Ojos Del Salado partner needed

[Scott P]

Here is the quote from the report you asked about: "By Washington State standards, this was probably a YDS 3.5." And furthermore, "they had climbed both peaks without rope." http://www.summitpost.org/peakbagging-s ... ina/702506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gimpilator is a good guy. I'm not sure what he means by "YDS 3.5". I have never heard of such a rating. It is possible that he inverted it and meant 5.3, but In Washington, some climbs rated old class 3 and 4 and technical. I'll ask him what he meant. Either way, I'd plan on using a rope. Some may have done it without one, but most people don't.

Here's also where the info on the two summits was found: "From the notch, one could continue to follow fixed lines to the right and climb the highest summit which is nicknamed the "Chilean summit". The "Argentinean summit" could also be climbed, but as a secondary, lower point, it had no fixed lines and was rumored to be more difficult."

He was definitely mistaken as to which summit was more difficult.

How much other info does that book have?

On Ojos, not much. The book covers the entire Andes. It is a great book, but doesn't have that much detail on each individual peak because of all the territory covered. Still, I have found the book to be extremely useful (I have climbed dozens of peaks in the Andes) and the information adequate.

Is it worth buying if I'm only going to do Ojos?

No, but almost no one just climbs just Ojos, unless they do it from the Argentine side. For most people, it is at least a two week (or more trip) to climb that high.

If you climb just Ojos you are going to be sitting around most of the time waiting to acclimatize. Most people climb other peaks in the region in order to acclimatize.

On Aconcagua, most people acclimatize on the approach and by hauling loads between camps. On Ojos there are only two camps (at least from the Chile side) and both are connected by a rough and dusty 4x4 road (though we walked from ~16,000 feet). Since you drive so much higher on the mountain, you don't acclimatize on the approach or by hauling load on other camps. You could do that, and walk from a lower elevation, but that doesn't seem pleasant doing it on a dusty 4wd road with almost no water available. Usually people acclimatize by climbing lower peaks in the area and then go for Ojos in a few days.

Out of curiosity, if you are doing "just Ojos", at least from the Chile side, how do you plan to acclimatize?

If it's true that the left summit is easier and only 1.7 feet shorter (according to summitpost.com) and that either is considered acceptable, I'd probably just do that to be safe.

If you want to do the Argentine summit, I'd recommend looking into doing it from the Argentine side, especially if you want to climb just Ojos. That approach is longer, more scenic, the route is easier (but much longer), there is more water, and the climb less technical. If I ever went back to Ojos, I'd do it from there. It is unlikely that I would go back though. Other mountains in the Andes are far more scenic and pleasant. Although Chile is overall a very clean country, the huts and the area around them is very dirty as well.

[spiderman]

My brother had attempted Ojos Del Salado a long time ago. The acclimization part was more difficult than normal because you drive up to such a high initial starting point. You don't get the standard amount of time to slowly adjust by a long approach on foot. It also didn't help that most of the team got food poisoning just before starting the expedition. He turned around about 2000' below the peak because it was turning into absolute agony to proceed further. Several people had severe altitude problems, with a person in another team almost dying from HAPE. All of the reports that I have read call the crux low-5th class. That probably is equal to some 3rd and 4th-Class rated stuff in California. It should be one of the easier Big peaks if you come in acclimated and are comfortable on easy rock climbs. I would love to do it if I had the time and money.

[mikefromcraig]

Scott P.,

Man, I'm having such a hard time getting good info on the route on the Chile side I don't know if I want to do it from the Argentinian side where there's even less info available. After all I've read I still don't know how much distance is between the different camps. I really just want to go higher than I've ever been before (and probably higher than I ever will go in my life) so I'm not concerned about the scenery. Plus, the hot spring baths on the way up the Chile side could be nice.

People who do it from the Argentinian side, do they still fly into Copiapo and then drive across the border to start?

Also, you mentioned there was only two camps. I had written down 4:

Laguna Verde 4,400m
Refugio Claudio Lucero 4,540m
Atacama or Rojas 5,200m
Refugio Tejos 5,800m

I read that it's about 3 hours (at a slow pace) from Atacama to Refugio. Do you know the mileage between any of the others?

