UKH

Ok never been to 8000m but topped out on aconcagua , the list of success on 8000m peaks these days is outstanding , and has it been destroyed by O2 at 8l a min as seems to be the new norm according to exploreresweb , if this is the case what does 8L a min reduce the equivalant height to ,oxygen satuaration ? my feelings are that 8000m peaks on the standard routes with fixed ropes high 02 and large sherpa support are now just for the tourists 

In reply to koolkat:

Incredibly fit and determined tourists with a single goal in mind to reach the summit despite the obvious dangers.

Sounds like my definition of a mountaineer to me.

In reply to koolkat:

I've been on Broad Peak and Manaslu in the last year attempting to climb unsupported (although using the fixed ropes) and without oxygen. Amongst other teams oxygen use from about 7000m was the norm, as were high numbers of porters or Sherpa Guides. Speaking to people who had climbed 8s with and without oxygen the consensus I heard was it feels like 2000m has been knocked off the mountain with the current flow rate. On Manaslu I think we were two teams not using oxygen. (There's also a problem with actually reaching the summit in Autumn, we were only there as Covid had cancelled the spring exped so not making it might have been a blessing).

I personally don't understand the point, but don't begrudge anyone else who wants to use it. I've seen the full spectrum of people being dragged down by their guide whilst on oxygen and people annoyingly full of energy burning past you as you trudge up.

 I've done Aconcagua multiple times and I tried to compare how the altitude felt as I've heard Argentinian mountaineers say Aconcagua is harder than the equivalent altitude in the Himalayas. You won't have carried more than a couple of litres of water and a camera above 5900m in the Andes whereas dragging everything up to a camp at 7000m is hideous. The snow in the bigger hills also seems to me to go from being too hard to too soft and is only just right for a magical 10 minute window throughout the day. I was definitely hypoxic for large chunks of that time as well.

 I'd recommend trying an 8000er, the Pakistan ones can be very reasonably priced still and it is excellent category 2 fun!

In reply to koolkat:

Really, 8lt a min? Normal high rate of O2 intake was 4lt a min. Times change but that must mean a higher volume of O2 cylinders required and consequently more to dispose of. ie. To carry down.

In reply to montyjohn:

A mountaineer with dubious ethics and the need to have the challenge brought down to their level with oxygen, ropes fixed by others and high altitude porters to carry their crap everywhere?

Sounds like my definition of a tourist to me.

In reply to tehmarks:

Why can we not just say that ascents of peaks with O2 are null and void? It's absolutely pathetic.

In reply to Removed User:

Different people with different abilities, goals and at different stages in their mountaineering progression want to enjoy mountaineering and it's not for purists to look down on others and take away from their achievements.

Because it's too arbitrary and it's not anybody's call to make.

What else should make a summit void? Diamox? Is that cheating?

What about insulation, crampons? Ok I'm being silly now, but you make the rules that work for you, let others decide what works for them.

In reply to Removed User:

It is doping how can this possibly be seen as legit, just a few years ago it was considered unethical to use bottled O2 on the 8000m peaks with maybe the exception of Everest, where will this end adventure tourists summiting Mont Blanc using supplementary oxygen.

In reply to montyjohn:

You may as well get a helicopter to the summit.

In reply to tehmarks:

OK, so what about a climber with the need to have the challenge brought down to their level by modern protection, chalk, top-rope practice, bolts.... Also a tourist?

Perhaps it's all just different "Games Climbers Play".  (as long as, I agree, all the "crap" is carried back down again - which is often not what happens).

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Wrong analogy, it is an entirely different game where there are no rules. You are being generous referring to them as climbers, social climbers would be  more apt.

In reply to Andy Clarke1965: How do you know?

Lot of self righteous ego masturbation in this thread

In reply to Andy Clarke1965:

It's nearly as bad as getting the tram or gondola part way up and staying in a hut. Thankfully you would never never stoop so low.

In reply to wbo2:

How do i know what, that using bottled O2 is cheating?

In reply to Andy Clarke1965:

I've seen people being short-roped with bottled oxygen on Aconcagua at around 6400m.

I also heard of people taking a helicopter to 4200m on Dufourspitze and just going up the last 400m themselves. Not sure if this was made up though.

In reply to Removed User:

So Hilary and Tensing, Scott and Haston on Everest, Lacedelli and Compagnoni on K2, ... ?

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

There's a solid argument for Messner and Habeler being the first 'true' ascentionists of Everest in my opinion.

In reply to montyjohn:

Climbing is a meaningless game which, paradoxically, means style is everything. If you use oxygen you've moved the summit lower, ergo you have not gained the 'true' summit.

