From: AWaddington@acorn.co.uk (Andy Waddington)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: Europe bound => The Matterhorn
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:59:04 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

Quang-Tuan Luong writes in response to my posting:

>
>If you are a good telemark skier, you can go almost on each place alpine
>skiers go, except perhaps some very (> 45 deg) steep slopes. The Valais
>is a very good place for telemark skiing, because the slopes are generally
>moderately steep, and are large. The "High Level Route", or Monte Rosa are
>fine, for instance.
>
I agree - but most European (apart from Scandinavia) skiers are much better
at alpine skiing than telemark, even if they do the latter at all. Hence
they will prefer the easier angles of the Vanoise, the Pyrenees etc. I know
Telemarking is much more the done thing in the USA (at least partly because
most US mountain ranges are less steep than the alps, and telemarking is
good in the colder snow you get in the Rockies). I have just been being
taught telemarking in Norway, but I don't think I'd have the confidence to
tackle the High Level Route on Hippy sticks yet :-)

Andy>The guidebook time for the Hoernli is 4.5 - 5 hours, we took ten hours,
>> as we weren't acclimatised. 
>
>I have always found the timings of the Swiss guidebook to be very short.
>
I was actually quoting times from the English guidebook. Friends who were
acclimatised did the route in 4 hours on the same day. In general I seem
to have no trouble with the guidebook times when acclimatised and climbing
technically easy stuff (well inside guide times on snow plods), but can't
get near the times once roped-up moving together is involved - this is no
doubt a function of inexperience at this form of movement in the UK.

Andy> Then for maximum acclimatisation with minimum effort,
>
>Hmm ?
>
Andy>... take the first Klein Matterhorn cable car (to 3800m) of the morning
>> and saunter up the Breithorn (4164m)
>
>I don't think it helps a lot. In my experience, acclimatisation is
>proportional to the time you stay at altitude. It takes a couple of hours
>to get to the Breithorn, which has the reputation of being the easiest
>4000 in the Alps.

>That's not enough. Even doing Mont-Blanc-du-Tacul from Chamonix to
>acclimatise for Mont-Blanc seems useless to me.

Yes, it only takes an hour or two to climb the Breithorn, (that was the
minimum effort part), but you can stay at that altitude all morning, or
even all day if you cable car back down. You can always play at crevasse
rescue or practice ice-axe arrests to pass the time. Spending all day above
3000m and then sleeping lower (Zermatt is about 2000m I think ?) is quite
beneficial. I know at least one alpine mountaineer who acclimatises by
carrying a rucksack of beer to some high refuge, then sits all day drinking
it before returning to the valley in the evening. You no doubt gain more
benefit from an overnight at a hut, but I only use huts when I need an
early start, 'cos they're so hot and stuffy (and expensive :-).

>
Andy> There are a vast number of almost deserted and very fine mountains in
>> the Maritime Alps, up to about 3500m. These, of course, are much nearer
>> to Nice. There is very fine ski-mountaineering (the French 1:25 000 and
>> 1:50 000 maps show ski-routes) here, although mid-May is getting a little
>> late this far south.
>
>They are very fine for ski-mountaineering, but the alpine interest seems
>low to me, especially in comparison with the higher Alps. As for ski, last
>year, some of my friends have skied in the Maritime Alps at the end of May,
>and they reported good conditions.
>
Yes, I agree they are really only of interest for ski-mountaineers. I am
pleased to hear there were good conditions at the end of May last year -
the snowy period in the Alps seems to be slipping later recently - which
is useful for ski-mountaineers, as it means you can go later, with more
daylight available.

>Tuan.

Andy