My acclimatization strategy is to spend a week sleeping at 10,000' before I leave, get to 14,500' Laguna Verde camp as soon as I can, do day hikes up to 17,000' a couple times, then either A) drive to 17,000' in the morning to start summit day or B) go to 17,000' the night before then summit the next day. This is of course contingent on me learning what the distances are between the camps but this would be ideal.

I've read the guided itineraries and they just seam idiotic. They've got you sleeping at 19,000' the night before summit day! So you aren't going to get good sleep the night you need it the most, you are going to start summit day not only tired, but your body is already going to be in a pre-deteriorated state from the altitude and then you are going to make it worse by going higher.

[Scott P]

Man, I'm having such a hard time getting good info on the route on the Chile

Which info do you need? People here can provide any info you need.

People who do it from the Argentinian side, do they still fly into Copiapo and then drive across the border to start?

No. You never set foot in Chile, except for right at the summit. You start from the Fiambala area to do that.

Also, you mentioned there was only two camps. I had written down 4:

Laguna Verde 4,400m
Refugio Claudio Lucero 4,540m
Atacama or Rojas 5,200m
Refugio Tejos 5,800m

Laguna Verde and Refugio Lucero aren't on the mountain. They are stopovers on the road on the way to the mountain and ~20-30 miles from the trailhead.

I would highly recommend buying this map:

https://www.amazon.com/Nevado-Ojos-Del- ... salado+map" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read that it's about 3 hours (at a slow pace) from Atacama to Refugio. Do you know the mileage between any of the others?

No, but it would be a long way on the road to walk from Laguna Verde to the Refugio Atacama. Looking at the map, I'd guess 30 miles by road, all without water and very dusty.

My acclimatization strategy is to spend a week sleeping at 10,000' before I leave, get to 14,500' Laguna Verde camp as soon as I can, do day hikes up to 17,000' a couple times, then either

Most people do day hikes around the lake and up to Mulas Mertas:

http://www.summitpost.org/cerro-mulas-muertas/968191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A) drive to 17,000' in the morning to start summit day or B) go to 17,000' the night before then summit the next day. This is of course contingent on me learning what the distances are between the camps but this would be ideal.

Laguna Verde to Refugio Atacama might be about 30 miles, but it sounds like you would be driving it, not walking it. Atacama to Tejos is probably 2-3 miles, but mileage doesn't matter that much at altitude.

I've read the guided itineraries and they just seam idiotic. They've got you sleeping at 19,000' the night before summit day!

Almost everyone starts that high because of the length of the day. Even starting at 19,150 feet, the summit day is 9-16 hours. If you start at 17K, add 4 hours to this (round trip). You may plan to sleep at 17K and drive to 19K early in the morning, but the road is often not drivable and even when it is, only by hard core 4wd's. Not very many people are able to summit from 17K. You would have to be incredibly strong and acclimatized to do so. A few hikes to 17K just isn't going to do it.

you are going to start summit day not only tired, but your body is already going to be in a pre-deteriorated state from the altitude and then you are going to make it worse by going higher.

Such is life on high altitude climbs. Ojos del Salado only has a 15% success rate.

PS, if you want desert mountains, at least look into the area around Arequipa and the Colca Canyon Peru. There are still mountains above 20,000 feet and it is more scenic, has more wildlife, is more interesting, easier to get to, less crowded, and much cheaper.

[mikefromcraig]

Scott P.,

Just ordered the map!

So people who do it from the Argentinian side, where do they fly into?

I'm not a world-class athlete but on a good day I do pretty well. On Orizaba I passed 14 people on the ascent and was passed by no one.

This is just preference but from what I've seen and from reading lots of trip reports, I think people go too high the night before summit day. They erroneously believe that "sleeping" (little sleep is actually had) that high will help them acclimatize. But it doesn't. You don't acclimatize to 19,000 you just break down your body. Yes, if you then go back down you can benefit from being at 19,000 but that's not what these people are doing.

I would much rather, say, hike 20 miles well rested and healthy than hike 15 miles on 2 hours sleep in an already deteriorated state.

