Further, we anticipate that our website will be of serious interest to those who hope to climb the West Rib (or for that matter, any route on Denali) in the future – we have lots of solid information for you in our dispatches and in our general website descriptions, augmented by what is provided below. Our website will be active through December 2005.

1) TEAM DYNAMICS

Our success in ascending our primary objective, Denali’s difficult West Rib, was principally a study in the continuous, positive interactions that occurred between all members of the team. Consider that we were together in close quarters for 18 days on the mountain, plus for several nights in a small bunkhouse in Talkeetna while we waited for favorable weather to permit our flight onto McKinley (as well as during numerous training/conditioning activities in Colorado in the 8 months before we traveled to Anchorage and Talkeetna). Further, consider that for many days on the mountain we were all contending with the continual stress of high exposure mountaineering, where each of us was constantly dependant on the solid skills of every teammate for our own personal safety and for the entire team’s safety and success. Because we were all roped together, a slip by any one of us during the traverse though the ice fall or of the ascent of some of the steeper ice pitches could have had dire consequences for all, and we lived with this stress and dependency for many days. Those types of circumstances sometimes lead to development of irrational, dysfunctional behaviors that take a toll on an entire team and lessen chances for achieving the team and individual objectives.

Such behaviors did not surface in any of the individuals on the RibCo ‘04 team–all maintained positive, supportive perspectives toward one another, making the entire adventure a very special one for each of us. We came off the climb and back to Colorado having forged stronger friendships than we had already established during the months of training for the Alaskan climb. So we were indeed fortunate in our team makeup and the complementary personalities we got to know and depend on so very well. We were also fortunate as a team to have the technology of the satellite phone/PDA unit that allowed us to communicate with the outside world on a regular basis--to send our dispatches and photos, but just as importantly, to receive the e-mail messages we got daily from family members and friends; some came to us from folks we didn’t even know who were following our website dispatches and who sent messages of encouragement and congratulations to the address at the bottom of the home page. Todd packaged all the messages each day and compressed them for a burst delivery to us each time that we transmitted the dispatches. Each day, when we received your e-mails, we had one person read them all out loud to the entire team – even the “mushy” ones from spouses! This daily activity bound us together even more as a group – we began appreciating and understanding (albeit somewhat superficially) certain personal facets of one another’s lives. This practice was an important team-building one for us! We encourage future expeditions to try to arrange similar equipment for communicating with family and friends. It makes for an even more special experience than would the climb alone. And we thank our sponsors for having made this technology available to us.

2) THE ROUTE, OR THE SUMMIT?

We began planning activities for the Denali expedition in April, 2003 when a group of individuals who were considering a 2004 climb of the mountain began meeting to evaluate the feasibility of launching one or two teams during the May/June 2004 time frame. Fairly early into the process the larger group decided to focus on two routes: the standard West Buttress Route, and the less frequently climbed West Rib Route. We gathered information on both routes, and asked people who had previously climbed either of these routes to meet with us, show us photos, and discuss their experiences.

From these early sessions, several of us decided to climb the West Rib, while another group fixed on the West Buttress. Those of us who established the core group for the Rib were influenced in our decision by the remoteness of the route, the interesting route-finding and climbing challenges it posed compared to the standard route, and the expectation that we’d encounter hardly any other climbers on the West Rib. That is, the route held a strong attraction to us because it appeared to meet our individual goals for challenge and remoteness. From the earliest planning, the successful climb of the route, particularly the route-finding through the icefall at the upper end of the Northeast Fork of the Kahiltna Glacier, the ascent of the steep upper portions of the Access Couloir, the ice climbing on the two ice domes, and the fairly dangerous traverse above the upper bergshrund captured our attention and interest. We realized from the moment we made this decision to focus on the West Rib that climbing the Rib was our primary objective. McKinley’s summit, if weather and other conditions allowed, was of secondary importance. All of us, of course, hoped that a summit attempt might be possible, but the route was our principal focus.

We achieved our West Rib Route objective, and obviously feel somewhat disappointed that we did not reach the top of Denali. Nonetheless, because the route was our real objective, every one of us felt really satisfied and fulfilled by our expedition and accomplishments. 2004 was a difficult period for climbers on McKinley due to unusual weather conditions (some claimed they were the worst for summiting in 12 or 15 years), and most climbers on even the standard route were unsuccessful until after we had left the mountain. During our time on the mountain, we did not appreciate how unusual the weather we encountered was; the October 2004 issue of Climbing magazine provides perspective, by stating “Poor weather dominated Denali this season, with perhaps only one ascent by any route other than the standard West Buttress.” When we reached the 14,200-foot West Buttress Route camp during our descent off the Rib we were interviewed by the climbing rangers. The lead climbing ranger indicated that he considered our successful climb of the West Rib during that period “a significant mountaineering achievement on Denali for this spring.” We certainly felt similarly! One reason for his comments and for his statement “I take my hat off to you guys,” was the fact that we needed to do all the route-finding up the NE Fork, the ice fall, and along the entire Rib, since no tracks existed from prior parties, and none of us had been on the mountain previously; another reason was the adverse weather that dominated the mountain while we were climbing.

