Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
There are rumours that someone is cleaning up the left side of Yosemite Pinnacle. Whether or not true, I thought that some might be interested in the following. It juxtaposes an account of the first ascent, in 1965 by Glenn Woodsworth, Hamish Mutch and Mavis McCuaig (in italics), and an ascent in 2003 (normal type). Both first published in the BCMC newsletter or journal. It is a quite interesting adventure climb, and no cleaning will ever make the offwidth/chimney any easier. Hopefully the cleaners will leave the cedar trees on the climb be - they provide fine anchors, and a needed target for the rope throw. There's also a fair amount of loose stuff at the top, which might be a challenge.
The first ascent of YPLS was by Glenn Woodsworth, Hamish Mutch, and Mavis McCuaig, in 1965. Glenn was then in his mid 20s and a very fit, strong rock climber and mountaineer. The year before, he and Dick Culbert did the first ascent of Serra V, one of the great challenges of the Coast Ranges, and in 1966 Glenn and others did the first ascent of University Wall. Glenn had a major role in the “Climbers’ Guide to the Coastal Ranges of British Columbia” (1965), and wrote “A Climber’s Guide to the Stawamus Chief” in 1967. Hamish was also a very fit, strong climber, and had just returned from a long stay in Yosemite.
Hamish and Glenn were very active climbers and members of the BCMC. Glenn later earned a doctorate in geology, worked for many years for the Geological Survey of Canada, contributed to many guidebooks, and became a sort of eminence grise of coastal mountaineering, as well as an honorary member. Hamish became a teacher, and recently retired after many years in Creston, but is still an active climber. Mavis was, with Hamish and Glenn, an active member of the VOC, part of a group of climbing friends, and not a bad climber either.
Brian Kuchinka and I climbed YPLS in late September 2003, after the forest fire closure was finally lifted. We had an interesting time, on a very hot day – over 30 degrees in Squamish. Both of us have been climbing for many years, sometimes at a respectably hard level, Brian especially. We’re both reasonably fit, if not young, skinny, tough and dumb, and thought YPLS might be an interesting adventure.
We now have no shortage of equipment and skills, and places and chances to use them. Kernmantle ropes, nuts and camming devices to fit just about anything, sit harnesses, sticky soled shoes, and so on. There are books and videos showing one how to climb, courses of all kinds, and many to learn from. In 1965, they had laid ropes, tied in with a bowline on a coil, did body rappels, and perhaps had Kronhoffer shoes. You learned from friends and club-mates, as there weren’t any books or courses. Climbers then had broad horizons and experience, and regular contact with role models to learn from. But their equipment and techniques were in many ways inferior to those of 2003.
Unlike most cities, Vancouver is fortunate in having within easy reach a huge chunk of steep, firm rock - the Chief. Inevitably, rock climbing is growing at an accelerating pace, and will become increasingly more important in the life of the BCMC and its members.
Rock climbing at Squamish is different from most other climbing areas. Lack of holds and cracks limit the possible route lines and chimneys are common; face-climbing is rare. Surprisingly enough, only about twenty of the sixty or so routes in the area are predominantly artificial aid. The rest range from easy class 4 to downright desperate upper fifth class. Climbing on the Chief looks dangerous, but is every bit as safe as ordinary mountaineering. Objective hazards such as rock fall and weather are greatly reduced; subjective dangers such as overconfidence can be lessened through proper technique and an appreciation of one's limits. Falls are not unknown, but only one accident has led to hospitalization, and that happened on a boulder, twenty feet off the ground.
In the early 1960s, Yosemite erupted as the centre of world rock climbing. By the middle of the decade, its big walls, long free routes, and crack climbs were acknowledged as some of the best and hardest in the world. Many developments in technique and equipment originated in Yosemite, including methods to climb if not protect the awkward, strenuous squeeze chimneys and off width cracks the area is famous for. Squamish climbers were early aware that the closest comparison to climbing there was Yosemite; Jim Baldwin and Ed Cooper, who did the first ascent of Grand Wall, later did the first ascent of Dihedral Wall on El Capitan. Free climbs at Squamish were long undergraded; until the early 1970s, Diedre was considered 5.4, Snake 5.6, and so on. [Now allegedly 5.8 and 5.9.] Climbing at Squamish was and still is much safer than mountaineering, particularly backcountry skiing, but with the growth in numbers, there are frequent accidents, and at least five fatalities so far.
