SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Circumnavigators vs Mt Everest climbers

8K views 43 replies 17 participants last post by  MastUndSchotbruch 
#1 ·
My son saw a tv show in Canada that included the assertion that more people climb Mt Everest each year than complete a circumnav. At first I was shocked but after doing a bit of research it makes sense. Apparently 300 to 400 people do the climb. If we assume two people per boat (let's assume the singlehanders cancel the extra crew on some boats), that would be 150 to 200 boats. With the Red Sea route closed, all circumnavigators have to round South Africa, overwhelmingly during the summer season here. I asked a few other cruisers how many boats they think are here now and the consensus was perhaps 80 including the 20 or so World ARC boats. By this reasoning, clearly there are fewer sailors than climbers. Fascinating and surprising.
 
#2 ·
While Everest is still the holy grail of climbing, its has become a hand holding guided tour for most of its climbers. Himex sherpas actually set lines to the summit, before the clients even attempt it. Albeit, the altitude and conditions can and do kill climbers every single year.
 
#3 ·
One can also climb Everest in about a months worth of time, vs around the world will take 12-15 months! Cost is probably the same in a very generally speaking term.......easier to set myself up to climb everest than sail around the world.

Marty
 
#4 · (Edited)
I've been to Everest Base Camp, actually the mountain above it directly accross from Mt Everest... It's called Kala Pattar and where the classic photos of My Everest are taken. It's a 3 week trek up and about 5 days down... Boy oh boy after the first half hour going down you can stride it out like a super hereo.

The adventure tourism climbs of Mt Everest have become extremely prevalent now because they can be done in a short time for a cost that makes the climbing companies millions but is still cheap compared to cruising. I think it's about $30,000 for the whole adventure per person, so about one years cruising on the average boat, two years on a budget boat, so in any way it's cheaper than circumnavigating in time and money and you don't have to buy the damn boat!

The climbing companies have found a "formulae" to do it, as perhaps World ARC has done too.

Remember also, Mt Everest up the normal way is NOT a climb. It's regarded as a trek by mountaineers. The difficult faces of Everest are not the ones the "tourists" do. And really they are not tourists as they may have been super fit out doorsy mountain climber types their whole lives. It's not like Aunty Gwendolyn and Uncle Cecil are staking their flag on the summit of Everest.

As an adventure the Base Camp track I did was hard enough for mere mortals.... The group of 10 were all 35 or younger and only 4 of us made it to the top of Kala Pattar. Fortunately I have the photo to prove it :)
Compared with cruising its very similar in some ways... No matter how many tourists on the mountain, or at sea, its still Man and Nature. Not against nature... You can't do that here nor there...

Killarney Sailor, it means when you have finished your circumnavigation you will both have a nice little warm glow inside. There's not many people who have done it. It is a challange of the most adventurous undertaking.... It just doesn't feel like it because we love cruising. :)





Mark
 
#7 ·
Both require lot of money. But the folks can afford doing it can't afford the time to sail. Beside most people think sailing in the middle ocean (desert) is quite boring. That is why there are not too many young men and women in long voyage.

I offered a proposal to my son to sail with me around the world after he graduates from college. I told him that once you started working, it is hard to take time off. He would not take it. In the last 12 months, I asked if he wants to sail to Bermuda or BVI with me, he said: No, it is too boring. He rather sails a dingy than in a cruiser. He would climb Mt Everest in a heart beat.

There is no comparison between these two. but I don't mean one if better than other. They just offer different things.
 
#9 ·
Both require lot of money. But the folks can afford doing it can't afford the time to sail. Beside most people think sailing in the middle ocean (desert) is quite boring. That is why there are not too many young men and women in long voyage.

I offered a proposal to my son to sail with me around the world after he graduates from college. I told him that once you started working, it is hard to take time off. He would not take it. In the last 12 months, I asked if he wants to sail to Bermuda or BVI with me, he said: No, it is too boring. He rather sails a dingy than in a cruiser. He would climb Mt Everest in a heart beat.