If you think about it, hiking easy terrain at a slow pace is not that much more strenuous than tossing and turning and violently coughing. If you are going to get basically no sleep either way, you might as well be doing the former over the latter.

I just checked and you can get an economy rental car from Copiapo for two weeks for just $250. That's probably cheaper than hiring a driver both ways. Plus then you'd have a car to lock your stuff in.

Thanks for all the help!

[Scott P]

So people who do it from the Argentinian side, where do they fly into?

Catamaraca or La Rioja. It's probably more expensive to fly there than Copiapo.

On Orizaba I passed 14 people on the ascent and was passed by no one.

That isn't necessarily a good thing at 22,000 feet. Use caution.

I just checked and you can get an economy rental car from Copiapo for two weeks for just $250. That's probably cheaper than hiring a driver both ways. Plus then you'd have a car to lock your stuff in.

You really need to rent a Hilux if you want to get close to Ojos. An economy car might get you to Laguna Verde, but it won't get you any farther than the main road. Also, Copiapo to the Ojos area is 190 miles each way with no fuel or supply stops along the way. That doesn't include driving back and forth to various places either. Most people headed out there (actually all smart people) take an extra 20 gallons of fuel in fuel jugs. I wouldn't want to carry all that in an economy car.

Also, if you rent a 4x4, don't even consider something like a stock F-150 or something. This is not enough to negotiate the roads. I wouldn't get a diesel either. They tend to have problems driving at those elevations.

I really wouldn't recommend taking anything but a Hilux (Hilux is the only vehicles we saw on the mountain-someone tried to take a Mitsubishi L200, but it didn't make it).

A Hilux rental that is capable and allowed to go off road usually cost somewhere in the $200 per day from Copiapo.

The road to Ojos is much rougher than say the road high on Antero.

[mikefromcraig]

I KEEP GETTING SO MANY CONFLICTING TRIP REPORTS!!!

I just read this one about the Chile side summit: "I decided to climb the route without using the fixed rope. Initially, up to and slightly passed the notch, the climbing was (YDS) class 3. Turning right at the notch, I soon faced the (small) crux of the climb, a slanted rock slab with few handholds. This place is a bit exposed and there is an obvious foothold all the way off to the right. As soon as you get one hand on the upper side, the problem is solved. This move is (YDS) class 4. The rest was easy, and at 1130, we had reached the Chile summit."

Then they say that the Argentine summit is "no more than (YDS) class 3."

https://www.ii.uib.no/~petter/mountains ... eport.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not comfortable climbing class 4 free solo with gloves and double layer boots so I'll probably just do the Argentine summit.

[mikefromcraig]

Scott P.,

gear question: Since there's usually no snow on the ground, I was thinking about just wearing a winter hiking boot (not a stiff mountaineering boot) It would save weight in a very important place (lifting an extra 0.5lb with every step adds up) and would have flex for a more efficient stride.

Something like this: https://www.rei.com/product/772901/keen ... boots-mens" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Says it's rated down to -35 so should be good to at least -10 if I stay moving.

Worst case scenario it snows and I put on microspikes and still get the lightweight benefit.

Your thoughts?

[Scott P]

Since there's usually no snow on the ground, I was thinking about just wearing a winter hiking boot (not a stiff mountaineering boot) It would save weight in a very important place (lifting an extra 0.5lb with every step adds up) and would have flex for a more efficient stride.

The route is mostly scree, but there is an icefield to cross (most seem to refer to is as a glacier, but it looks more like an icefield to me), at least on the standard route. I'd recommend taking crampons, but you will probably only use them for an hour or two. If you don't want to wear a mountaineering boot (the soles in the boots you link to may not be stiff enough?), maybe try an insulated hunting boot with a stiff enough sole to take crampons. As long as they are warm and stiff enough to take a crampon, they should be fine. Cabelas has some nice ones that work and are much cheaper than the mountaineering boots (they are lighter as well). Since you will be on scree most of the time, you can probably get away without real mountaineering boots. Personally, I hate wearing mountaineering boots on scree.

Since the icefield isn't steep, micropikes may work in good conditions, but usually the ice is bullet hard. Microspikes might not bite(?).

