Max. party size for alpine climbs

I'm curious.

I've recently encountered an individual who thinks groups of 6+ people on alpine climbs are an "OK" thing to do?

What are your thoughts? I'd always thought 3 strong climbers is the maximum number you would want or should have in a climbing party. What problems could a large group pose on an alpine route?

Do you think that "meetup" groups for alpine climbs are a good idea?

You'll never find me on any multipitch climb, alpine or otherwise, with more than three people, and in general I'd much rather have two. I've gone to climb alpine routes as 2x teams of two, but that is a rarity and I'd never do it with 4 people on one rope team. Sounds clusterfuskish, slow, and un-enjoyable. Dangerous? Perhaps if it slowed you down enough (which is a real possibility) or increased the chance that loose rock would hit one of the people below. I just can't imagine why you WOULD do this.

I've had good experience with parties of 3 and 2 parties of 2. The key with a party of 3 is use doubles and have both followers climb simultaneously.

Sounds like this individual is taking the term "climbing party" literally. Doesn't sound like a good idea or fun, but they will probably figure that out pretty fast. You probably won't be able to change the person's mind, and mostly it will negatively affect the people choosing to go as a party of 6. They will probably realize this is a bad idea after trying it once.

If you mean 3 teams of 2, with one maybe doing a different route, sounds ok. But who wants to go to an alpine climb knowing there are automatically 4 people (from your group) in line in front of you.

Sorry I didn't answer your questions.

Dave Bn wrote:I'm curious. I've recently encountered an individual who thinks groups of 6+ people on alpine climbs are an "OK" thing to do? What are your thoughts?

Seems unnecessarily complicated. And if all 6 people were strong, experienced climbers then they would just go do their own thing. Moving slow can be dangerous in certain situations. And more people increases the chances of rockfall.

Dave Bn wrote:I'd always thought 3 strong climbers is the maximum number you would want or should have in a climbing party.

I agree. Parties of 3 are ok. Every I've climbed in a group of 3, I've led all pitches with doubles and the followers climbed simultaneously. This limits the difficulty of the route since switching leaders isn't as easy. Two parties of 2 can be ok.

Dave Bn wrote: What problems could a large group pose on an alpine route? Do you think that "meetup" groups for alpine climbs are a good idea?

Large groups are slow and increase the likelihood of rockfall. I think "meetup" groups for alpine routes is generally not a good idea but can work out just fine if both climbers are very experienced. Communication can be more difficult in the alpine and speed is more important. Familiarity among climbing partners helps to alleviate both issues.

Guide services with trains of 10-20s on DC of Rainier and O-S of the Grand don't think there is a max size for alpine climbs.

Don't think those are considered alpine rock climbs. Those are hikes.

Thanks for the answers so far. Pretty much confirming what I'd thought.

And for clarification this is in relation to a meetup inviting people of all experience levels to join. There isn't a specification on the rope team numbers but I'm assuming they would climb as one group.

I did encounter a group of 8 while climbing Mt. Washington in Oregon some years back. It was a Mazamas group and the backlog at the "crux" was a bit of an irritation. There was also a substantial amount of rock fall.

Totally depends on the route, and the variety of routes that could be called "alpine" is humongous and diverse. Obviously some routes can handle large groups when the right tactics are used (a la guiding on the easier routes of the Grand).

I guess one defining trait of all alpine routes, however, is that speed=safety. I've found that I can move fastest in a party of two, though I guess there are some situations & tactics where a third can add a margin of safety with only a slight decrease in speed. I would never attempt anything near my limit with more than three. More than three and I think you really have to start tailoring your objectives and tactics to look for specific accommodating climbs.

The meetup idea seems ridiculous. Save that sort of thing for the crags.

Dave...it seems from the way you posted it that you clearly have already formed an opinion with regards to your question...so why ask it? Did you just need people to confirm your stance?

I am pretty sure I know I know the person you are referring to and his meetup group, although I may be wrong. He is kind of infamous and definitely prolific for these things in the front range. He has been bringing people up to the alpine and to other backcountry activities for years. He is also frequently criticized for it, especially by people who have never done one of his trips. Ask him why he does it and he will tell you that he really enjoys taking out newer people to classic places. He doesn't limit his group sizes or the people he takes and lets people self select what they think they can handle. It is generally slow, sometimes a mess, and every once in a while an epic ensues. But there is also an energy with groups like this you don't get with smaller groups.