There is no comparison between these two. but I don't mean one if better than other. They just offer different things.
One of my sons who was a dinghy sailing instructor and thought that keelboats were pretty boring decided to crew back from Bermuda with me a few years ago. He was sea-sick for four days. Has said less about keelboats since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockDAWG
#11 ·
Making it to the top of Everest with a professional Sherpa team, is like circumnavigating with a professional Captain that was born in the ocean and previously circumnavigated a dozen times.

However, if you asked me which of the two you were more likely to succeed at without any support, it's probably the circumnavigation.

If you haven't read Ed Viesturs' book "No Shortcuts to the Top", I highly recommend it. Ed, if you're unfamiliar, is one of, if not the most accomplished American Mountaineer. He's been on top of Everest a half dozen times, but turned back on his first attempt when he was several hundred feet from the summit. His book is about personal risk management and completely applies to sailing.
 
#13 ·
Even in what regards the Everest there are several scales. If it is to go to the top without Sherpas and without oxygen very few had done it. The last time our best mountaineer was there, without oxygen, they got trapped by a storm, he lost is friend, lost is nose and half of his fingers and he is among the best have climbed all the difficult mountains.

I don't think it is comparable.

Regards

Paulo
 
#12 ·
I can't speak for others. I found riding a motorcycle across the country is more dangerous than sailing around the world. Apparently, my wife feels the same. She would rather see me sailing solo around the world than having me ride the bike from Ocean City MD to Fisherman Wharf in SFO via Highway 50, even though it is far cheaper and taking less time.

Sailing is far safer than years before if you pay attention. :)
 
#15 ·
Both adventures (circumnavigating & Mt. Everest) require and reward self-sufficiency. Cruising many miles from land on a sailboat, you have nothing except the wind, the waves and that which you brought oboard. So it is with mountaineering in the wilderness. All you have is the weather, the rocks and that which you have in your pack.

Good offshore, bluewater sailors know that they must be competent in many skills. On a long passage you need to be your own mechanic, navigator, doctor, chef and any number of other professions. Again, when you're on a long wilderness trek or summit attempt you have no one to rely on except yourself. Even experienced Sherpas and a well-stocked base camp can't save you from yourself.

While I personally haven't attempted either feat, I've often thought about the parallels. There's something special to me about self-sufficiency. I like the idea of being able to survive off the land (food, water, shelter) and go as far as my own feet will take me. I also cherish the dreams I have about the wind carrying me to far away places and my sailboat serving as home. Self-sufficiency is simple and complex at the same time. The contrast between the two is what I find so fulfilling.

Good thread!
 
#18 ·
While there are some comparisons between climbing and circumnavigating (self sufficiency, gear, sense of accomplishment, etc) I think they are completely different in many regards. With climbing you have a set destination (summit and back) and train extensively to be able to physically accomplish the climb. Your one and only objective is to summit and get back down safely. To summit Everest might be comparable to some of the serious round the world races, but not the average leisurely sight seeing circumnavigation. That in no way diminishes the accomplishment of a circumnavigation, I just think they are vastly different endeavors.
On a side note, I've been to Everest base camp (app. 18,500 ft) and it's a relatively easy (9000' elevation gain, most people suffer some form of altitude sickness, many have to turn around) walk in the park (Sagarmartha Park), but I can honestly say that having been to base, I cannot begin to imagine what it would physically take to go the next 10,000 feet up and back. I'm in awe of anyone that has done it, or even attempted it.
Here is an absolutely amazing site that allows you to explore Everest base camp and the surrounding area.
A 3.8 Billion-Pixel Tour Of Mount Everest : NPR
 
#19 ·
Wow.. that's quite the tent city there. The site's 'hot spots' aren't working for me, but the image is crystal clear.. amazing.

Good thing fewer people are cruising.. there'd be no room in the anchorages!
 
#22 ·
Actually, I disagree.
Of all the groups in the world I have seen theres none better for packing out trash, and keeping the environment clean than cruising sailors.