A recent "Summit" article to the contrary, most climbing around Squamish is done by local climbers. Indeed, Vancouver climbers have established almost all of the many fine medium-length routes, many of which have free climbing of a high order. One of the more difficult and spectacular of these is the Yosemite Pinnacle (left side) Route, first climbed in October by Mavis McCuaig, Hamish Mutch and myself. This is not a pinnacle in the usual sense of the word, but rather a huge, detached flake lying against the wall. There are a number of these on the Chief; this one is located just left of the popular South Gully.
Summit was one of two U.S. climbing and mountaineering magazines in the 1960s, the other being Off Belay. Both vanished long ago, though I’m not sure that modern U.S. climbing magazines are an improvement. I suspect the Summit article that Glenn refers to was by Fred Beckey, who did many new routes at Squamish. His later article on Unfinished Symphony claimed that it was “an entirely new route” – when over half had earlier been climbed by Vancouverites. The guide shows that many mid-1960s routes were by Canadians, although Fred & friends did several outstanding longer routes particularly, and certainly had skills and experience to burn.
The top of Yosemite Pinnacle is about 120 m off the ground. In geological terms, it’s a giant semi-detached exfoliation flake. The right side is a conspicuous wide crack, later called Tantalus Crack, part of Tantalus Wall, which was climbed in 1966. (Freed in 1968 or so, by Al Givler.) YPLS is a north facing corner, which gets little if any sun. The left (main) wall of the corner is pretty much vertical, and there’s a crack of varying width in the corner itself.
We hadn't really expected the climb to be very difficult. However...a short rope toss led to the base of the left side of the flake. Hamish, just back from the endless miles of Yosemite cracks, led sixty feet of strenuous chimney and jam crack (class 5.7) to reach a good belay tree. I joined him, sweating, then led the only class six pitch on the climb; fifty feet of straightforward nailing. Mavis joined Hamish, who moved up to my rather dubious belay. The next pitch looked really bad. After ascertaining that it would go, we rappelled out (it was getting late), leaving our ropes behind.
My guess is that Glenn wrote up YPLS because it was quite difficult indeed. A tricky high step gets you off the ground, then a short forest leads to the base of the pinnacle itself. A blank face, with a bolt or two for aid, and a mantle across to trees lead to the base of the corner. I’d tried YPLS in 1974, with Eric Weinstein, and then did a rope (hammer) throw here, but only got a half pitch higher before it started raining.
The first pitch involved climbing to the base (top) of a nice cedar, up some scruffy stuff. There was a wide crack above, too wide to jam and too narrow to get into. (The ‘strenuous chimney and jam crack’.) Luckily there were bits of flakes and cracks on the left wall, and with some fiddling we got some little nuts in. Stemming and thrashing led to a rotten fir stump, garlanded with old slings. This was a healthy tree in 1974, which we’d rappelled off. Above was the section which Glenn aided, a nice 5.10 finger and hand crack up a steepening corner for perhaps 15 metres, to another fine cedar. There was a stance on its top, where I belayed. The first pitch had been varied and adventurous climbing, and a nice challenge, even if I was slow. Another rotten sling festooned rotten fir stump was just above, then a wide crack with some chockstones, which looked just wide enough to get inside. Not that this was my problem – I wasn’t leading.
I’d never heard of anyone else climbing YPLS , and was surprised to find the slings. They can only have been from parties retreating, and from them I guess there’ve been six or eight attempts. Since the climb, I’ve enquired, and have heard of one other party which climbed the whole thing, and no one who admits to having tried it. Six or eight attempts over 40 years, and perhaps 2-3 complete ascents, aren’t a lot.
Next day found us prussiking up the ropes to our respective stations. The next lead was classical: a ten inch wide jam-crack shimney affair, overhanging more than enough. Hamish somehow moaned and groaned and struggled his way up the first twenty feet of the squeeze-chimney [class 5.8] and then, gasping like a fish out of water, pulled himself onto the first chockstone. After forty feet, slightly easier (but not much), we heard his welcome "off belay". With a liberal expenditure of energy I managed to claw my way to Hamish's belay. He was standing on a chockstone deep in the chimney, anchored to a little tree that must have had a hard life, for it can never have seen the sun.
