Utah vs Colorado.

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
bdloftin77
Posts: 1090
Joined: 9/23/2013
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 58
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Utah vs Colorado.

Post by bdloftin77 »

Scott P wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:19 pm
bdloftin77 wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:29 pm I haven't actually been outside of an airport there yet, but my guess is it ranks high because of a high concentration of volcanoes, which tend to have very high prominences. Possibly also due to high glacial activity, carving out low valleys in between peaks and ranges. But I'll let geologists or those who have actually set foot outside an airport in Washington comment further with their thoughts.
Washington does indeed have some volcanoes, some of which are large, and they get a lot of attention, but there aren't that many of them. A vast majority of mountains in Washington aren't volcanoes.

I'd imagine the biggest reason places like Washigton, California, Utah, and Nevada have more 5K peaks (ultras) than Colorado is because of the mountain types. Colorado has a lot of folded mountains; those other states have more fault block mountains. Folded mountains tend to have higher valleys between ridges and subridges and ranges while fault block mountains tend to have deeper valleys between the ranges. Folded mountains also tend to be more uniform in elevation. Colorado has hundreds of peaks more than 13,000 feet high, but none that reach 14,500 feet. They are pretty uniform in elevation from a geologic standpoint. That's the reason why Colorado is the king of elevation too. They have a lot of long ranges that stay high for miles and miles without a break to lower altitude. There are no other ranges in the US that stay that high for miles and miles. Outside Colorado, perhaps only the Uinta Mountains (another folded range) have a similar ridge that is almost as high for that many miles.

Image

New mountain ranges can also have peaks with higher prominence than expected. For example, the Uinta Mountains in Utah are much higher than the Wasatch, but the Wasatch has a greater number of high prominence peaks. One reason for this is that the Wasatch Mountains are much newer than the Uintas so there are actually rivers flowing from the Uinta Mountains that cut all the way through the Wasatch. Those rivers existed before the Wasatch Mountains did so as the mountains were pushed up the rivers stayed in the same general place and deep canyons were carved. For Mt Timpanogos (in the Wasatch), for example, the parent peak is actually in the Uintas rather than the only higher peak in the Wasatch, Mount Nebo. The Provo River slices right through the Wasatch between Mount Timpanogos and Cascade Mountain. If it weren't for that, Timp wouldn't be an ultra.

The Himalayas are a more spectacular example. The Himalaya don't form a continental divide. Some of the rivers from Tibet actually slice through the Himalaya. That means that there are quite a few peaks with a lot of prominence.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks. Yeah, I'd always wondered why there are so many high mountains in Colorado, especially all the 14ers, that are around relatively the same height, yet none manage to top 14,500'. And why we have so few higher prominence peaks.
Matt Lemke wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:20 pm
Believe it or not, Washington only has 5 volcanoes.

Where no other state in the lower 48 can touch WA is overall mountain steepness and active glacial landscapes.
Definitely didn't know that. Sounds like there's a lot of really cool mountains in that area of the US. I really appreciated the deep, steep-walled glacial valleys in Glacier National Park when we went there a few years ago.
ker0uac
Posts: 547
Joined: 8/30/2016
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Utah vs Colorado.

Post by ker0uac »

mtn_hound wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:52 pm
ker0uac wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:44 pm What areas are left? San diego isnt any different, much less OC. Towns along 395 corridor? Just full of urbanites from LA and Bay Area, pretending to be outdoorsy like you see in Breck and Vail lol.

The high desert? Ok. The San Joaquim Valley? Ok. Redding and surroundings? Ok. So yea, if you ignore taxes, regs and big brother, and you live very detached from 99% of population, then CA is pretty cool I guess.

It's similar to the talk about Utah and it's politics, religion, etc. But in Utah, along I-70 before Green River, there's a stretch of hundreds of miles where you could very well think you are in Mars all by yourself. In such place, the politics and religion wouldnt matter at all.
Anything north of Sacramento or east of the central valley (minus ski towns, much like we have in Colorado). Literally 75% of the state. Look at Scott P's email for a few examples. The north coast, redwoods, and Shasta/Lassen areas are amazing. Unfortunately, none of that is close to where you are.
I agree that area is great which is why I said Redding and surroundings. But my point and I think that's yours too, is that CA is great if u live removed from the vast majority of Californians. Also, if one wants to live in Shasta, might as well live across the border in Oregon. Much cheaper, lower taxes and less regulations.
Those who travel to mountain-tops are half in love with themselves and half in love with oblivion
User avatar
ekalina
Posts: 260
Joined: 8/10/2014
14ers: 20  1 
13ers: 44 5
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Utah vs Colorado.

Post by ekalina »

Matt Lemke wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:20 pm The 5 volcanoes are like the 14ers in colorado, busy and popular and arguably the least interesting mountains in the state. The vast majority of WA locals also stick to the trails and lakes. Generally speaking you'll find far fewer people on the peaks in WA (other than volcanoes) than you'll find on peaks in Colorado, simply because they are a hell of a lot more work to climb.
I have also read (no personal experience here) that in addition to steepness, many of the higher peaks in WA have lengthy approaches due to the low elevation of the trailheads. In CO, the mining industry cut many high-elevation, 4WD roads, and that is apparently not the case in WA. So I imagine that the longer approaches keep the crowds pretty thin up there once you get into the backcountry.
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 9438
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 58  16 
13ers: 50 13
Trip Reports (16)
 
Contact:

Re: Utah vs Colorado.

Post by Scott P »

ekalina wrote: Fri Jan 08, 2021 6:20 pm I have also read (no personal experience here) that in addition to steepness, many of the higher peaks in WA have lengthy approaches due to the low elevation of the trailheads.
It's true. For Mt. Olympus you start at 595 feet elevation. It's more than 30 miles round trip, just to get to the start of the climb. Plus you get eaten alive by mosquitoes on those approaches.

The North Cascades have a lot of long approaches as well.
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
Post Reply