UKH

Can anyone recommend which one would be the better one to do given you'd only have time/opportunity to do one of those routes. Philip-Flamm seems more historic, slightly harder, gnarlier with slightly less good rock; the Andrich-Fae slightly easier with better rock, but less 'gnarl-factor'. What do you think? Both sound good obviously.

In reply to Heike: ok, take this as the spew banter that it is, given I have not done either route. However I've dwelled on those routes, so basically: do the Philip Flamm if you want the full experience, conditions are good and if you are up to the task; do the Aste-Susati if the PF seems too much for whatever reason. Aste apparently gets dry quickly after rain, where as chimneys up high in the PF become a probelem if wet.
A climber named "Albi" (user name) posted photos from each route on Summitpost. He said PF was way harder, and you need to be fast with a long day. To me the PF is more prestigous.

In reply to rdharlan:
Cheers, I have just checked and the Aste Susasti is 'only' 14 pitches whereas the other two are 23 or 28 pitches respectively. So, I think it's got to be one or the other of the long ones. Not that I am sizist or anything.

Anyone else done any / both of them?

In reply to Heike:
Another bump for this thread...surely there's got to be somebody who has done one of those routes....?

In reply to Heike:
which topo do you have? looks like the Andrich and Aste are closely parallel and identical in length from photos of the wall.

In reply to rdharlan:
AC guide. Anyways, seems the Aste is 600 metres and the Andrich Fae 650m if named climbing. But that still doesn't tell me anything about my original question....

In reply to Heike:
check out this link. You could probably email the guy for more beta, he has done both routes.

http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=209890&type=vote_co...