Brian arrived at the stance, and we switched over. He wasn’t quite as sanguine about the prospects as I, but geared up and set off. The mantle onto the rotten stump was exciting, as there was some prospect of it detaching, and climber and stump would then have landed on the belayer. Me. It hadn’t occurred to us that helmets might be useful on a chimney climb. Brian got onto a perch above the stump, and with some fiddling got in some gear. The clean imposing crack rose above. Desperate thrashing ensued, as he did all he could to stick in the crack, and advance up ‘the first twenty feet’. It was quite something to see. Eventually, he was able to wriggle within range of an old sling hanging down from the lower chockstone. With a bit of help from it, he millimetred up, and after a great effort was able to get on the chockstone, and in the chimney – it was just wide enough by then. He was gasping, too, and took some time to catch his breath.
Off-widths and squeeze chimneys are inevitably strenuous and awkward, and take special skills and determination. They’re also very difficult to protect, and to grade. Glenn says: “I remember it being more strenuous and awkward than technical, and we were in good shape in those days. I suspect the old-style grading was in play, but then I always did tend to over-rate cracks and under-rate slabs.” They called it 5.8; nowadays this pitch would be called 5.10, at least. Neither Brian nor I could possibly fit in the lower few metres of the off-width; Glenn says “Hamish led that pitch free. We were all slimmer then.” At the time, this was probably the hardest free pitch in B.C., and so in Canada.
The little cedar, I am happy to report, is still thriving deep in the gloomy recesses of the chimney, where it is well-watered and protected from ice and rock fall, not to mention direct light.
As an interesting side-note, in 1967 Glenn and friends did the first ascent of Pipeline on the Squaw, another wide crack. Learning from experience, they innovated. Glenn says: “We made two styles of pipes: one out of old-style TV antenna (the kind that used to sit on roofs) and a more durable kind that probably came from pipe supplied by your family. I vaguely remember going to your place to get the stuff. Anyway, we made them up in several lengths, with a hole about 1-1/2" from one end through which we tied a sling. The hole was deliberately not centred, to give a camming effect. Anyway, they worked, and I suspect that was the first use anywhere of tube chocks.” In 1974 Chouinard came out with tube chocks, the first commercial wide-crack protection, and much later spring-loaded Big Bros appeared. I remember Leif Patterson, who did Pipeline with Glenn, coming to my parent’s house on 10th to get the pipe.
My lead went horizontally out to the edge of the chimney, then up over an awkward (5.7) chockstone onto the first decent ledge on the climb. The others soon joined me, glad to be out of the confines of the vertiginous chimney. It was in the bag now; we romped up the fifth and last lead, a 5.4 jam crack, to the top of the pinnacle.
There was enough comfortable room on top for all three of us - a bit of a surprise. We rested awhile, counting the inevitable tourists who stopped for a look, and waving to friends on the road. Then the descent; we untangled the ropes and made several long rappels down the chimney to the forests below. We coiled the ropes, sorted hardware, and walked slowly to the car, well pleased with our first ascent.
- Glenn Woodsworth
Brian continued from the chockstones, perhaps another 15 metres, with an awkward bit getting around a blockage onto loose stuff above. He belayed just below the proper top – a loose flake barred progress up the last five metres. I then had a desperate struggle to follow him up the chimney, pulling on whatever was available to get on the first chockstone. Despite my gasping, I was careful to avoid abusing the little cedar, but had a long rest before continuing to the top. Two long rappels led to cooling refreshments. Getting up had been a real challenge. Despite forty years’ worth of improvements to technique and equipment, the climb was probably no easier for us than on the first ascent. Both teams had a good struggle, and used some aid, though at different places.
The first ascent of YPLS was by Glenn Woodsworth, Hamish Mutch, and Mavis McCuaig, in 1965. Glenn was then in his mid 20s and a very fit, strong rock climber and mountaineer. The year before, he and Dick Culbert did the first ascent of Serra V, one of the great challenges of the Coast Ranges, and in 1966 Glenn and others did the first ascent of University Wall. Glenn had a major role in the “Climbers’ Guide to the Coastal Ranges of British Columbia” (1965), and wrote “A Climber’s Guide to the Stawamus Chief” in 1967. Hamish was also a very fit, strong climber, and had just returned from a long stay in Yosemite.
Hamish and Glenn were very active climbers and members of the BCMC. Glenn later earned a doctorate in geology, worked for many years for the Geological Survey of Canada, contributed to many guidebooks, and became a sort of eminence grise of coastal mountaineering, as well as an honorary member. Hamish became a teacher, and recently retired after many years in Creston, but is still an active climber. Mavis was, with Hamish and Glenn, an active member of the VOC, part of a group of climbing friends, and not a bad climber either.
