Mt. Washington, NH vs. Mt. Rainier, WA

Hey guys,

So I am looking at finding someone who has climbed both Mt. Washington, NH and Mt Rainier that could speak to some of the differences/similarities from a physical standpoint. I understand the mountains have many differences from the sheer size, technical aspects, altitude, etc. Having climbed Mt. Washington in the winter, I understand the physical demands that it took. I am trying to gauge how much more difficult Mt. Rainier would be, physically. Any input is appreciated, even if you haven't done one or the other.

Rainier is by far much harder given the altitude. HOWEVER, if you have climbed Mt. Washington in winter you will have experienced far worse weather than you are likely to encounter on Rainier in normal season (and that you will encounter even on Denaili).

The altitude WILL kick your ass. I didn't do this, but if you stay an extra day at the high camp you will have more fun.

Oh, and go to the actual summit. Most people who "climb" Rainier, especially with the guide services, wimp out and go only to the crater rim. The crux of the regular route, with the altitude kicking your ass, is the trip down into the crater and then on to the summit.

I've climbed both. I'm not sure it's useful to compare Mount Washington in summer conditions and Rainier.

Stuff you need to climb Mount Washington in the summer:
Running shoes
Maybe a wind breaker
(More stuff will help you be prepared for bad weather, but there's a big building on top, and a road!)

Stuff you need for Rainier:
Skills to assess objective hazards on a glaciated peak (this is a BIG one)
Mountaineering boots
Harness
Rope (and know how to use it!)
Ice ace (and know how to use it!)
A picket or two to belay crevasse crossings (and know...!)
Crampons (and know...!)
Alpine bivy or camp equipment (most people will camp or bivy en route)
Glacier travel skills
Crevasse rescue -- at least some idea of what to do, what can happen
Helmet
Some idea of how you react to altitude, and an idea of how to recognize symptoms of altitude sickness

If you aren't absolutely sure, hire a guide! That is a popular way to climb Rainier.

Thanks Ward. I figured altitude would be a major factor. I am going with a guide service in May and have been training but out here on the east coast the highest point I can get to is Mt. Washington (appx 6300 ft). Its approximately an elevation gain of 4300 ft. From what I understand Camp Paradise to Camp Muir is about 4700 ft elevation gain and then to the summit its another 4500 or so ft from there. I was thinking that doing back to back summit days on Mt. Washington might be a good test for the physical demands I may experience on Rainier, without the altitude effects of course. Any thoughts?

Thanks Jonathan. I was actually referring to Mt. Washington in the Winter not the summer time. Even with that, I understand there are still some big differences. I wasn't necessarily trying to compare the two mountains (despite the title of my post..haha). I was more looking to get a sense of how much more physically demanding will the Mt Rainier Climb compared to say climbing Mt. Washington on back to back days. Mt. Washington on back to back days would be approximately 8600 ft in elevation gain which is comparable to the overall elevation gain covered in a Mt. Rainier climb (approximately 9000 ft). So ground covered in my training would be somewhat similar it seems without being prepared for the altitude which is clearly a big factor.

Ah! Glad to hear you are using a guide service.

Maybe try hiking Washington with a heavy pack -- try to use a weight similar to what you'll be carrying on Rainier.

Sorry I missed that you said you did Mount Washington in winter. Kudos. The weather on Rainier will probably be much more pleasant!

I agree that the altitude is the biggest factor. I did Rainier last summer with RMG, which I highly recommend. The second biggest factor for me was lack of sleep. I couldn't get a wink in the 7 hours we had between arriving at Camp Muir and starting for the summit, and I dragged all day. When I do it again, I'll be bringing a sleeping mask and ear plugs, just in case. I haven't had issues sleeping at altitude in the past.

If you can swing it, find someone to take you up Mt. Whitney in CA - I think it would be a great test piece. In May, with the snow the Sierras have gotten this year, the switchbacks will still be covered, and you can just walk/climb up the slope to the right of the switchbacks. It's a very similar climb in that you'll be starting from a lower elevation, spending a night ~ half way up, and getting an alpine start for the summit. However, the other risks are minimal in comparison, minus a few thin sections of trail - no crevasses, no roped travel.