Will we go back again to reach the summit? For some of us, perhaps all, most certainly. We are already discussing a period in 2006 to return to McKinley and take the standard West Buttress Route to the summit – we’ve done the Rib; our future focus will be on the summit!

3) WOULD WE MODIFY OUR APPROACH IF WE WERE TO CLIMB THE RIB AGAIN?

Probably. Here are some ideas. The climbing rangers suggest that teams planning to climb the West Rib work their way up the West Buttress Route to the 14,200-foot camp and acclimatize there for several days – and then descend the standard route to 7,800 feet and start up the Rib route. Because we were coming from fairly high elevation (we all live at about 5,200 feet or higher), and we had engaged in about 8 months of training at elevations ranging from 11,000 to more than 14,000 feet, there is little doubt that we were really “fit” going into the McKinley climb. Hence, we opted to go directly onto the Northeast Fork of the Kahiltna and begin our climb on the Rib without higher elevation acclimatization on Denali.

We probably did not require the normal acclimatization period, so in that sense our decision made sense. But the decision to go directly onto the Rib required us to carry sufficient extra food and fuel to allow occasional “rest days” on the Rib, as well as for weather days at our highest anticipated camp (where we planned food for 5 days in the event we were delayed near the top of the Rib by adverse weather before going for the summit). Hence, our decision to move directly up to the West Rib had an ancillary requirement–we would need to take more than 100 pounds of gear, food, and fuel per person onto the Rib; this necessitated carrying heavy packs and pulling drag bags up the NE Fork, and thereafter making “double carries” on all sections of our route almost up to our highest camp. That is, we needed to climb a day’s segment of the route with a heavy pack, cache the stuff we’d brought up with us, return down to our previous camp, and then re-climb the same section the next day with a second heavy load. Essentially, we needed to climb the mountain twice (and for all practical purposes we did–our cumulative elevation gain exceeded 21,000 feet of vertical!).

On the easier sections of the route these double carries did not prey on our physical, emotional, and mental functioning. But they wore away at these faculties as we continued on the more difficult segments, where after having made the first ascent, we’d need to make multiple rappels and down-climbs to our camp, where sleep could be interrupted as our minds concentrated on needing to redo the difficult pitches again the next day! This mental fatigue combined with cumulative physical fatigue to slowly cut into the reserves of the strong fitness levels we had achieved from our training regimen at high elevations in Colorado.

If we were to climb the Rib again, we would probably do it as follows: we’d ascend the West Buttress Route to the 14,200-foot camp (leaving a major cache en route at 7,800 feet – our food and fuel needed for the West Rib climb). We’d hang out for several days at 14,200 feet (keeping active each day by making exploratory climbs around the area), improving our high altitude readiness. We’d take a day to climb the “Cutoff Couloir” to the upper potion of the West Rib, and make a cache at our intended high camp on the Rib, consisting of several days’ food and fuel, the specialized clothing we’d need for summit day, etc. We’d then descend the West Buttress Route to our cache at 7,800 feet. After camping a night there, we’d begin our push up the West Rib Route, being able to proceed with single carries along the entire climb – we’d be much less burdened, since we would have eaten quite a bit of weight and used quite a bit of fuel by this point, and would have dropped considerable weight in our the area of our expected high camp on the Rib. Rest days would not be required under this scenario. We believe this approach would have made our overall climb much more efficient. We encourage those planning an ascent of the West Rib to carefully consider this approach.

Most guidance we read as we planned our expedition suggested that we each carry sufficient food to replace 4,000-5,000 calories per day. Some of us were able to prepare daily packets of food that achieved the 4,000-calorie level in just over 2 pounds per day (see example daily food packages on the website). We discovered that it was very difficult to consume that much food, particularly at higher elevations. We concluded that next time we’d bring less food. Even cutting back by 1/4 pound of food per day eliminates more than 5 pounds of total beginning weight. Some expedition members carried food averaging between 2,500-3,000 calories per day and did well on this caloric intake. None of us appeared to actually lose weight on the climb. So we suggest that future parties think very critically about how much food they carry up the mountain, and not be overly influenced by the guideline of 4,000 to 5,000 calories per day. Be realistic about how much can actually be consumed!