[dereferenced]

If you'll permit the criticism, Mike, I'd suggest that you don't need as much time acclimating at moderate elevations but you do need a little time at high ones (18+).

In my experience, I can single push to about 19,000 feet and feel okay, but that feels near my limit.

If I climb up to 19 or 20 once and then descend for a bit, I'm able to reach 22 on my second push.

Sleeping at 19 isn't that bad, if I've previously climbed up that high. I've spent over a week sleeping at 18,500. Every day up there, my resting pulse declined, o2 saturation increased, sleeping got easier, and my appetite improved. It's not 100% pleasant, but it's not the death zone, you won't wither away.

Summitting from a lower camp might work. It really just depends on your fitness level and how you'd prefer to suffer. You'll sleep a bit better down low, but you'll have to wake up a few hours earlier, and the day will be more physically draining. I've chosen to do something like this twice (I climbed Denali from 14 camp and Aconcagua from 18 camp), in both cases because I just didn't want the hassle of moving camp up. I don't think it made summit day easier, but it didn't make it impossible. And in both cases, I'd done an acclimation hike higher up before the summit attempt.

Anyways, everyone's different, I've seen some people rapidly push to 22 and get away with it, it's just not a very conservative strategy.

IIRC, Steve Gladbach used some basic winter boots like that on his Aconcagua trip. They might be warm enough for you on Ojos. My feet run cold enough that I don't think I'd use those (I want double boots below about 10 degrees F). If you did use that kind of boot, you could try strap on crampons instead of microspikes. (I've never tried that combo, just throwing out ideas.)

[Gibson135]

Those photos are from a pretty small section near the peak. The ropes are already there- at least they were a few years ago. I do agree that most of the last day is Class 3 (or lower) besides that one small section seen in the pictures. It doesn't mean it is not difficult because remember, you're climbing from around 18.5K up.

I went in mid December. (Remember that is summer down there). The scenery on the mooring of the last day after taking off at about 2am was absolutely amazing- the stars in a dark night sky in one direction and the sun coming up in the other. It was definitely one of the coldest places I've ever been. With gloves off for a moment I realized if they were dropped into the heavy wind I'd be losing some fingers.

If there is one thing to think about is the acclimating which I learned the hard way. A pretty hard way actually. I've never had a second of altitude problems here even when just visiting for many years. I started having some problems in the middle of the night at 18K. The night symptoms weren't necessarily bad (waking up with quick heavy breathing) but I ignored others that morning...

I'll keep it short, but my advice is to forget about whether or not you are fine up to 15K because it's not the same thing and is pretty irrelevant.

But in terms of the classes part, take away that short section with ropes already anchored there for you and it doesn't go over class 3. I just wouldn't rush it meaning acclimate a day or so at 18K or the camp not far below it - would have made my trip much better.

[mikefromcraig]

If I climb up to 19 or 20 once and then descend for a bit, I'm able to reach 22 on my second push.

I absolutely agree with this part. That's what I plan to do. Climb high, hang out, then come back down and sleep.

Sleeping at 19 isn't that bad, if I've previously climbed up that high. I've spent over a week sleeping at 18,500. Every day up there, my resting pulse declined, o2 saturation increased, sleeping got easier, and my appetite improved. It's not 100% pleasant, but it's not the death zone, you won't wither away.

This is where we disagree. I read (I think it was in the "altitude illness" book) that you can't acclimatize above 17,000' (or maybe it was 18,000'). You can go that high or higher but you only get the benefit when you come back down and recoup.

It's like lifting heavy weights in the gym; it just breaks you down. You get stronger the next day when you rebuild from the "damage" you did in the gym. You wouldn't want to lift real heavy and then try to set a personal record a few hours later; you would be in a deteriorated state.

I can't argue with your personal experience but I would point out that it doesn't necessarily prove your point (well, I guess I am arguing a little!). Just because your o2 increased over time at 18,500 doesn't mean you weren't deteriorating. I think medicaid pays for supplemental oxygen for patients who are 89 and below. I'm willing to bet you would never get above 89 no matter how long you stayed above 18,500'.