K2

Z

zzzzz

Well-known member
Without oxygen. Temps down to -80 Deg. Mental. RIP
I'd say why? But life is for living and doing something nobody has ever done give you immortality. "The first to..........."K2 deaths
 
K2 is probably the most dangerous mountain on the planet and called the savage mountain for a reason.

Climbers are always looking for new firsts which unfortunately put them in extremely dangerous situations.

Fortunately for me the closest I’ll come to an 8000’er is Alan Hinkes’ (underrated local hero) book on his experience of climbing them.

Incidentally his favourite “mountain” is Roseberry Topping which gets its own special chapter in the book
 
Jostler said:
K2 is probably the most dangerous mountain on the planet and called the savage mountain for a reason.

Climbers are always looking for new firsts which unfortunately put them in extremely dangerous situations.

Fortunately for me the closest I’ll come to an 8000’er is Alan Hinkes’ (underrated local hero) book on his experience of climbing them.

Incidentally his favourite “mountain” is Roseberry Topping which gets its own special chapter in the book
Click to expand...
K2 is a harder mountain to climb than Everest the professional climbers would agree. There have been only 400 summits of the mountain compared with 7500 Everest summits. K2 requires at least 2 sheer rockface climbs as you make your way up. Everest as the Hillary step which now has permanent ropes to help.
 
Zoophonic said:
K2 is a harder mountain to climb than Everest the professional climbers would agree. There have been only 400 summits of the mountain compared with 7500 Everest summits. K2 requires at least 2 sheer rockface climbs as you make your way up. Everest as the Hillary step which now has permanent ropes to help.
Click to expand...
I definitely don't disagree that it's much more complex, and dangerous, going purely from the books I've read. But it's hard to rely on the numbers like that, which basically boil down to 1 K2 summit per 20 Everest summits, it implies that it's 20 times harder.

The thing is how many people try to climb K2 v how may try to climb Everest, must be 1:100 at least, the only reason it's not 400 v 40,000 is likely because the quality of climbers is likely much poorer for Everest.

I wonder if you sent the best 100 climbers to Everest and K2 what the success rate would be for each? K2's got to be twice as hard at lest?
 
Andy_W said:
I definitely don't disagree that it's much more complex, and dangerous, going purely from the books I've read. But it's hard to rely on the numbers like that, which basically boil down to 1 K2 summit per 20 Everest summits, it implies that it's 20 times harder.

The thing is how many people try to climb K2 v how may try to climb Everest, must be 1:100 at least, the only reason it's not 400 v 40,000 is likely because the quality of climbers is likely much poorer for Everest.

I wonder if you sent the best 100 climbers to Everest and K2 what the success rate would be for each? K2's got to be twice as hard at lest?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can necessarily compare like for like and it would be difficult to quantify.

As you and zoo have eluded to, Everest is essentially treated like a theme park by business execs etc who have money and are looking for their next achievement.

I think it was Yvonne Chouinard said, if you’re an @rsehole before you climb Everest, you are when you’ve done it.
 
Last edited:
Read 'Into Thin Air, and 'Buried in the Sky' to find out about Evererst and K2 respectively. The books document each mountain's most infamous tragedies and describe the complexities of both.

Essentially Everest is an extended high altitude hike, with non-technical climbing and a predictable weather window. That's not to say it's easy by any stretch. The main difficulties arise though due to exposure. It doesn't even have the obstacle that is the Hillary Step (see the 2015 earthquake).

K2 is a different beast all together. It requires technical climbing skills, the weather is changeable given it's in the Karakorum, and it's home to the Bottleneck! Avalanche and ice falls are responsible for many deaths. To attempt it in winter is awe inspiring.

I'm a keen hiker and climber, and I'd would love to do both of these. Hopefully I might one day, but given the choice I'd take the chance to tackle K2 in an instant.
 
The people who do these crazy endurance / dangerous things.
I stop and pause to think.
And I think do what you want as long as it puts nobody else in danger or it costs other people i.e. tax payers to come and rescue you.
Add to that you have no dependents who will suffer after you have gone.
Hardly anyone would fulfill all 3 of those.
Otherwise be as daft as you like
 
Jostler said:
I don’t think you can necessarily compare like for like and it would be difficult to quantify.

As you and zoo have eluded to, Everest is essentially treated like a theme park by business execs etc who have money and are looking for their next achievement.