If not Whitney, get any other elevation experience you can.

Strong Swift Durable probably has a training program you could download for a Rainier type climb. I bet you'll have the most fun if you're in the right kind of shape. Good on you for doing the guided option.

Sorry, apparently they're Mountain Tactical Institute now.

(How many rebrandings are they going to do?)

Take this with a grain of salt, but having done Winter Presi Traverses in the Whites with a number of people who've done Rainier unguided, everyone agreed that a Winter Presi with an overnight was much harder than Rainier, so that might be a good training option in the Northeast.

Cheers,
Dan

Best way I could relate the two is imagine doing Mt Washington two days in a row with the second day having an extra 5 hours of descent.

Altitude isn't that bad.

Tips:
Pack light. It'll make a big difference. But take everything the guide service lists with no ancillary BS.
Carry some lightweight hikers to transition to and from on the lower third.
Eat well and a lot. I've watch people completely shut down and it's mostly due to not hydrating and eating properly. You literally need to force it if you have to.
Don't think you're going to enjoy eating cliff bars when gassed and at 12k ft.
Train. I do mt washington in the winter around 2 hrs and 50 minutes from Pinkham to the top. Try and get to the level you can beast up mt washington and rainier is gonna seem much easier.
My secret weapon is salt pills every hour on ascent and predosing up with some Advil.
Hit off the outhouse at muir and unload. Because when it's -20 wind chill and you're 300 vertical ft from the top there's no way to hide. As a poor 24 year old girl found out on my last trip with 4 guys standing around her.
Change socks half way down your descent when your feet start sweating or you'll have some nasty blisters. ...it's a long ass walk down.
And just mentally prep yourself for a looong day. It's not that bad but if you start counting steps or judging how far you have left you'll mentally beat yourself up.

Not to dismiss the seriousness, size and significance of the mountains in the PNW... But I did notice that people were making a big deal out of 109mph winds on Mt. Baker last week..

Something that seems to occur weekly in the Presidentials.

The little mountains of NH really do have the worst weather of any mountain environment in the continental US.

SGT03 wrote:Hey guys, So I am looking at finding someone who has climbed both Mt. Washington, NH and Mt Rainier that could speak to some of the differences/similarities from a physical standpoint. I understand the mountains have many differences from the sheer size, technical aspects, altitude, etc. Having climbed Mt. Washington in the winter, I understand the physical demands that it took. I am trying to gauge how much more difficult Mt. Rainier would be, physically. Any input is appreciated, even if you haven't done one or the other.

If you have climbed Mt. Washington in winter and spent a bunch of time out in the Whites in the winter, then you will be fine for Rainier in the summer.
It will be an asskicking (it is a much bigger mountain with longer days with more vert), but you will be well-prepared.

mtnmandan wrote:Take this with a grain of salt, but having done Winter Presi Traverses in the Whites with a number of people who've done Rainier unguided, everyone agreed that a Winter Presi with an overnight was much harder than Rainier, so that might be a good training option in the Northeast. Cheers, Dan

I second that advice.

I've climbed both and am from the east coast. While I've done more difficult things in the Whites and on Washington than the DC route on Rainier my initial gut response to your question would be Rainier is much harder if your comparing normal routes and the minimum amount of effort and skills it takes to get up & down.

From a physical standpoint I would compare Rainier to going up Washington twice in one day, camping with little cover from wind on the summit, then climbing it twice again the next day. That's probably more elevation gain than Rainier but Rainier "felt" that difficult to me. I guess I'm thinking of lighter pack I normally would have in the Whites though so with equal load it's probably less demanding.

Logistically and risk speaking I also think Rainier is more serious. Most people get into trouble above tree line in the Whites, considering the tree line is essentially the parking lot on Rainier you exposed to navigation issues due to visibility for most of the route. While Washington has it's avalanches and objective hazards in general if you stay on the trail they are heavily mitigated. The baseline risk on Rainier is higher, not that you can't exceed that on Washington if you go looking for it. In terms of packing there are so many ancillary items you need for Rainier it's easy to overpack. At some point you need to compare perceived safety versus weight and that's not an easy choice for someone new to that environment to make.