7summits forum!

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Everest: Lhotse wall vs North Col  (Read 11079 times)

jedi-knight

  • Scrambler
  • ***
  • Altitude: 1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
Everest: Lhotse wall vs North Col
« on: Jul 7 2007, 17:13 »

I've just watched the Discovery channel documentary on the Himex Everest expedition last year. The documentary is certainly an eye-opener for those who have not been on Everest.

Here's a question for those who have been up Everest.

Which is physically tougher? The Lhotse wall or North Col?
I know both are tough, but which is tougher to climb?

I saw the North Col, and holy cow....it looks very tough.

JK
Logged
Do or Do Not...There is No Try!

7summits

  • 7 down, 0 to go!
  • Administrator
  • 7Summiteer!
  • *******
  • Altitude: 3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1152
  • Greetings from tha lowlands
    • The 7 summits pages
Re: Everest: Lhotse wall vs North Col
« Reply #1 on: Jul 12 2007, 13:49 »

Hey JK, I have not been up the Lhotse Wall, but on any mountain in general a snow/iceclimb is much easier than a rockclimb, as long as the snow is not deep.
There is a good track on the Nepal side, so it is relatively easy. There are dangers lower down: the Khumbu Icefall is precarious and many accidents have happened.

On the North side the dangers are higher: the summitday is very long as the ridge is not steep at all, so it takes a long time, also because of the 3 rock Steps.
I noticed a big difference between going up after snow vs a 'dry year'. With some snow the track gets many times easier, but the Steps -and the altitude- remain...
 8)
Logged
"He who climbs upon the highest mountains laughs at all tragedies, real or imaginary." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Veronika

  • Armchair...
  • *
  • Altitude: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Everest: Lhotse wall vs North Col
« Reply #2 on: Aug 8 2007, 01:28 »

I just climbed Everest in May from the North (Tibetan) side, but I don't personally know the South route. I really think that the two "normal" routes are more or less equally demanding.
North: Usually exposed to strong winds. Technically not (so) difficult with the exception of the three "steps". The First Step at 8550 m was rather easy this year thanks to a lot of snow but in 2003 (when I needed to return because of storm) it was strenuous rock climbing although it's "only" 3rd degree. The Second Step is really hard and you must not be afraid of the abyss beyond you. The Third Step is not so difficult but you would be glad if it would not be there. And after the Third Step you are not yet on the summit! The last part is rather exposed. However, the summit day is not that long.
South: Usually better weather conditions. The icefall at the beginning is dangerous. The route is longer than the North route. On the summit day approx. 900 m need to be climbed vs. 500 m on the North side. But the last camp is lower (so you sleep better  ;)). The Hillary Step is easier than the Second Step.
I really enjoyed the climb!
Veronika
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 22 queries.