Cupdate... HIGH!!!
Printed From: ProfessorPaddle.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Whitewater Forum
Forum Discription: Open Discussion Forum. Whitewater related subjects only
URL: http://www.professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12283
Printed Date: 28 Apr 2024 at 8:17pm
Topic: Cupdate... HIGH!!!
Posted By: Travisimo
Subject: Cupdate... HIGH!!!
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 10:25am
|
The correlation is not correct now, at all... /media/photoview.asp?File_Id=7258">  I went up hoping to either run into someone or solo a bit of it. No way, No matter who you are... it was raging! Wonder how long till it'll be "low" again? That log sucks, that's right in my usual line, anyone know who tied it there and why? I'll help take it out when the water is low... I don't care for trip lines attached to wood... /media/photoview.asp?File_Id=7259">  /media/photoview.asp?File_Id=7261">  /media/photoview.asp?File_Id=7260">  ------------- H2O please |
Replies:
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 11:01am
| Certainly a good flow but it doesn't look much different than other years with the cup that full. I think it still coorelates about the same. I was up there a couple weeks ago and did not see that rope tied up in there, must have been in the last few weeks unless I was day dreaming through there, which is a most certain possibility. |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 11:39am
|
Maybe the picture isn't clear enough. I'd say the highest part of the cup rock was at least an inch underwater... The waves never exposed it. It was neat watching an aluminum can getting worked in the cave at the waterfall. There was no way to eddy out before it either. I'd love to see somebody run it at that level, but not me! /media/photoview.asp?File_Id=7262">  Is anybody running the Fall into the Wall when it's "medium-high?" The namesake of the run is pretty scary if you ask me at these levels. ------------- H2O please |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 1:15pm
|
I think it looks about the same level as the high side of what I have done it at, a long time ago I called it a soiled undies level... I would probably just watch now a days since I am a Kouch Kayaker with chillins to take care of. Certainly the proper drop would be sending you into the wall pretty fast at that level... again I think I would opt into the sit back and watch category. |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 3:40pm
Where is the gauge for this river at, and what else is included? I'm trying to tell when I'll want to go up there again. The gauge was reading about 650 when I took those pics and the cup rock was about 1" underwater. Our correlation says 200-1000 is runnable. I don't wanna be there with 350cfs more??? I'd pay to watch a video of anyone trying that though! What is the highest anyone has run the actual waterfall... "Fall in the Wall?" I think this run is getting sandbagged heavily and folks aren't running the namesake anymore. Maybe because its downright scary at "medium" flows... (I call this medium, which is the new low...)  ------------- H2O please |
Posted By: osmelendez
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 4:42pm
|
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought FITW was raging at 650cfs. I was like, "damn! People are talking like they run these flows all the time." I took a look at the four consecutive drops (I think it's called the Four Horsemen, I don't really know) and knew that my time to run FITW was not yet. I'll wait until 350-400 as well.
But! If someone wants to run it at 650, then shoot me a personal message. I'll come down with one other film guy and take some footage so you can show people wuz up! |
Posted By: PaddleGirl
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 5:38pm
|
well i find it funny that AW has the max at 500. things are different than here on PP.
another level discrepancy: EF Lewis. AW = 400 - 1000, PP = 900 - 2500 |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 6:50pm
Here it is fairly high, I did it once quite a bit higher. I'll try to find a video and post it, sorry this isn't edited at all. I really need to start editing the hours and hours of footage I have http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-UgOIvKAEoA#t=180s - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-UgOIvKAEoA#t=180s It's a bit scary at this level, when I did it higher I only did one lap before my adrenaline gland blew out, I photographed the second lap... Check out the rest of the shots in this gallery, but notice the helmet in this shot  /media/photoview.asp?File_Id=5523">  ------------- H2O please |
Posted By: chipmaney
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 7:18pm
|
the wood was tied up last year, for what reason it's unclear. i agree whoever tied it up should remove the rope, otherwise the log will never transport itself downstream and will continue to be a navigation impediment. In addition, I think the log has moved farther downstream than it's original tied position and is more in the thalweg than last year, when it seemed to be contained in the eddy. ------------- sitting all alone on a mountain by a river that has no end |
Posted By: flipside
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 7:39pm
| I have been running this for many years and if you don't know the lines well it can kick your ass.At higher flowes the fearsom foursom is very quick with very few eddy's.But it is a hell of a ride when you hit it right.Most people overlook fishermans I believe it is called on the lower part of the run where I have seen many a good boater get tossed along with myself. |
Posted By: BRoss
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 8:02pm
|
Nice word Chipper, thalweg (thank you wikipedia)! I may have to bust that out at the annual family thanksgiving Fictionary game. ------------- "That boated a lot better than it looked." "It always does until it doesn't." |
Posted By: chipmaney
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 8:30pm
|
Originally posted by BRoss
Nice word Chipper, thalweg (thank you wikipedia)! I may have to bust that out at the annual family thanksgiving Fictionary game. as long as you don't have any fluvial geomorphologists in the family, it should work well! ------------- sitting all alone on a mountain by a river that has no end |
Posted By: FLUID
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 9:43pm
| Brett and I ran it today and it was super fun !!! I'll prob be there in the morning instead of robe (work obligations...Boo) Sooooo if anyone wants to come on up and get in there with me would be good to have some company... maybe we could cut that log out. it won't be hard I think were just to lazy to get out when were there and deal with it. as it sits now its not in play unless you had a really bad line off number #2 |
Posted By: osmelendez
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2012 at 9:46pm
