Topic: The second highest summit on every continent! (Read 49325 times)

Guestclimber · « **on:** Nov 1 2003, 21:21 »

Hi!
Has there been any serious tries on the second highest mountain on every continent?
Some years back I was at the Annapurna BC with Polish team. They had been drinking a bit and one of guys, disappointed with the weather and their progress on the BIG one, started boil on the idea of trying out the idea of attempting all the second highest peaks on each continent.
Has anyone heard about any serious attempts on such a project?
One thing for sure...it's not easier than the 7 highest...

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** Nov 2 2003, 23:40 »

hehehe

and after that we climb the 3rd highest of each continent.

trunl · « **Reply #2 on:** Nov 9 2003, 06:56 »

yes, there have been many serious tries and many successfull summits. by the way they are not all harder, only about three of them are, the rest are a walk in the park.

Corsair · « **Reply #3 on:** Feb 5 2004, 06:01 »

BullMrHanky Trunl.
Basically ALL the second summits are more difficult.

Beyond discussion

Everest - K2
Elbrus - Dychtau
Kilimanjaro - Mt Kenya
Mt Vinson - Mt Tyree
Carstenz/Puncak Jaya - Puncak Trikora

Arguable.

Denali - Mt Logan
Aconcagua - Ojos De Salado

I have no clue about your standards or referencies, but none of the seconds are a walk in the park if you ask me.

Corsair.

7000 · « **Reply #4 on:** Feb 8 2004, 20:26 »

hahaha you just got your ass thoroughly kicked!

Still, interested to know what your 7 summits plans are.

Quote from: trunl on Nov 9 2003, 06:56

yes, there have been many serious tries and many successfull summits. by the way they are not all harder, only about three of them are, the rest are a walk in the park.

trunl · « **Reply #5 on:** Feb 9 2004, 05:34 »

uh, no. some of the ones u listed are eaiser than the highest. and second, its not carstensz, its australia, and the second highest on australia is definately easier than kos.

Corsair · « **Reply #6 on:** Feb 9 2004, 09:26 »

OK, let's leave the ever present Puncak Jaya/Carstenz vs. Kosciuszko question aside.

Back to to the rest of the list:

Everest - K2
Elbrus - Dychtau
Kilimanjaro - Mt Kenya
Mt Vinson - Mt Tyree

Which one Trunl?
A direct answer on a direct question, please.

Corsair · « **Reply #7 on:** Feb 9 2004, 21:49 »

7000,

My plans.
Licking my wounds, recover from frost bite and have a real think about the 7.
It's interesting in some ways, in some ways not. As I see it, it's not worth the costs if you only climb one summit on each continent. Peak bagging is not my thing. On the other hand, if the project is combined with more climbing of other peaks close to the 7, it could be very interesting. After all, you end up going to places you wouldn't hardly visit otherwise and the idea of having a long term project suits me fine.
So, basically, my plan is to find out if The Plan I have in mind is realistic.

trunl · « **Reply #8 on:** Feb 10 2004, 07:02 »

Dychtau and mt kenya, COULD be looked at as easier.

Ron · « **Reply #9 on:** Feb 10 2004, 13:34 »

Could??? be specifiek

trunl · « **Reply #10 on:** Feb 11 2004, 05:21 »

not everyone thinks they are harder than the tallers ones, but some people do, so i wont say they are harder, i will say they COULD be looked at as harder.

7summits · « **Reply #11 on:** Feb 12 2004, 18:24 »

Quote from: Corsair on Feb 5 2004, 06:01

Basically ALL the second summits are more difficult.
Beyond discussion

Everest - K2
Elbrus - Dychtau
Kilimanjaro - Mt Kenya
Mt Vinson - Mt Tyree
Carstenz/Puncak Jaya - Puncak Trikora

Arguable.

Denali - Mt Logan
Aconcagua - Ojos De Salado

I have no clue about your standards or referencies, but none of the seconds are a walk in the park if you ask me.

Corsair.