In reply to koolkat:

only 1 comment that says 02 reduces the altitude by 2000m thats masive and at what flow rate , it use to be the norm for 2L a min flow rate but 8 L is the reported norm and started at a lower altitude , we cant belittle the pioneers scot haston etc for there achivements but todays crowd at 8L a min from some say 7000m they are not mountaineers they are the u tube influencers motavational spearkers list collectors at any cost , can any one with good knowledge give the altitude differance say at 8500m at 02 flow rate of 2L  a min , 4L a min and 8L a min , i grew up watching reading the 8000m trips of the 70s and 80s a different game altogether 

In reply to koolkat:

 This is very subjective, but I heard it from a couple of Western guides who climb 8000ers without O2 in their private climbing but use a high flow rate when they are guiding in the Himalayas.

 I imagine it is quite subjective how it makes you feel relative to altitudes and one of the main advantages is being able to stay warm. Saying that I had a relatively comfortable night sleeping at 7400m with no O2 and 6 hours of uninterrupted sleep and never felt cold.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Oh come off it. It's not about the equipment and it's not about modern protection making things safer. It's about the complete delegation of responsibility for even the fundamentals to other people by people who often very obviously do not have the skills or experience to operate in the environment.

I always thought that one of the basic tenets underlying all of the games that climbers play is self-reliance and responsibility within the team. If you can barely use crampons or an axe, and need the security of a fixed rope to move up a moderate snow slope, and you need someone else to carry your kit up the hill, are you really a mountaineer? If you've been led up routes by an experienced friend or an instructor, but you don't know how to tie in and don't want to learn anything about the system, are you really a climber?

In reply to koolkat:

I seriously doubt whether many people are actually on 8L a minute. That's just 2.5 hours of 02 from a 4L cylinder. In theory you'd need fewer cylinders if you're moving faster with a higher flow rate, but given the queues on Everest (queues caused by more Sherpas carrying more and more oxygen?) is that actually going to happen?

Sounds like 'window-dressing' to me.

Using bottled oxygen on the lower 8000ers has become the norm, but not everyone wants it. We have a small team on GII at the moment with 4 climbers, only one of whom has opted to use oxygen. But then there are operators on Aconcagua now who are offering oxygen.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

this was reported by explorers web and some operators are offering the flow rate , out of interest what are your guys who use using what flow rate , iam just interested as i think the high flow rates huge sherpa support and fixed ropes has killed off 8000m standard routes , never having been there iam not qualified to judge but if people are using 02 on aconcagua it does bring it into my realm of experaince , i see videos of people with 02 on 8000m peaks and i was not moving that easy on summit day on aconcagua , 

In reply to koolkat:

3L a minute on summit day for Everest was fairly standard (3 x 4L cylinders, with 2 spares being carried by your Sherpa = 20 hours). We now plan on spending a full 24 hours on the S Col (meaning you can leave very early in the evening of the next day), so provide more Sherpa support to put that in place. If you have a couple of Sherpas waiting on the S Col they can also bring up some more cylinders if someone has been put on 4L a minute. But we don't plan to have e.g. 2 Sherpas for every team member.

In reply to Removed User:

Or walk in from sea level?

You could apply this to other sports, sailing for example... but who cares as long as the individual isn't increasing the risk to others around them, or those supporting them ie. Sherpas 

In reply to tehmarks:

OK, I'll bite.

Don't sport climbers also delegate responsibility for protecting the route (which is surely a fundamental aspect of climbing) to the person who puts in the bolts? Do they have the skills and experience to operate in the environment using just gear they place themselves on the ascent?

I'm not slagging off sport climbing - I do some. I'm just not sure there's a qualitative difference here. I accept, of course, that what goes on on 8000m peaks is an extreme example, but the environment is also extreme. Both are about about setting the challenge at a level which is reasonably accessible, and acceptably safe, while still being challenging.

The argument often given for retrobolting routes is "look at the large number of people who are now climbing/enjoying them". But the large number of people who are now climbing 8000m peaks is not lauded in the same way.

I think Lito Tejada Flores had it about right, but probably not many around now have read his "Games Climbers Play". 1968 I think - highly praised at the time, and pretty timeless. I have a copy somewhere.

Martin

In reply to ExiledScot:

Your example of walking in from sea level is pretty disingenuous considering that the 'challenge' starts higher up the mountain. By using oxygen you are (literally) lowering the challenge.

How about the example of the ban on guiding on El Cap? That has undoubtedly kept that 'crag' from being over run by idiots and wannabe motivational speakers by ensuring those (or the majority anyway) on the wall have attained the required skill set be on there.

Banning O2, or maybe making clear that you are not going on the record book if you are using it, on 8000m peaks would instantly solve the problem of carnage, pollution and mountains full of dangerous idiots who have no place being up there in the first place.