Brian Kuchinka and I climbed YPLS in late September 2003, after the forest fire closure was finally lifted. We had an interesting time, on a very hot day – over 30 degrees in Squamish. Both of us have been climbing for many years, sometimes at a respectably hard level, Brian especially. We’re both reasonably fit, if not young, skinny, tough and dumb, and thought YPLS might be an interesting adventure.
We now have no shortage of equipment and skills, and places and chances to use them. Kernmantle ropes, nuts and camming devices to fit just about anything, sit harnesses, sticky soled shoes, and so on. There are books and videos showing one how to climb, courses of all kinds, and many to learn from. In 1965, they had laid ropes, tied in with a bowline on a coil, did body rappels, and perhaps had Kronhoffer shoes. You learned from friends and club-mates, as there weren’t any books or courses. Climbers then had broad horizons and experience, and regular contact with role models to learn from. But their equipment and techniques were in many ways inferior to those of 2003.
Unlike most cities, Vancouver is fortunate in having within easy reach a huge chunk of steep, firm rock - the Chief. Inevitably, rock climbing is growing at an accelerating pace, and will become increasingly more important in the life of the BCMC and its members.
Rock climbing at Squamish is different from most other climbing areas. Lack of holds and cracks limit the possible route lines and chimneys are common; face-climbing is rare. Surprisingly enough, only about twenty of the sixty or so routes in the area are predominantly artificial aid. The rest range from easy class 4 to downright desperate upper fifth class. Climbing on the Chief looks dangerous, but is every bit as safe as ordinary mountaineering. Objective hazards such as rock fall and weather are greatly reduced; subjective dangers such as overconfidence can be lessened through proper technique and an appreciation of one's limits. Falls are not unknown, but only one accident has led to hospitalization, and that happened on a boulder, twenty feet off the ground.
In the early 1960s, Yosemite erupted as the centre of world rock climbing. By the middle of the decade, its big walls, long free routes, and crack climbs were acknowledged as some of the best and hardest in the world. Many developments in technique and equipment originated in Yosemite, including methods to climb if not protect the awkward, strenuous squeeze chimneys and off width cracks the area is famous for. Squamish climbers were early aware that the closest comparison to climbing there was Yosemite; Jim Baldwin and Ed Cooper, who did the first ascent of Grand Wall, later did the first ascent of Dihedral Wall on El Capitan. Free climbs at Squamish were long undergraded; until the early 1970s, Diedre was considered 5.4, Snake 5.6, and so on. [Now allegedly 5.8 and 5.9.] Climbing at Squamish was and still is much safer than mountaineering, particularly backcountry skiing, but with the growth in numbers, there are frequent accidents, and at least five fatalities so far.
A recent "Summit" article to the contrary, most climbing around Squamish is done by local climbers. Indeed, Vancouver climbers have established almost all of the many fine medium-length routes, many of which have free climbing of a high order. One of the more difficult and spectacular of these is the Yosemite Pinnacle (left side) Route, first climbed in October by Mavis McCuaig, Hamish Mutch and myself. This is not a pinnacle in the usual sense of the word, but rather a huge, detached flake lying against the wall. There are a number of these on the Chief; this one is located just left of the popular South Gully.
Summit was one of two U.S. climbing and mountaineering magazines in the 1960s, the other being Off Belay. Both vanished long ago, though I’m not sure that modern U.S. climbing magazines are an improvement. I suspect the Summit article that Glenn refers to was by Fred Beckey, who did many new routes at Squamish. His later article on Unfinished Symphony claimed that it was “an entirely new route” – when over half had earlier been climbed by Vancouverites. The guide shows that many mid-1960s routes were by Canadians, although Fred & friends did several outstanding longer routes particularly, and certainly had skills and experience to burn.
The top of Yosemite Pinnacle is about 120 m off the ground. In geological terms, it’s a giant semi-detached exfoliation flake. The right side is a conspicuous wide crack, later called Tantalus Crack, part of Tantalus Wall, which was climbed in 1966. (Freed in 1968 or so, by Al Givler.) YPLS is a north facing corner, which gets little if any sun. The left (main) wall of the corner is pretty much vertical, and there’s a crack of varying width in the corner itself.