Hey Corsair,
a little remark: the 2nd highest is not Trikora (Wilhelmina) peak. There is a lot of confusion about the 2nd as snowcaps are melting and there are many different names for the same peaks.
Anyway, #2 used to be Ngga Pulu, the ice covered mountain across the valley. That one is certainly easier to climb, I walked up there in 1999. But seemingly even since then so much ice has melted that one of the other peaks on that side might be higher, although no real measurements have been made recently. Anyway, all of these points are higher than Trikora and all of them are easier to climb than Carstensz.
Oh and Ojos is certainly easier I just found out

I already talked about this discussion in the FAQ by the way.
Thanks,
Harry

Carstensz/Puncak Jaya: 4884
Ngga Pulu/Puncak Jaya: 4862 (old measurement)
Puncak Soemantri Brodjonegoro (other names?) 4855
Puncak Cartenz Timur (East Carstensz peak?) 4860
Puncak Trikora (Wilhelmina peak) 4740
Harrer had his own names as well for the peaks named after the days of the week.

Corsair · « **Reply #12 on:** Feb 12 2004, 18:47 »

Hmmm.
Back to another old problem in mountaineering.
A peak or a side peak.
I remember a person claiming to have climbed the three highest peaks in Oceania, based on the facts that they were:
Puncak Jaya, Ngga Pulu and Puncak Pilimsit.
He got blasted by a representative from a certain climbing organization based in Switzerland, which had another way to look at the whole thing.
According to them, Ngga Pulu is a side peak and that made Trikora the second highest because Pilimsit was not even talked about.
I wonder if there will be any type of "official" list anytime, that all climbers can agree on.
If i remember right, the discussion ended in a list with the following order:
P. Jaya, P. Trikora and P. Mandala.
The reason for that was that no one could disagree on that they are all peaks in the true sense of the word and not side peaks of a main summit.
Trivial questions sometimes...
I just saw that a discussion about the 14 has come up again. Lhotse Shar is in the center of it...is it a peak or a secondary one...
Trivial questions in mountaineering somtimes :-)

Ojos De Salado.
No problems with water access?
I was in the Puna some years back and it's DRY!

BTW. I like your list of the Oceanian mountains. Very close in between the peaks

7summits · « **Reply #13 on:** Feb 12 2004, 19:20 »

yeah, that discussion is also a valid one, when is a mountain a mountaina dn when is it a peak of a massif?
That will come back in every discussion about lists: Alps' 4000ers, Munroes etc.
It is quite a compact massif, seeing from the valley the peaks are quite obvious. But then again the valley itself is already high.

You could also say that Lhotse (all of them

)is a subpeak of the Everest massif...

You can drive up to 5200m (camp1) at Ojos, so you can/must bring water up. Around camp 2 (5800) there are plenty penitentes and a glacier, so enough water to melt. I really liked the place.

trunl · « **Reply #14 on:** Feb 13 2004, 10:05 »

just climb all of them!

(im kidding).

Corsair · « **Reply #15 on:** Feb 14 2004, 05:14 »

You're right trunl.
For sure these two peaks are easier than Elbrus and Kili.
Especially Dychtau, only 5B along the easier routes.
Straight forward climbing as well, basically a walk.

Mt Kenya also looks like a walk in the park, much easier than Kili.

Ron · « **Reply #16 on:** Feb 14 2004, 13:40 »

omg

trunl · « **Reply #17 on:** May 21 2004, 05:06 »

i bet i can find a picture that makes kili look harder than mt. kenya.

Corsair · « **Reply #18 on:** May 21 2004, 05:30 »

Deal!
Take your time...

Anyway, I'll give you first hand reports in three months or so. I have not been to Dychtau, Elbrus, Mt Kenya or Kili yet. Soon...

trunl · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22 2004, 04:44 »

mt kenya: http://www.eecs.lehigh.edu/~edk/KayKenya/Kenya4e.jpg
mt kilimanjaro: http://stevehelle.freeservers.com/images/web_010503_steve_uhuru_surv_glacier_a.JPG

i rest my case.

7summits forum!

Author Topic: The second highest summit on every continent! (Read 49325 times)

Guestclimber

trunl

7000

trunl

trunl

trunl

trunl

trunl

trunl