Yes, one or two will make a mess, but there's hundreds who leave an area cleaner than when they arrived.

We do a great job, much better than Everests Base Camp or the mountain itself. Cruisers should congratulate themselves and reinforce the good stuff on new cruisers and the few errant ones.
 
#23 ·
I agree with you that sailors (in sail boats) tend to clean up after themselves... if it's convenient but I suspect stuff goes overboard when it's not. I was just referring to the general amount of land-originated debris like floating plastic bags left by humans that makes its way to equally remote places like the Pacific gyre.
 
#24 ·
I agree with Mark, base camp was deserted when I was there and my son and I looked for an hour or so trying to find a "souvenir" of some kind from a climbing party. Nothing, not one scrap of paper, rusty can, oxygen bottle. That was 12 years ago and I'm sure it's the same now. Much the same in the popular anchorages here in the PNW, it's rare to see any trash either on shore or floating. We pick up any floating plastic that we see, usually a water bottle (hate them) or two and maybe a grocery sack or something over the course of a month during summer. I think both groups do an excellent job.
 
#28 ·
I wonder what percentage of circumnavigations have occurred in the last decade for the sake of comparison?
 
#33 ·
Pretty much the same, say 80% over the last 20 years when GPS was fully integrated into the cruising community.

I did half a one in 1998/99 and there were lots on the road then. I think it's been going up exponentially till the 2010/2011 pirate stuff, and will grow again when people realise South Africa is not too bad with sat weather.

Not withstanding the forum BS about how many did it on a log in the 1970's I think probably very very few did a complete circumnavigation before GPS.

If you think 80 boats are doing it each year today then in the 1970s I think Lin and Larry Pardy may have had 9 others completing it each year... So ten per year, perhaps? Even the round the world races then were only once a decade, or every 5 years and only had a few competitors.

There would have been a lot on the road at any one time, but few actually completing a circumnavigation in any particular year.

What do you think?

Mark
 
#29 ·
I don't think that the reason less people circumnavigated than climbed the Everest as nothing to do with difficulty. It had to do mostly with available time and costs.

For climbing the Everest one can do it on holidays. For circumnavigating one had to stop working for almost a year, or more than a year if it is done with time.

Very few people have the time or the money to do it. And then we would have also to look at the number of people that would be interested in circumnavigate versus the number of people that would be interested to climb the Everest.

Today it is quite fashionable to climb the Everest



This way:D

"Nepalese organisations are picking their customers from the internet without any concern as to whether they are capable of the journey. I am anti regulation, but I think the Nepalese government has little choice but to ask tougher questions of would-be climbers in future."


Everest mountaineer says crowding by 'hobby climbers' is path to tragedy | World news | guardian.co.uk
 
#30 ·
PCP- the elevation alone tends to weed out those unprepared and un-conditioned to make the attempt, although I know it is becoming more and more common for some who think they just have to pay the money and they'll be carried to the top. There is a luxury hotel just above Namche (11,000'?) where most of the guests are flown in from Kathmandu (most fly to Lukla at 9,000' and then walk, slowly). Many are flown back down with severe altitude sickness. We saw a couple of people each day on the trails being helped down because they were so ill. Generally it is the younger people that don't take the recommended time to ascend that have problems, they are impatient to get "up there". You never feel "good" above 15k, after a week of it we high tailed it back down.
 
#32 ·
Generally it is the younger people that don't take the recommended time to ascend that have problems, they are impatient to get "up there".
Just like motion sickness, altitude sickness can hit anyone. There is nothing to do with how strong you are.

Diamox 250 mg BID works well from 9000 to 13,000 ft. I am sure it will not work at the altitude of Mt Everest. I guess high dose of injectable steroid and descent are only viable options.
 
#34 ·
I would not be surprised if the number of boats doing a circumnav has declined in the last ten years : 1. The sick economy 2. Threat of Terrorism 3. Increased Bureaucracy (owing much to #1). Some day I will decide to set off and do this but since the 2008 meltdown, cost is an issue as well as the uncertainty of the economy. Missing the Med because of the Red Sea problem is a factor and I can't help but think that clearing in everywhere must be more difficult.
 