We hadn't really expected the climb to be very difficult. However...a short rope toss led to the base of the left side of the flake. Hamish, just back from the endless miles of Yosemite cracks, led sixty feet of strenuous chimney and jam crack (class 5.7) to reach a good belay tree. I joined him, sweating, then led the only class six pitch on the climb; fifty feet of straightforward nailing. Mavis joined Hamish, who moved up to my rather dubious belay. The next pitch looked really bad. After ascertaining that it would go, we rappelled out (it was getting late), leaving our ropes behind.
My guess is that Glenn wrote up YPLS because it was quite difficult indeed. A tricky high step gets you off the ground, then a short forest leads to the base of the pinnacle itself. A blank face, with a bolt or two for aid, and a mantle across to trees lead to the base of the corner. I’d tried YPLS in 1974, with Eric Weinstein, and then did a rope (hammer) throw here, but only got a half pitch higher before it started raining.
The first pitch involved climbing to the base (top) of a nice cedar, up some scruffy stuff. There was a wide crack above, too wide to jam and too narrow to get into. (The ‘strenuous chimney and jam crack’.) Luckily there were bits of flakes and cracks on the left wall, and with some fiddling we got some little nuts in. Stemming and thrashing led to a rotten fir stump, garlanded with old slings. This was a healthy tree in 1974, which we’d rappelled off. Above was the section which Glenn aided, a nice 5.10 finger and hand crack up a steepening corner for perhaps 15 metres, to another fine cedar. There was a stance on its top, where I belayed. The first pitch had been varied and adventurous climbing, and a nice challenge, even if I was slow. Another rotten sling festooned rotten fir stump was just above, then a wide crack with some chockstones, which looked just wide enough to get inside. Not that this was my problem – I wasn’t leading.
I’d never heard of anyone else climbing YPLS , and was surprised to find the slings. They can only have been from parties retreating, and from them I guess there’ve been six or eight attempts. Since the climb, I’ve enquired, and have heard of one other party which climbed the whole thing, and no one who admits to having tried it. Six or eight attempts over 40 years, and perhaps 2-3 complete ascents, aren’t a lot.
Next day found us prussiking up the ropes to our respective stations. The next lead was classical: a ten inch wide jam-crack shimney affair, overhanging more than enough. Hamish somehow moaned and groaned and struggled his way up the first twenty feet of the squeeze-chimney [class 5.8] and then, gasping like a fish out of water, pulled himself onto the first chockstone. After forty feet, slightly easier (but not much), we heard his welcome "off belay". With a liberal expenditure of energy I managed to claw my way to Hamish's belay. He was standing on a chockstone deep in the chimney, anchored to a little tree that must have had a hard life, for it can never have seen the sun.
Brian arrived at the stance, and we switched over. He wasn’t quite as sanguine about the prospects as I, but geared up and set off. The mantle onto the rotten stump was exciting, as there was some prospect of it detaching, and climber and stump would then have landed on the belayer. Me. It hadn’t occurred to us that helmets might be useful on a chimney climb. Brian got onto a perch above the stump, and with some fiddling got in some gear. The clean imposing crack rose above. Desperate thrashing ensued, as he did all he could to stick in the crack, and advance up ‘the first twenty feet’. It was quite something to see. Eventually, he was able to wriggle within range of an old sling hanging down from the lower chockstone. With a bit of help from it, he millimetred up, and after a great effort was able to get on the chockstone, and in the chimney – it was just wide enough by then. He was gasping, too, and took some time to catch his breath.
Off-widths and squeeze chimneys are inevitably strenuous and awkward, and take special skills and determination. They’re also very difficult to protect, and to grade. Glenn says: “I remember it being more strenuous and awkward than technical, and we were in good shape in those days. I suspect the old-style grading was in play, but then I always did tend to over-rate cracks and under-rate slabs.” They called it 5.8; nowadays this pitch would be called 5.10, at least. Neither Brian nor I could possibly fit in the lower few metres of the off-width; Glenn says “Hamish led that pitch free. We were all slimmer then.” At the time, this was probably the hardest free pitch in B.C., and so in Canada.
The little cedar, I am happy to report, is still thriving deep in the gloomy recesses of the chimney, where it is well-watered and protected from ice and rock fall, not to mention direct light.
