Partner - Little Bear Variant - Sat 7/13

Need a climbing partner? Trying to form a hiking group for an outing?
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
daway8
Posts: 1462
Joined: 8/24/2017
14ers: 58  27 
13ers: 165 30
Trip Reports (81)
 

Re: Partner - Little Bear Variant - Sat 7/13

Post by daway8 »

DeTour wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2024 3:01 pm That said, can we play the comparison game? From Judd’s TR I thought the crux slab might be roughly comparable to the class 4 slab on the Arapahoe Traverse? From yours I wonder if it’s considerably smaller. And the descriptions of that “chunky exposed ridge” make me think of the unnamed shark’s fin on the El Diente - Mt. Wilson traverse (“Narrow section,” photos 22-26 in the traverse route description) - ? But maybe a bit more clumby - that shark’s fin was relatively horizontal along the top.
The Arapahoe Traverses is something I'll have to check out one of these days so not sure about size comparison but this "chunky fin" is very short - perhaps 15 feet at most. But it's definitely not horizontal.

The exposure here is way more than the section of the Wilson Traverse you refer to - it's very narrow with immediate sheer drops on both sides that go much further down. A far more "airy" feel than that section - more akin to being up ridge proper at the top of the Organ Pipes, only that region is wider than this fin.

As for route finding - that varies greatly person to person - jsype apparently found the spot to turn from the ridge very early. Our group of three missed the turn and had some extra scrambling to do. I've been having some messages back and forth with CaptainSuburbia about that section and have some details to help refine the route there. Once I find time to finish reviewing that data I'll update my trip report for easy reference.

From a climbing perspective I'd say the difficulty is less than the Hourglass, but it's dramatically more "airy" feeling because a fall off either side would absolutely be fatal. But the holds are so big and solid that you'd have to be really clumsy to fall here, unless maybe it was raining or something like that.
User avatar
dfeezell
Posts: 28
Joined: 7/5/2014
14ers: 58 
13ers: 15
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Partner - Little Bear Variant - Sat 7/13

Post by dfeezell »

DeTour wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2024 3:01 pm That said, can we play the comparison game? From Judd’s TR I thought the crux slab might be roughly comparable to the class 4 slab on the Arapahoe Traverse? From yours I wonder if it’s considerably smaller. And the descriptions of that “chunky exposed ridge” make me think of the unnamed shark’s fin on the El Diente - Mt. Wilson traverse (“Narrow section,” photos 22-26 in the traverse route description) - ? But maybe a bit more clumby - that shark’s fin was relatively horizontal along the top.
I have climbed all three routes. The crux section of the Arapahoe traverse and the El D - Wilson traverse have significantly less exposure than the Little Bear route. Nothing on the first two routes gave me much pause, the but the short section of the Little Bear ridge route has huge exposure. I’d agree the exposure is bigger than anything on Capitol.

In terms of climbing moves, we found going up the exposed section on the Little Bear ridge pretty straightforward, but down climbing it was awkward. My partner and I both used different approaches. He turned face in on the upper rock (which is pretty flat), squatted and kind of matched both hands and feet (like a frog?) and lowered himself directly down. I’m taller and couldn’t comfortably do that frog pose, so I ended up turning face in and making a long reach for a foothold on descenders right. I had to move to the side onto a small sloping ledge with big big exposure where you absolutely cannot fall. It’s possible we missed an easier sequence of moves on the descent, but by comparison, I cruised up and down Arapahoe with no issues.

Overall, the rock all seemed very solid on the ridge, the ridge section is short, and we found the exit to the slopes above the hourglass to be obvious. There is some loose rock on the slope up to the ridge, but it’s nothing horrible. We thought it was a good and efficient route.
User avatar
CaptainSuburbia
Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2017
14ers: 58  35 
13ers: 127 9
Trip Reports (47)
 

Re: Partner - Little Bear Variant - Sat 7/13

Post by CaptainSuburbia »

dfeezell wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 6:26 am
DeTour wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2024 3:01 pm That said, can we play the comparison game? From Judd’s TR I thought the crux slab might be roughly comparable to the class 4 slab on the Arapahoe Traverse? From yours I wonder if it’s considerably smaller. And the descriptions of that “chunky exposed ridge” make me think of the unnamed shark’s fin on the El Diente - Mt. Wilson traverse (“Narrow section,” photos 22-26 in the traverse route description) - ? But maybe a bit more clumby - that shark’s fin was relatively horizontal along the top.
I have climbed all three routes. The crux section of the Arapahoe traverse and the El D - Wilson traverse have significantly less exposure than the Little Bear route. Nothing on the first two routes gave me much pause, the but the short section of the Little Bear ridge route has huge exposure. I’d agree the exposure is bigger than anything on Capitol.

In terms of climbing moves, we found going up the exposed section on the Little Bear ridge pretty straightforward, but down climbing it was awkward. My partner and I both used different approaches. He turned face in on the upper rock (which is pretty flat), squatted and kind of matched both hands and feet (like a frog?) and lowered himself directly down. I’m taller and couldn’t comfortably do that frog pose, so I ended up turning face in and making a long reach for a foothold on descenders right. I had to move to the side onto a small sloping ledge with big big exposure where you absolutely cannot fall. It’s possible we missed an easier sequence of moves on the descent, but by comparison, I cruised up and down Arapahoe with no issues.

Overall, the rock all seemed very solid on the ridge, the ridge section is short, and we found the exit to the slopes above the hourglass to be obvious. There is some loose rock on the slope up to the ridge, but it’s nothing horrible. We thought it was a good and efficient route.
DeTour- this is a very accurate description of the crux section by dfeezell. Going up is highly exposed but not overly difficult. I would compare the exposure to parts of the LB-Blanca traverse. Descending is more difficult and you'll probably need to turn inward for that initial short move. If you handle exposure ok you'll be fine. There is a less exposed descent option described in my trip report. The route finding, as others have mentioned, is simple. It'll be obvious when to leave the ridge for the southwest face. You'll run into a class 5 chimney with an easy escape to the right.
Some day our kids will study Clash lyrics in school.
Nothing drives people crazy like people drive people crazy.
Save Challenger Point
Save the big cats
You can strike anywhere