In reply to Removed User:

I'm not really disagreeing with you, just being childishly sarcastic, sorry. Most outdoor pursuits would be better if folk did more things under their own steam, be it o2 on everest, or wild camping 10m from the car boot on a mountain pass. The problem is ethical achievements would carry greater kudos, thus encouraging people to bend the rules or ethics to achieve the same online kudos.

If someone said they climbed everest last month 99% of population would have no clue if it was with o2, guides, supported, or which route... they'd apply the same kudos to the individual, I can't see companies enforcing rules as they'd reduce their client list. 

In reply to koolkat:

To my mind using oxygen for climbing is the equivalent of taking performance enhancing drugs. In all professional sport drug taking is illegal as it completely alters the abilities of individuals and skews the element of performance and therefore fair competition. And of course big money is involved. I realise that mountaineering is an amateur sport and therefore the effects of drug taking do not have the same monetary effect, but I believe there is a parallel in the ethics involved. So using supplemental oxygen is cheating for the purists in mountaineering, but an essential for the limited ability, but rich bucket list tickers and to them the kudos is in the wider bullshit world and not mountaineering, but it is a vital industry in Nepal.

In reply to Removed User:

Do you have any information on that? I'm not aware of an el cap guiding ban, but at the same time I don't recall there being any guided parties on big walls when I was in Yosemite and I haven't heard anything about crowds due to guided parties.

On topic, I can see where you're coming from with banning O2, I'm sure it would reduce the number of 'tourists' (for want of a better word). However, I can't see it happening, 'tourists' are very important for the local economy, so I don't think they'd want to reduce that.

In reply to koolkat:

Wasn't it always the case that subsequent ascents of any route/peak should be done in equal or better style than the first ascensionist/s? If not; everyone just tutted into their beer... That should sort a few out.

Mind you - my own personal ethics wouldn't mean I'd climb certain winter routes using fire-place tools! 

In reply to tehmarks:

Possibly not, but that's a different argument.  Using oxygen to cope with altitude is quite separate from having mountaineering skills. Of course there are some, probably mainly on Everest, who are as you describe, but there are also others (even on Everest) who have considerable experience and don't rely on others to nursemaid them, but nevertheless choose to use oxygen to ensure a successful ascent.  Unless someone is trying to claim a notable ascent, whether they choose to use it is entirely a matter of personal style and really no one else's business.

In reply to Philb1950:

I can't think of many people more purist in their mountaineering credentials than Doug Scott. He used oxygen on Everest. 

To my mind, the bigger problem with current mass ascents of 8000m mountains is the provision of fixed ropes. It now seems commonplace to have ropes airlifted as high as possible and to have fixed ropes for the entire route. This seems to me to be a total abandonment of any notion of self-reliance. 

I was somewhat bemused recently watching a documentary about the 2008 deaths on K2, in which a number of climbers who would, I am sure, have considered themselves to be experienced Alpine and Himalayan mountaineers, complain about mistakes with the fixed ropes above Camp 4. I did strike me that their credentials as mountaineers were somewhat tarnished if they were so reliant on fixed ropes. 

In reply to koolkat: 

Leisure travel is tourism. That does not change if you throw in some golf or mountaineering.

Or is it one of those irregular nouns?

I am a mountaineer.

You are a traveller.

She/he is a tourist.

Etc

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Scott and Haston used O2 in 1975, SW face; Messner and Habeler made the first O2less ascent in 1978 and arguably rewrote the rules of the game. 

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Hi Tom,

Is there any crossover from other endurance sports here that use PEDs such as EPO (illegally of course)

Rather than get others to carry oxygen cylinders up the hill for you, would doping with EPO prior to you hitting the climb be helpful? Would save on logistics/personnel.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I knew Doug well and in 1975 no 8000m mountain had been climbed sans oxygen, but Messner overturned convention and proved that 8000m could be climbed clean. A parallel in rock climbing is the elimination of aid on climbs being lauded. Doug never used oxygen again.

In reply to Philb1950:

Wasn't Annurpurna in 1950 without bottled O2? 

In reply to Philb1950:

I don't know if I agree with you but I don't see your viewpoint as unreasonable. In such circumstances O2 is a performance enhancer. 

Diamox was mentioned earlier. Taken prophylactically prior to an expedition it's a PED. It would be frowned on but a course of erythropoietin prior to expeditions would do wonders for performance too. A quick Google showed some studies done into this, I wonder if anyone does this. I don't imagine they'd shout about it if they do.

I don't really care what people do, it's their ascent. As long as they're happy to say what they used and be judged accordingly by those who care to judge is of no matter to me.

I do view Messner and Habeler's O2-free ascent of Everest to be the pinnacle in my eyes. But the ascents of the 8000ers by those using O2 are still great achievements.

In reply to Wimlands:

You posted this was I was typing similar. Interested to hear the response and other's opinions.