As an interesting side-note, in 1967 Glenn and friends did the first ascent of Pipeline on the Squaw, another wide crack. Learning from experience, they innovated. Glenn says: “We made two styles of pipes: one out of old-style TV antenna (the kind that used to sit on roofs) and a more durable kind that probably came from pipe supplied by your family. I vaguely remember going to your place to get the stuff. Anyway, we made them up in several lengths, with a hole about 1-1/2" from one end through which we tied a sling. The hole was deliberately not centred, to give a camming effect. Anyway, they worked, and I suspect that was the first use anywhere of tube chocks.” In 1974 Chouinard came out with tube chocks, the first commercial wide-crack protection, and much later spring-loaded Big Bros appeared. I remember Leif Patterson, who did Pipeline with Glenn, coming to my parent’s house on 10th to get the pipe.
My lead went horizontally out to the edge of the chimney, then up over an awkward (5.7) chockstone onto the first decent ledge on the climb. The others soon joined me, glad to be out of the confines of the vertiginous chimney. It was in the bag now; we romped up the fifth and last lead, a 5.4 jam crack, to the top of the pinnacle.
There was enough comfortable room on top for all three of us - a bit of a surprise. We rested awhile, counting the inevitable tourists who stopped for a look, and waving to friends on the road. Then the descent; we untangled the ropes and made several long rappels down the chimney to the forests below. We coiled the ropes, sorted hardware, and walked slowly to the car, well pleased with our first ascent.
- Glenn Woodsworth
Brian continued from the chockstones, perhaps another 15 metres, with an awkward bit getting around a blockage onto loose stuff above. He belayed just below the proper top – a loose flake barred progress up the last five metres. I then had a desperate struggle to follow him up the chimney, pulling on whatever was available to get on the first chockstone. Despite my gasping, I was careful to avoid abusing the little cedar, but had a long rest before continuing to the top. Two long rappels led to cooling refreshments. Getting up had been a real challenge. Despite forty years’ worth of improvements to technique and equipment, the climb was probably no easier for us than on the first ascent. Both teams had a good struggle, and used some aid, though at different places.
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
Anders, it aint a rumor. check the section under "route cleaning". I'm afraid to report your cedar has had a bit of an accident since you were last there but fear not - the end was swift with little suffering. I'm afraid the "rope throw" or "hammer toss" has also gone the way of the dodo. These days the only throwing you're likely to see are heel hooks and full body dyno's while listening to rap on an IPod. I wouldn't know personally but this is what people tell me. The place has really gone to hell. However the selection of beers and pub food has vastly improved so I think it evens out.
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
I had a great adventure climbing it around 2004 or 2005. Your description of the route and the climbing on it was almost felt like reading a transcript of our day. I certainly didn't think it would be a route that would pique someone's cleaning energies, but we all get psyched on different stuff. Although a bit of the historical adventure feel of the route may be lost (which is what I feel Anders is lamenting), it will likely garner far more attention. If it's not popular enough to keep the moss away, we'll be able to get a pretty realistic experience again in about ten years. Either way, I'm looking forward to trying it out in it's new state this season.
Kris
Kris
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
I climbed this in July 1996 as part of an unsuccessful TWall attempt. I graded the left side as 5.8 A1 at the time, but don't remember what, why or where the aid was. I do remember the route being dark, dirty and kinda runout and really loving slinging those hallelulah chockstones. We rapped back down the route for some reason and might have upgraded the existing tat with some stylin' pink webbing. Looking forward to checking out the left side in its modern incarnation & thanks for the work. Todd
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
Well, I liked it as an adventure climb. Given that the route involves a stout offwidth/chimney, it was never going to attract many climbers. A bit of tidying is OK, but the rope throw, lassoing the chockstone and other shenanigans added to its spice. Hopefully whatever was done hasn't significantly altered the character of the climb.
More about tube chocks and such at:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum ... ube-Chocks
More about tube chocks and such at:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum ... ube-Chocks
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
I just can't help myself.... what exactly constitutes an "adventure climb"?
If it involves, bush, dirt and choss then its adventure days are over. OK, for you Anders I'll leave one or two loose blocks- but thats my final offer!
If it involves, bush, dirt and choss then its adventure days are over. OK, for you Anders I'll leave one or two loose blocks- but thats my final offer!
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
North Gully is an adventure climb (ok, a stiff hike). Lots of dirt, scree, loose rock, and it's never the same two times in a row. Good stuff! More of the same but "better" in the Touch and Go Towers across the river. Good adventure.BK: I just can't help myself.... what exactly constitutes an "adventure climb"? If it involves, bush, dirt and choss then its adventure days are over.