I think it was Yvonne Chouinard said, if you’re an @rsehole before you climb Everest, you are when you’ve done it.
Click to expand...
Ah I know that, it's just a basic thought. A bad week or bad luck on Everest could be extremely dangerous and ther ecould be favourable conditions at K2 etc, it's complex of course.

To be fair I had actually thought about training to do it, long before I had the money to, but now that I have the money, I'm not fit enough due to injury.

You also need money to buy away the risk of not being as experienced, so hence have to pay for more support.

Climbing things like that is an extremely expensive hobby, limited to the rich, ar$eholes, or rich ar$eholes, no matter who is talking about it. I think criticising anyone is either hypocritical of the equally privileged (just in a different way) or jealousy of those that could not pay to do it or do not have any motivation or bottle.

I'm not a fan of the rubbish and the like that gets left mind, and people putting others in danger, but I suppose it's giving a lot of the locals a good life.
 
Last edited:
s!ovak said:
Read 'Into Thin Air, and 'Buried in the Sky' to find out about Evererst and K2 respectively. The books document each mountain's most infamous tragedies and describe the complexities of both.

Essentially Everest is an extended high altitude hike, with non-technical climbing and a predictable weather window. That's not to say it's easy by any stretch. The main difficulties arise though due to exposure. It doesn't even have the obstacle that is the Hillary Step (see the 2015 earthquake).

K2 is a different beast all together. It requires technical climbing skills, the weather is changeable given it's in the Karakorum, and it's home to the Bottleneck! Avalanche and ice falls are responsible for many deaths. To attempt it in winter is awe inspiring.

I'm a keen hiker and climber, and I'd would love to do both of these. Hopefully I might one day, but given the choice I'd take the chance to tackle K2 in an instant.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've read those, but into thin air rings a bell, so just ordered a copy.

I've not read anything about these for a long while, since I got injured as it just makes me miserable, and jelous. :ROFLMAO:

I remember reading about Messner, I think he done all 14 without Oxy, but I may have imagined that. Also used to like other adventure books about Fiennes, Scott etc.
 
Andy_W said:
I don't think I've read those, but into thin air rings a bell, so just ordered a copy.

I've not read anything about these for a long while, since I got injured as it just makes me miserable, and jelous. :ROFLMAO:

I remember reading about Messner, I think he done all 14 without Oxy, but I may have imagined that. Also used to like other adventure books about Fiennes, Scott etc.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, you won't regret buying it! I'm excited for you!

Both 'Into Thin Air' and 'Buried in the Sky' also give a brilliant insight into the local geography of their mountains and the history of summit attempts, which is really interesting to learn about.

You're right about Messner, and he's mentioned in both books given his brilliance!
 
Andy_W said:
Ah I know that, it's just a basic thought. A bad week or bad luck on Everest could be extremely dangerous and ther ecould be favourable conditions at K2 etc, it's complex of course.

To be fair I had actually thought about training to do it, long before I had the money to, but now that I have the money, I'm not fit enough due to injury.

You also need money to buy away the risk of not being as experienced, so hence have to pay for more support.

Climbing things like that is an extremely expensive hobby, limited to the rich, ar$eholes, or rich ar$eholes, no matter who is talking about it. I think criticising anyone is either hypocritical of the equally privileged or jealousy of those that could not pay to do it or do not have any motivation or bottle.

I'm not a fan of the rubbish and the like that gets left mind, and people putting others in danger, but I suppose it's giving a lot of the locals a good life.
Click to expand...
I used to be obsessed with the thought of doing an 8000’er in my 20’s but as I’ve got older, got a family, I think I’ve accepted a) I don’t Have the dedication to getting fit enough, and b) I’ve taken on board some of the messages Sherpas etc have spoken of the perils.

I’ve resigned myself these days to ticking off wainwright’s and munroes and the occasional multi day trek.
 
s!ovak said:
Ahhh, you won't regret buying it! I'm excited for you!

Both 'Into Thin Air' and 'Buried in the Sky' give a brilliant insight into the local geography of their mountains and the history of summit attempt.

You're right about Messner, and he's mentioned in both books given his brilliance!
Click to expand...
Which would you say is the best of the two? I have a spare audible credit I might as well put to good use
 
Jostler said:
Which would you say is the best of the two? I have a spare audible credit I might as well put to good use
Click to expand...
I couldn't split them.

