Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Russell's South Headwall Route vs. MR

I am trying to get an objective take on the difficulty of Russell's south headwall route vs. Whitney's MR. How do the two compare? My primary question is how the exposure between the two compares.

It looks to me from my review of GigaMike and other's TR that the south headwall route appears similar to the gully portion of the MR, and that the last pitch up the chimney of Russell's south headwall might be comparable to the final 400 although shorter and (possibly??) more exposed. If I were to tell you that I was moderately bothered by the exposure of the MR, does that mean that I would have any business takling the south headwall?

Thanks for your input.

I would consider the Southern approach on Russell easier and less exposed than the top chute on the MR. The chimney at the end of the Russell approach is only about 40-50 feet of easy climbing. Some of the exposure on the east side once you top out of the chimney is actually more exposed and the East Face route is definately more difficult and exposed. Some of these are mine and some are borrowed.

Here is a topo map of the route:



General route up the NF past UBSL to the Saki Col:



Closer View:



Head for the Thumb directly above the poser in this picture:



Then here are a couple of shots of the back side from the MR notch and Whitney:





Here two shots of the chimney at the end of the south side route:






I think you asked about doing this route in the Spring. As stated here I would consider this hike easier than the MR in the summer but could be much more difficult if not impossible in the Spring due to snow and ice on the North side of Russell's East ridge.

Are you sure about that last photo? That doesn't look like Russell's south face headwall to me (note out-of-place vegetation at 14K).

I say if the MR makes you uncomfortable, you should be prepared to turn back if you attempt Russell. The climbing is more challenging. As for exposure, it's not an easy comparison: 60 feet or so of near-vertical climbing versus the MR's 400 vertical feet at 40-45 degrees.

Andy

Really? Are we talking about the same place?

I don't think the last 2 photos are of the south headwall route on Mt Russell. I am not sure where they are.....but they don't look like the headwall route to me.

Compare these three photos, which look just like the "chimney shots" in the original set of photos.

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1382961917061435028setgMA

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1220848242061435028MInivm

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1220847467061435028GmomBS

Your both absolutely correct. I looked at another Russell album and found some different pictures and corrected the original post. Now I have to find out where those pictures in my other Russell album came from.

The resources of this board continue to amaze me. Thank you all for the information. Couple more questions -

Does the route up the chimney stay in the upper portion of the two spines and then make a hard right turn right below the summit? I am trying to put the second and third pictures from Kashcraft's post together and having a hard time visualizing the route. Having said that, it does not look inordinately steeper and/or more exposed than the last section of the MR.

I think I am going to give it a go next spring. I definitely dont have the huevos to do the East Ridge due to the exposure, but I think I might be able to handle that last 50 feet or so of rock. If not I can always turn around....

Whew!!

My eyes were starting to cross trying to see how those could be the same place.

I figured it out. The other picture was a shot of the chimney on the smiley face route to Thor that I took the day before and it got into the wrong album.

The third picture I linked was taken from up on the final portion of the East Ridge route, just before the western summit. You can only see the lower portion of the South headwall route. The top section is not visible.

If I remember correctly, I believe the route at the top of the headwall passes on the left of the center spine (2nd photo). Once you climb to the top of the headwall route you turn to the right and you are in the center of the ridge, between Mt Russel's East and west peak. After you reach the top of the headwall, you climb down a little on the other side (north side of the ridge) and make your way west until you reach the West peak.....where you climb back up 10-20 feet or so. Staying exactly on top of the ridge the whole time is not very easy.

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1382960965061435028kyyzFG

Personally I found the South Headwall route more exposed then most of the final 400 feet of the MR (assuming you climb the right side toward the top). There are lots of good handholds, though and it isn't difficult.

Awesome. Thanks, Kashcraft. So now I have one vote from Richard as being easier/less exposed, and two votes from Andy and Kashcraft for being harder/more exposed. Anyone else want to chime in?

The Russell SF and subsequently the ridge, is going to definitely feel more airy and exposed than the MR final chute. Difficulty is about the same. The big difference between the two is the descent, which always has greater potential fear factor. If someone gets freaked on the MR, they can always come down the main trail. With Russell, there is no "easy walk off". But if you had no issues going up and down the MR, you should be fine. Good luck and be safe!
Dave