(Reminds me of when I applied for a summer job with a mining exploration company. The guy said "it's on the west coast of the Island, and it's really, really bushy." I said, "Great! I love bushwhacking!" I got the job, and the bush was indeed super-thick.)
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
Touch and go as in ... you touch, it goes?
Yum. North gully! my first squamish climb with my dad and brothers, with construction hardhats and dads old viking hawser laid rope from the war. Bush, dirt, chockstones, gravel and terrodacyls. I wish i had pictures of that. Nobody has to worry about anyone retro scrubbing that one!
Yum. North gully! my first squamish climb with my dad and brothers, with construction hardhats and dads old viking hawser laid rope from the war. Bush, dirt, chockstones, gravel and terrodacyls. I wish i had pictures of that. Nobody has to worry about anyone retro scrubbing that one!
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
Yup. A Culbert name, I believe.BK wrote:Touch and go as in ... you touch, it goes?
Do you recall what year that was? Just curious....BK wrote:Yum. North gully! my first squamish climb with my dad and brothers, with construction hardhats and dads old viking hawser laid rope from the war. Bush, dirt, chockstones, gravel and terrodacyls. I wish i had pictures of that. Nobody has to worry about anyone retro scrubbing that one!
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
A wild guess would be 1976. Was that you we saw stuck in the chimney?
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
Not me. (But my son had to bivouac high in the gully in the mid-1980s.}BK wrote:A wild guess would be 1976. Was that you we saw stuck in the chimney?
Sorry for the thread drift, Anders....
-
Anders Ourom
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
Well, not all climbs need to be clean, and convenient, and lacking mystery. Squamish has a rich history of adventure climbing, and it should be remembered. It's a bit like the generic 'sport' climbs, which are often forgettable. Several times at Skaha I've been in the middle of some climb, and suddenly realized I've done it before. A few climbs at Squamish should retain some of the adventure. North North Arete is an excellent example. YPLS was another, where it took some craft to do it - rope throw, varied climbing, stout squeeze, lassoing the chockstones, creative use of trees. It'll probably never be popular, although my WideFetish friends might demur, and certainly doesn't fit the modern mould of convenience climbing. A bit of cleaning, and thought about belay/rappel anchors, is one thing, but I'd have left it much as it was, unless there was good reason to do otherwise.
(Should the belay be at the stance below the stemming corner, i.e. about 12 m below where you put it? Then people could lead the corner, clip a single bolt, not have a factor 2 risk - not such a big deal on 10 mm bolts anyway - and get to the business?)
(Should the belay be at the stance below the stemming corner, i.e. about 12 m below where you put it? Then people could lead the corner, clip a single bolt, not have a factor 2 risk - not such a big deal on 10 mm bolts anyway - and get to the business?)
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
Like Anders, I'd probably prefer it if the climb had been left in its original state (but by all means fix the belays, raps). I'd also favour leaving the North North Arete as-is (but if someone wants to scrub the North North Gully, by all means be my guest).
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
What and where are the "Touch and Go Towers"?More of the same but "better" in the Touch and Go Towers across the river. Good adventure.
Re: Yosemite Pinnacle - Left Side
T&TGT are pretty much due west of downtown Squamish, across the river and south of Monmouth Creek. Definitely not granite; rotting volcanic rock eroded into half a dozen small pinnacles and towers, with plenty of moss and shrubery growing in the cracks. Take hard hats and watch for ticks!! Be prepared for bushy travel. Definitely and adventure.
By the way, the hardest of the towers (Teapot Tower) has seen only one ascent: 1958 by John Owen and Dick Culbert. Anti-gravity equipment is useful, if you have any such.
The best-known of the towers, The Castle, is class 4 on relatively good rock. I did it solo in the snow, once. When there's low clag hanging on the hillside, sometimes it gets behind The Castle and the tower really stands out from Squamish.
By the way, the hardest of the towers (Teapot Tower) has seen only one ascent: 1958 by John Owen and Dick Culbert. Anti-gravity equipment is useful, if you have any such.
The best-known of the towers, The Castle, is class 4 on relatively good rock. I did it solo in the snow, once. When there's low clag hanging on the hillside, sometimes it gets behind The Castle and the tower really stands out from Squamish.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests
