As a followup to that post, it occurred to me that a better accomplishment woulkd be the first person to summit a mountain no one had summited before. So I looked it up; the tallent unclimbed mountain is probably Gangkar Puensum, which is in the Himalayas, of course. (“Probably” because not every mountain is all that reliably measured.) It’s substantially shorter than the real monsters and the peak is below the Death Zone, but it’s actually illegal to attempt it, so no one does.
Amusingly, the first line of the Wikipedia article about it reads:
" An unclimbed mountain is a mountain peak that has yet to be climbed to the top."
In the video clip, the two ropes with one empty reminds me of the situation where two lanes on a highway are merging half a mile ahead for roadworks, and everyone has merged way too early into one lane. Then one guy says: fuck this, I’m going to use the empty lane up until the merge point, as recommended on the signs for optimal traffic flow. But then everyone who merged way too early goes into fits of righteous anger that someone is getting ahead of them. Nobody on the full rope is going to leave a gap for that guy to merge up ahead.
My preferred strategy is to wait for somebody else to go and be the second or third one using the empty lane up to the merge point as you are supposed to.
People in that line don’t look like they’re “conquering” shit. It’s become not much more than a queue for a ride at Disneyland, with the added urgency of running out of oxygen and becoming a cairn.
Hesitate to even post this question, but honestly really truly how difficult is it? The biggest hurdle seems to be oxygen. The video above looks like 2-3 steps, stop to rest, continue.
I’m not saying it isn’t hard, but I’m curious to have it compared to other more readily graspable endeavors.
Have you ever climbed a peak at lower elevation? Try summiting any 10,000 ft peak in the lower 48 - some of them have very steep slopes without ice or need of oxygen bottles. It’s pretty tough, I am sure.
It’s obviously steep and exposed in places, but all reports say there is really no significant technical climbing at all when the fixed ropes are in place. The biggest challenge is whether your cardiovascular system can cope. You need to be very fit, but there’s a significant innate component to whether your body copes well with high altitude that is independent of acclimatization or fitness training. You see a similar thing on a smaller scale in the far more modest places I’ve been like the Sierra Nevada - some people just don’t do well with high elevation even if they are very fit.
I said that I’m sure it’s difficult. However, the two limiting factors to success being 1) money to attempt in the first place and 2) carrying enough oxygen, I feel that must somewhat skew the perception vs. actual difficulty.
Yes but if it’s a difficult challenge someone wants they can always row across the Pacific Ocean in a canoe. A good water filter and a fishing pole and off you go.
I summited Mt. Whitney. There’s an actual hiking trail and all, but the altitude got to me. It was probably the fittest I’d ever been, but I barfed my way to the summit after crossing over to the Western face. Just walking at altitude can be a struggle.
The ratio of people who died vs those who tried to summit is much lower. The 5% number is those who died vs those who did summit. The number who tried to summit and failed (but didn’t die) is much higher.
And it’s interesting to see that the average age of those summiting has risen. Thanks for the data @Riemann and @Dorjan . I wonder if those stats include Sherpas?
Can someone help situate that video? There’s obviously a base camp at the bottom of the line; how far is the summit from there?
Also, besides oxygen, what else are they typically packing on their backs? I was under the impression that this is a final push to the summit and that at this point they would only be wearing what they need, except for oxygen.
I also wonder if scenes like this make it appear safer and more banal (if that makes sense), like a line-up for a ski lift or something.
I separated out Nepali nationality (almost all Sherpa) from all other nationalities.
NEPAL
decade
summits
mean age
deaths
mean age
1973-82
21
26.5
9
28.2
1983-92
90
30.1
15
32.9
1993-02
479
30.8
12
29.5
2003-12
2273
31.7
13
38.9*
2013-22
2782
33.4
39
35.6
(*35.4 excluding an 81-year-old)
ALL OTHER NATIONALITIES
decade
summits
mean age
deaths
mean age
1973-82
83
32.3
14
34.6
1983-92
257
33.7
35
34.5
1993-02
690
37.1
44
39.1
2003-12
2315
38.3
45
43.4
2013-22
2144
39.8
31
45.3
The most notable thing is the sharp rise in deaths among Nepalis in the last decade, while the death rate among other nationalities (presumably mostly paying clients) has fallen.
Yeah, my rebuttal to the actual figure of about 1% was back in post #86. A personal rebuttal, but heartfelt . There is literally nothing I would knowingly attempt with a 1% fatality rate (I do have to account here for unknowing stupidity). That’s some down right courting of Natural Selection.
I’m afraid my private reaction to someone discussing their conquest of Everest at a party would probably be mild disdain of their vainglory. I would charitably keep my bad opinion to myself and hey, most folks who summit Everest are probably awesome people overall. But for me that’s at least one negative check mark on the old life resume.
For me, it would depend entirely on the value of the achievement, both subjectively to me and historically. I certainly wouldn’t climb Everest now with a 1% probability of death, but if it were 1950 and I had the skills, I’d risk a 20% probability of death to be the first.
In the era before the world was fully explored - going off to discover and explore an entire new continent with a 50% chance of not coming back? Sure, why not. Better than staying home and dying from a tooth abscess.
. There is literally nothing I would knowingly attempt with a 1% fatality rate (I do have to account here for unknowing stupidity). That’s some down right courting of Natural Selection.