#42 ·
As to your points, i am sure 2008 had an impact since a lot of financial plans went out the window. in our case we went sailing earlier since my wife was laid as a result of the crash (she worked for a major financial company in the NYC area.) don't hein terrorism has dad any impact except for closing off the Red Sea route. Bureacracy? Not sure what you are referring to.

My estimate of the number of boats circumnavigating is based solely on what we have seen at the choke point of South Africa. I think there might have been 40 more when the Red Sea route was open. I would imagine that the numbers will go up again when that is open again - my guess 2014 to 2015. At tha time I think that the numbers going the southern route will be lower, but higher than before, because people are slowly getting the message that this route is entirely doable. If you or your boat can't hack this route you probably should not be crossing oceans in the first place.

A disquieting possibility - I am not at all convinced about the long term stability of South Africa. It has the largest income disparity in the world. The white and other well-off people are leaving still and taking their money. Unemployment is extremely, especially among the young. Political system does not work well and corruption is high. A youth leader in the ANC, the governing party, has called for occupations of white-owned farms -- this is exactly what caused the collapse go neighbouring Zimbabwe. It is not impossible to imagine South Afica becoming a place that you could not go and sailing around it from Mozambique or Madagascar in one go is a huge, risky undertaking, not for typical rtw boats and crews. No Red Sea and no South Afrca leaves the Northeast Passage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkofSeaLife
#35 ·
Brain Damage

I've spend 30 years doing all sorts of climbing, all sorts of places. Some rock, ice, and mountaineering. I don't think I would consider Everest, judging from a few that have climbed it that I know, as enormously difficult and it was certainly well within my capability at my peak. I had the bucks to burn. I had one overwhelming reason not to even consider it:

"Neurologist Nicolás Fayed and his colleagues in Zaragoza, Spain, performed MRI brain scans on 35 climbers (12 professionals and 23 amateurs) who had returned from high-altitude expeditions, including 13 who had attempted Everest. They found brain damage in virtually every Everest climber but also in many climbers of lesser peaks who returned unaware that they had injured their brain. It seems that climbers of high mountains, whether weekend warrior or seasoned professional, face returning from the high peaks with a brain that is not in the same condition it was in beforehand."

Into Thin Air: Mountain Climbing Kills Brain Cells: Scientific American

----

Difficulty? One requires extreme fitness and parents with high altitude genes, the other great mental fortitude over a period of years. For me, Everest would have been far easier. Different.
 
#36 ·
Wow. makes one think about even skiing at 12,000' up on the continental divide. I know it takes me a couple of days to get used to the thin air out in the Rockies. I guess we should just stay close to SEA LEVEL:D
 
#37 ·
I like sea level too. Seems like that's where we evolved.

I've been on numerous climbing and sking trips in the US west to around 12,000 feet. Yup, it's best to spend a week hiking and hanging around at 5000-7000 feet first. I think 12,000 feet, for those that acclimate well, probably carries zero risk as the blood stays well saturated. That's enough for me. The view is nice.

I feel the same way about diving. I've had friends get bent, going deep for the challenge of it I suppose. They were smart people, but something went wrong (bad BC, helping partner, strong current, thermocline). I enjoy snorkeling just fine.
 
#39 ·
Denali is a harder mtn to climb than Everest. I know a few that have had issues up there. IIRC 1-10 death to survival vs everest at 1-100 or some such major difference.

Been to the top of Rainier, 14410, that was fun enough for me, along with a few other local volcano's in the 10-12K range.

I can see where in some cases, where the higher up you go, that brain damage can occur. Especially those that try to free climb with out oxygen above 18-20K'. Rainier at 14K did not effect me. Did it over three days, so was able to acclimate easy enough. But still came down with a head ache. Might have been fluid, bright sun, or an anema issue for all I know.

Marty
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top