In reply to nathan79:

Just strikes me that it save a lot of problems with lugging untold bottles of oxygen up the mountain...suspect it really isn’t simple though. In the early days of EPO people were dying because their blood was too “thick” and no doubt altitude may impact this.

In reply to nathan79:

I take your point about Diamox, because in 1986 on K2 on my first visit to the Himalayas I refused to take it and struggled like hell, like a fish out of water. Aid Burgess my climbing partner strongly believed in Diamox and went like a train. Later on I did manage to reach our high point on the N W ridge and the shoulder on the Abruzzi, so round about 8000m. My conclusion was I hated snow plodding and was more suited to and enjoyed alpine big walls.

In reply to koolkat:

The comments about O2 and various drugs being performance enhancing are interesting, and I have sympathy with this viewpoint. 

However, mountaineering is not a competitive sport. No rules are broken - O2 users merely receive scorn from many armchair observers and a relatively small number of activist purists.

A key point for me, is that O2 reduces the chance of death - which something I like to consider every time I go climbing!

I don't play the high altitude game, but don't feel I can criticise those that would like to make their game safer.

What I do object strongly to, is the incompetents who cannot even climb, and so risk the lives of their Sherpas and support. 

In reply to Dan Arkle: My view entirely. I’m planning for Everest next May at age 65 years and will be using a lot, a lot, of O2. I’d like to summit and get home safely. If asked, I’ll say yes I summited, using supplementary oxygen. 

In reply to andrewm1000:

Amazing, it would be great to have a write up of some of the details afterwards. Good luck.

In reply to andrewm1000:

Hopefully no one will ask. Make sure you tell everyone at your WI slideshow that it was first done without O2 in 1978.

In reply to koolkat:

I hate the term "just for tourists". We're all tourists.

In reply to Fellover:

AFAIK guiding has never been banned on El Cap, but like in other US national parks only guides working for a company with a license from the park authorities can work in yosemite.

Anecdotally a reasonable amount of under cover guiding has happened on el cap over the years as well as the licensed local pros...

In reply to Removed User:

I doubt the local WI would care. The issue of oxygen assisted ascents is of interest to no-one but a very small group of people, many of whom I suspect have never been to 8000m. 

In reply to Will_Thomas_Harris:

Yeah, that's in line with what I thought, thanks.

Yes e.g. Tommy Caldwell has a bit in his autobiography about being paid to climb the nose in a day with someone (a good climber in their own right tbf), but says it's definitely not guiding!

It is interesting that it's not overrun with guided parties though.

In reply to koolkat:

ok not tourists for those that dont like the word maybe not competant 8000m mountaineers would be more appropriate , and yes never been to 8000m but iam sure iam not the only 1 that sees the current trend going against the ethos of mountaineering , this debate however is not about that , iam still curious about what 2L 4L and 8L amin brings the equivalent altitude down to , i understand the prestige in climbing everest , but for myself would rather climb a lower mountain without 02 , money aside   

In reply to Removed User:

Yet they would not have made it but for the achievements of those who went before them, and everyone involved in the science and logistics that made those first ascents possible.

In reply to montyjohn:

Fixed lines meh!!!!

In reply to koolkat:

Guiding less competent and experienced mountaineers up mountains has been part of the ethos for a very long time.  First ascent of Matterhorn was guided etc.

Plus how many “competent 8000m mountaineers” have successfully climbed 8000m peaks without Sherpa or porter help?

In reply to Currently Resting:

in the not too distant past a group of mates decided they wanted to try 8000m peaks so they got together and formed a plan just them and sherpa support they then went and tried it , does that happen now with the guiding and rope fixing and plenty of 02 supplied , ive never said that sherpa support hasnt allways been there but there are a few who have succeeded without 

In reply to koolkat:

My point is that it’s not a current trend, or against any ethos, it’s always been thus, and always will.

In reply to Currently Resting:

mass fixed ropes Heavy sherpa support 1to 1 or more high 02 intake and low down are all new trends 

In reply to koolkat:

Swiss 1952 Everest: 9 climbers, 14 high altitude Sherpas 

British 1953 Everest: 12 climbers, 28 high altitude Sherpas 

Seems at 1:1 that the ratio has come down.

In reply to Currently Resting:

really and how many sherpas do jagged globe take for the ratio of climbers , iam sure your aware iam talking about summit day when the ratio of sherpa to climber is higher and sherpas carrying 02 for summit climbers , but a good point about both the 1952 and 1953 trips as i dont think that there was fixed ropes to the summit on either and they started to use 02 and less of it higher , , woudnt it be nice if all summit climbers emulated both of those trips  

In reply to koolkat:

Well that would have been a bit awkward, as whomever fixed the ropes to the summit, by definition would have claimed the first ascent.