Sometimes I like his trips. I like experiencing these place with newer people and helping people through the rough spots when I can. I also like soloing. I also like going with one or two other partners. They all have their pluses and minuses and safety issues. Maybe try one of his trips and see how you like it? Or not...doesn't really matter.

Nick Stayner wrote:Totally depends on the route, and the variety of routes that could be called "alpine" is humongous and diverse.

How about the Prow on Kit Carson

or North Buttress on Mt. Sneffels

I saw a photo of a group of 2,700 climbing half dome, one time. That many seems ok.

Xam wrote:Dave...it seems from the way you posted it that you clearly have already formed an opinion with regards to your question...so why ask it? Did you just need people to confirm your stance?

Fair question. Yes, I'd already formed an opinion, but in a moment of doubt worried I might be being unreasonable. The mountains are not mine to claim. So, yes, this post is self-validating but also an honest attempt to determine the collective opinion of the climbing community.

Nevertheless, this person has scheduled a meetup for a route that I have planned for and just barely worked out this summer scheduling wise. So under great time constraints on a route I have been excited to do for some time I now have to face the prospect of the following happening.

Xam wrote:It is generally slow, sometimes a mess, and every once in a while an epic ensues.

I cannot reschedule my climb. I have been excited about this particular climb for it's remoteness and off-the-beaten-path atmosphere. And yeah, I'm pissed there's going to be a group of six on the route at the same time. We can, of course, get to the route first, but arrival time is, to some extent, out of our hands.

I guess did not understand your perspective. I thought you were considering the safety of joining such a group. I am pretty unsympathetic to your problem as I now understand it. Your argument appears to be that a trip posted two weeks out of six people might be too slow and slow you down on route. This has nothing to do with meetup or large group sizes. There could just as easily be two parties of three or three parties of two on route ahead of you that you do not know about ahead of time that would pose the same complications.

You mentioned one solution: get on route early. If that does not work out, just pass on route, which in this case I am sure will work out fine. In no way will their progress, slow or otherwise, prevent you from proceeding, other then the inconvenience of passing. Also, simply be flexible...there are hundreds of alpine routes in colorado, many of them in the san juans...consider another if this one is too crowded for your liking.

To keep things somewhat simple why would you WANT 6 people on a alpine climb? 3 is plenty enough. Besides you are usually trying to outrun weather, other people etc. so if you aren't hauling butt it increases your chance of having an epic.

A friend was telling be a story the other day how the CU alpine club brought a group of around 15 people up to spearhead and only 3 people could lead the pitches. That puts alot of lifes at risk.

I'd do either 2,3 or the 2/2.

Dave Bn wrote: I cannot reschedule my climb. I have been excited about this particular climb for it's remoteness and off-the-beaten-path atmosphere. And yeah, I'm pissed there's going to be a group of six on the route at the same time.

That's too bad, but it sounds like you have a few options on how to deal with it. But I'm curious, how did you hear of this "meetup" group? If this is a common occurrence, it sounds like something I'll try to avoid.

Thanks.

^^^ Get up and out before these guys. I typically try to avoid climbing around sh*tshows like that.

if it's the Prow, you can easily beat them to the route, and you can easily pass them most places if you don't beat them to the start.

3 per rope,, but a 'party' might be 16, 20 people total, in groups, guided up Everest, etc.,,so I guess the size can vary. But per rope team, alpine should be a nice threesome.

This winter, I ran into a group of 12 all going up the same route on Huntington Ravine, Mt Washington. They moved at a snails pace, had a poor decision making structure, and got swept down by an avalanche triggered by the top climbers (at 5pm, several hours from the summit, almost sunset, and with poor conditions).

Just listening to them sort gear and make breakfast and discuss risks at the cabin, it was quite obvious that individual responsibility mostly got passed on to the experienced leader, and there was more time spent waiting around than packing, hiking or climbing.

In my opinion anything larger than 3 climbers should be split into independent self-sufficient teams. They can still provide some assistance to each other, but don't need to wait around for the slowest link or pass off decisions to someone else.

I personally prefer 4 people with 8 dogs. I could go with a larger group but would keep the 1:2 person to dog ratio. Just my 2cents.