all that. Just playing devils advocate I suppose. In terms of asking the general population a question like, what’s the most prominent peak in Colorado? I would bet most would say Pikes, Longs/Evan’s for those further north, Blanca massif is obviously super prominent as well. Longs/Evan’s/Blanca also have connecting ridge lines to other peaks which sorta, in a way, makes them less prominent than Pikes since that doesn’t really have that.

To venture really outside the box, you could then argue the challenger/KC observation, as someone mentioned in another thread. Are the other lower peaks on a connecting ridge line really peaks? By the saddle definition, yeah, of course. But, like Jarrett said, if you were the first to explore one of those massifs and searching for the high point. If you got to the top on LB or Ellingwood, you can clearly see Blanca is the high point and would be a bit disappointed. Same with Meeker/Longs, or Beirstadt/Evan’s. In the well known real life example, Zeb Pike got to Rosa in his attempt at Pikes. Obviously quite a bit different than the others but still. I personally like Jarrett’s way of thinking in that sense and have always kinda thought that as well. Stand alone peaks are mountains, the rest are just high points on massifs/ridge lines. But then comes the question of what defines a stand alone peak? One could argue maybe a 3-4K foot rule, or a valley floor rule. Such as Elbert drops 4K to the valley floor between it and the Massive massif. They are clearly separate and definitive mountains. But then you have the Gore and Sangres which are basically just long ridge lines with a ton of high points with very few distinct mountains.

Just tossing out some random thoughts and different perspective.
User avatar
Salient
Posts: 178
Joined: 2/19/2021
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Post by Salient »

White Mountain's key col is actually at 7,056 feet, not 5000 feet. This leads to only 7,196 feet in prominence.

This means that there are actually 15 non-alaskan peaks.

Glacier Peak, Wheeler Peak (Nevada), Mt. Hood, Mt. Olympus, Mt. Adams, Charleston Peak, San Gorgonio Mountain, San Jacinto Peak, Mt. Baker, Mt. Elbert & Mt. Shasta all have less than 3000m in prominence and are more prominent than White Mountain.

Haleakalā, Mt. Whitney, Mt. Rainer & Mauna Kea are the 4 non-alaskan peaks with over 3000m in prominence.
Be the best you that you can be.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Post by bdloftin77 »

aholle88 wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 9:37 am @Ben, I totally get the objective measures and all that. Just playing devils advocate I suppose. In terms of asking the general population a question like, what’s the most prominent peak in Colorado? I would bet most would say Pikes, Longs/Evan’s for those further north, Blanca massif is obviously super prominent as well. Longs/Evan’s/Blanca also have connecting ridge lines to other peaks which sorta, in a way, makes them less prominent than Pikes since that doesn’t really have that.

To venture really outside the box, you could then argue the challenger/KC observation, as someone mentioned in another thread. Are the other lower peaks on a connecting ridge line really peaks? By the saddle definition, yeah, of course. But, like Jarrett said, if you were the first to explore one of those massifs and searching for the high point. If you got to the top on LB or Ellingwood, you can clearly see Blanca is the high point and would be a bit disappointed. Same with Meeker/Longs, or Beirstadt/Evan’s. In the well known real life example, Zeb Pike got to Rosa in his attempt at Pikes. Obviously quite a bit different than the others but still. I personally like Jarrett’s way of thinking in that sense and have always kinda thought that as well. Stand alone peaks are mountains, the rest are just high points on massifs/ridge lines. But then comes the question of what defines a stand alone peak? One could argue maybe a 3-4K foot rule, or a valley floor rule. Such as Elbert drops 4K to the valley floor between it and the Massive massif. They are clearly separate and definitive mountains. But then you have the Gore and Sangres which are basically just long ridge lines with a ton of high points with very few distinct mountains.

Just tossing out some random thoughts and different perspective.
For those who are nerdy or interested in this sort of thing, Gerry Roach attempts to find visible rise above nearby peaks on this page: http://www.climb.mountains.com/Word_Ten ... ower.shtml

PS. I have the third edition of Roach’s 14ers guidebook apparently. I've seen the first edition lists, and they're pretty cool. Pikes and Uncompahgre rank very high in terms of peak power. If anyone here happens to have the first edition and wants to share pictures of those lists, feel free! If I every get a hold of the first edition, I'll definitely share some pictures if people are interested.
User avatar
GordoByrn
Posts: 16
Joined: 7/24/2019
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Post by GordoByrn »

Inspired by Justin's link, we just got back from a quick trip to Death Valley (DEN-LAS then rent a jeep).
We didn't do the 10K version of Telescope.
Instead we added Wildrose Peak the afternoon before (~8M, 2K vert, round trip) and camped at Mahogany Flats.
Ended up with ~20M and 5K vert, which was plenty.
Wrote the trip up here: https://feelthebyrn.blog/2021/05/21/death-valley-2021/
Very nice way to get a bunch of non-technical miles.
g

Link to a 2012 Trip Report - https://www.14ers.com/php14ers/triprepo ... trip=13126
We didn't tack on the extra peaks
User avatar
Somewhat of a Prick
Posts: 745
Joined: 8/4/2012
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 84
Trip Reports (17)
 

Re: Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Post by Somewhat of a Prick »

There are a lot of giant 2ers and 3ers in northern Norway. I was stunned. They come right out of the ocean, so looking up at 3000ft of sheer rock is impressive
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 9438
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 58  16 
13ers: 50 13
Trip Reports (16)
 
Contact:

Re: Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Post by Scott P »

Somewhat of a Prick wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 1:43 pm There are a lot of giant 2ers and 3ers in northern Norway. I was stunned. They come right out of the ocean, so looking up at 3000ft of sheer rock is impressive
Yes. I think Romsdalshorn is one of the more impressive mountains I have ever climbed and it is only 5085 feet high. It's right next to the ocean.

Stetind is even lower, but quite impressive even though it is only 4567 feet high:

Image

I have heard that Baffin Island is somewhat similar, but even more impressive, but I haven't been.
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
Somewhat of a Prick
Posts: 745
Joined: 8/4/2012
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 84
Trip Reports (17)
 

Re: Vertical relief of USA mountains.

Post by Somewhat of a Prick »

Scott P wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 1:49 pm
Somewhat of a Prick wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 1:43 pm There are a lot of giant 2ers and 3ers in northern Norway. I was stunned. They come right out of the ocean, so looking up at 3000ft of sheer rock is impressive
Yes. I think Romsdalshorn is one of the more impressive mountains I have ever climbed and it is only 5085 feet high. It's right next to the ocean.

Stetind is even lower, but quite impressive even though it is only 4567 feet high:

Image

I have heard that Baffin Island is somewhat similar, but even more impressive, but I haven't been.
I think this guy is a 3er that is front and center. Arctic Ocean in the foreground
Attachments
norway.jpg
norway.jpg (113.73 KiB) Viewed 1355 times
Post Reply