Sorry, I should have been clear about that: I'm going for the 50 prominent peaks. If it were just a matter or one or two traditional unranked peaks, like El Diente and North Maroon, I'd use the UIAA list, but their 82 include some truly ridiculous bumps, e.g. Punta Giordani, with its 5 meters of prominence and 100 meters of isolation from the next-highest summit.Scott P wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:49 amWhich list is he using by chance? There are a lot of 4000 alpine peak list out there and they all use different numbers of peaks.mtn_nut wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:05 amThis summer, he has decided he is going to try to set a fastest known time (FKT) for the self supported climb of all the 4000m peaks of the Alps this summer, biking between all of the peaks.
If anyone is interested in following along, there is some more information about his plan here on the attempt - http://www.drdirtbag.com/2020/03/05/hum ... peaks-fkt/
His link says the following, but it doesn't say which list he is using:
The UIAA list contains 82 4000-meter “peaks.” However, many of these are minor sub-summits included for subjective reasons. Using a threshhold of 100 meters prominence, there are 50 Alpine 4000-meter peaks. See Wikipedia for more.
Anyway, good luck to him on his endevour.
I agonized about this, since some of the peaks not meeting the arbitrary threshold are legit, e.g. Nordend and the other Lyskamm summit. Based on the FKT site, there is a history of climbing both the UIAA 82 and the "principle" summits, so I feel justified in going for the latter. I think a self-powered, self-supported climb of the principle summits is elegant and manageable. For whatever reasons, the rules around this record aren't as well-established as those around CO records.