Now that I have your attention, of course I know it is hard.
What I mean is, if not for the altitude and the low temperatures, is there anything particularly challenging about the terrain that makes it difficult? If the same topography as the top of Everest existed at say 5,000 ft somewhere, would virtually any weekend hiker be able to do it?
The terrain is not particularly difficult. There is one small section (the Hillary Step) that requires a bit of technical skills, but nothing exceptional. “Weekend hiker” might be a bit of a stretch, but certainly a casual climber could manage. As you note, it’s the elevation and weather that makes it challenging.
I should also note, there are some sections like the Khumbu icefall that are very dangerous but not necessarily difficult to traverse. The danger is from falling or shifting ice, not because it takes great skill.
From the books that I’ve read, I’d echo TroutMan. Most all problems/deaths are from carelessness and fatigue, or from an avalanche. For a real climbing challenge, K2 makes Everest seem simple.
Somewhat off-topic but I just watched ‘Meru’. Its documentary about multiple attempts to summit a 21K’ mountain in the Himalayas for the first time. Now THAT’S some climbing.
People have died trying. Enough info for me not to give it a go.
Apparently the frozen dead bodies lie scattered around the popular routes to the summit. I guess that only adds to the thrill of the brave mountaneers passing by…
OK. So given the extra oxygen that they nearly all use nowadays, it isn’t really that hard? (Except for the additional weidht of the oxygen, and the cold temps.)
Also quite expensive, because the country & guides charge a lot.
Breathing supplemental oxygen does not compensate for the high altitude effects. It can mitigate them somewhat, but climbers are still susceptible to all sorts of altitude-related problems even when on oxygen.
This. I think they only use enough supplemental oxygen to enable them to just barely get through their day - not nearly enough to make it like a stroll down the Atlantic City boardwalk.
I think it’s not just cost, but also the fact that you personally can only carry so much oxygen when you leave a camp, and whatever you carry has to last until you get to the next camp.
OK. So given the extra oxygen that they nearly all use nowadays, it isn’t really that hard? (Except for the additional weidht of the oxygen, and the cold temps.)
Also quite expensive, because the country & guides charge a lot.[/Qquote]
The supplemental oxygen is still inadequate. I’ve never been, but from reading accounts of it the climbers are extremely fatigued and left gasping for breath even at a modest hiking pace. They describe a sensation wherein every step requires Herculean effort, where they lose the ability to make rational decisions, and people still sometimes die of altitude sickness. And that’s WITH supplemental oxygen.
Consider that 270+ people have died up there, and the last year with zero fatalities was 1977! So, yeah, it does not take as much technical skill as other mountains, but it is still really damn hard.
Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster by Jon Krakauer is an excellent read. He suggests that descending from the summit is harder than the ascent! You’re exhausted; the adrenalin rush from the prestigious summitting has played out; oxygen bottles may be depleted. Descent is especially difficult if there’s a blinding snow storm and you lose your way.
Yes, it’s still quite hard. The climbing from the standard Nepal route isn’t very technical but there are challenges and objective dangers. You’re climbing on fixed lines across rickety metal ladders used to bridge crevasses, steep and rocky sections, and terrific winds and temps. The Icefalls are a complete crap shoot, danger all around and not much you can do about except hike early in the day.
Supplemental oxygen is heavy, limited, and will only provide partial relief to altitude. Friends who have climb Everest say it was the hardest thing they have ever done.