I read 'Into Thin Air' first, then 'Buried in the Sky', so I'd probably recommend that order.

Like I've said though, both books offer so much more than the main climbs they document. You will learn about two separate mountain ranges, their history, high altitude climbing, the background and physiology of Sherpas and Shimshalis, the positive and negative impact climbing has had on surrounding countries and individual families, and much more.

I came away feeling educated, which is what I love from books.
 
s!ovak said:
Ahhh, you won't regret buying it! I'm excited for you!

Both 'Into Thin Air' and 'Buried in the Sky' also give a brilliant insight into the local geography of their mountains and the history of summit attempts, which is really interesting to learn about.

You're right about Messner, and he's mentioned in both books given his brilliance!
Click to expand...
Great, thanks for the tip, looking forward to it already.

I know this is going to relight a fire, a fire that could be dangerous and costly :ROFLMAO:

If my injury recovers in the next few years I might still have a shot, but we'll have to see.
 
Jostler said:
I used to be obsessed with the thought of doing an 8000’er in my 20’s but as I’ve got older, got a family, I think I’ve accepted a) I don’t Have the dedication to getting fit enough, and b) I’ve taken on board some of the messages Sherpas etc have spoken of the perils.

I’ve resigned myself these days to ticking off wainwright’s and munroes and the occasional multi day trek.
Click to expand...
Same here on the 8000'er in the 20's!

I can get fit enough, I'm probably a lot fitter than most, but I would effectively be a relative climbing or high altitude novice, other than for skiing.
I've not read much from the Sherpa's point of view, but it's horrible that they get put in positions where they're effectively forced to keep going, even though they know it's an unacceptable risk. The people putting the sherpas in these positions are absolute cretins, it's like their incompetence and ignorance is effectively causing manslaughter.

For me, if a sherpa said "you've had enough son", then that would be it, next step would be down, no questions asked.
 
Andy_W said:
Same here on the 8000'er in the 20's!

I can get fit enough, I'm probably a lot fitter than most, but I would effectively be a relative climbing or high altitude novice, other than for skiing.
I've not read much from the Sherpa's point of view, but it's horrible that they get put in positions where they're effectively forced to keep going, even though they know it's an unacceptable risk. The people putting the sherpas in these positions are absolute cretins, it's like their incompetence and ignorance is effectively causing manslaughter.

For me, if a sherpa said "you've had enough son", then that would be it, next step would be down, no questions asked.
Click to expand...
I ski and altitude is fine, but I realised how much of a negative impact it can have when I was in Bolivia years ago.

We were settled in La Paz for a few days and it was a little ropey but fine (Walked up a side street on a hill and got a nosebleed) but we got taken up to an old ski resort called Chacaltaya where the ski hut sits at around 5300m. A few of us went to summit the mountain which involved a 2-300m trek up some scree.

Gosh I felt so ill for the rest of the day, pounding headache and felt like crap. Adding another 3500m on that I can see why they call it the death zone.
 
s!ovak said:
I couldn't split them.

I read 'Into Thin Air' first, then 'Buried in the Sky', so I'd probably recommend that order.

Like I've said though, both books offer so much more than the main climbs they document. You will learn about two separate mountain ranges, their history, high altitude climbing, the background and physiology of Sherpas and Shimshalis, the positive and negative impact climbing has had on surrounding countries and individual families, and much more.

I came away feeling educated, which is what I love from books.
Click to expand...
Great! I will have a look into it.
 
Jostler said:
I ski and altitude is fine, but I realised how much of a negative impact it can have when I was in Bolivia years ago.

We were settled in La Paz for a few days and it was a little ropey but fine (Walked up a side street on a hill and got a nosebleed) but we got taken up to an old ski resort called Chacaltaya where the ski hut sits at around 5300m. A few of us went to summit the mountain which involved a 2-300m trek up some scree.

Gosh I felt so ill for the rest of the day, pounding headache and felt like crap. Adding another 3500m on that I can see why they call it the death zone.
Click to expand...
Sounds great, the highest I've been is about 3500 in Tignes :ROFLMAO: , I need to add on another 5300.

It's hard to imagine, just thinking of it being the same height as a commercial airliner is absolutely bonkers, especially when you look out the window and see how far it is below.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top