| wow! "thalweg" actually is a word, and it's probably one that all kayakers should know. can't wait to use this one with some of my friend and say it like I really mean it without flinching, like everybody should know what thalweg is. thanks. |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 12:12am
|
Did you "fall into the wall?" I'd love to see video of someone running the falls at this level. ------------- H2O please |
Posted By: JayB
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 7:47am
|
Hey Travisimo: Sounds like you were talking about the online gauge verus the cup-rock? If it's the online gauge - it's way downstream. When it's this late in the season, it's been dry, and all of the snow in the lower drainages that feed into the SF is gone - the levels at FITW are much higher than the online gauge would suggest. Conversely - early in the season the flow at FITW can be much lower than the online gauge is indicating since the water in the source lake basin is still locked in the snowpack, even though the lower drainages are starting to cut loose (or it's raining, or both). ------------- -Jay |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 9:49am
|
Thanks! That's what I suspected. I know I'm spoiled by having gauges on most of the runs I do... This is the second time I've headed up thinking it would be medium and found it gnar... I did run part of the run below Franklin (after the falls) and that was fun too. There's a good little class 3-4 from the campground to a bit past the bridge. I'd still like to know if anyone is running the actual falls. I think it's a bit wrong to call a level "medium" if even the gnar boaters aren't running "Fall in the wall." Maybe if we call it fearsome foursome to green room... As Eric pointed out, we used to run rootball too, but it's downright terrifying at the new "medium." I'm afraid we're gonna scare new boaters away from this awesome run. People are obviously going up there and being terrified thinking these are normal flows. We've had a lot of snow and little melt, so I look forward to some awesome laps later than usual on FITW. There is still some snow in the forest on the walk up there!!! It's rated as a class IV-V it's a solid V right now... Class 6 if you include rootball... Anyone that goes up there should scout rootball and the drop after. Wow, just wow. I can just imagine pulling out of the eddy at this level and what would follow  ------------- H2O please |
Posted By: kevinh
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 12:06pm
|
update! right now the cup is full and dropping.... ill try and post a picture |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 1:29pm
|
First off, thanks Chipper, because that word should be used by more paddlers- the Thalweg is basicly the main trunk of the river's current.
Second, that tied up wood is lame. Someone went in and started that job, but didn't finish it. you're probably right in that it has likely slid more out into the current. Its in a bad spot, and the rope can only make it more of a hazard. 
Originally posted by PaddleGirl
well i find it funny that AW has the max at 500. things are different than here on PP. another level discrepancy: EF Lewis. AW = 400 - 1000, PP = 900 - 2500 Well, as far as this goes, what do you find funny about it? I find it "funny" that you didn't weigh in on which side of the coin should be face up. Either a) the high water estimates should be accepted as the prevailing beta or b) the lower recommended flows should be considered more aligned with the paddling community's sensibilities Or how about c) American Whitewater should be considered to be the more authoritative resource Or maybe d) Professor Paddle is a more hands on user generated resource that generally remains up to date... Oh wait: I'm going to choose e) These numeric values are all highly subjective. And I, as a free thinking individual, value all of the resources I have available to me. I understand that merely clicking on a web link and recieving a numeric value is by itself an absurd means of determining whether or not a section of river or creek contains the suitable amount of water for me based on my skill level, sensibilities, fitness level, ect. That for any guage reading to effectively convey any meaningful information to me whatsoever, it is entirely encumbant upon myself to learn and understand a broader tapestry of details including but not limited to the location of the guage, the current whether positions relative to the actual averages for that calendar day or week, the season(s) and how they influence. runoff, ect. Furthermore, I would prefer to have multiple resources that differ in their beta so I can better figure it out for myself, rather than several resources that all parrot one another. It is up to me and me only to know myself in this sport, know my local runs of interest, and know my resources and how to interpret them. |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 1:37pm
|
Originally posted by JayB
the online gauge verus the cup-rock: If it's the online gauge - it's way downstream. When it's this late in the season, it's been dry, and all of the snow in the lower drainages that feed into the SF is gone - the levels at FITW are much higher than the online gauge would suggest. Conversely - early in the season the flow at FITW can be much lower than the online gauge is indicating since the water in the source lake basin is still locked in the snowpack, even though the lower drainages are starting to cut loose (or it's raining, or both). There you have it. Very well encapsulated, Jay. I just don't ever bother with the online guage. But if you want to glean anything from the online guage, you need at least a rudimentary understanding of it like the way Jay just spelled it out, and even then you will be guessing a lot. |
Posted By: not-very-clever
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 1:56pm
|
Thalweg is german. Thal meaning valley, and weg meaning way. it is actually pronounced Tall- Veg with a german accent of course. it has been adopted into an english as "a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography - geography and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluvial - fluvial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology - geomorphology term that signifies the deepest continuous inline within a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley - valley or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watercourse - watercourse system." reference-wiki my first time hearing the word and i was curious of the etymology. PP is not just about ranting and raving, sometimes it is outright educational |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 1:58pm
|
Originally posted by Travisimo
I'm afraid we're gonna scare new boaters away from this awesome run. People are obviously going up there and being terrified thinking these are normal flows. Well, now we need to come back down to reason. "New" boaters should not be on that run to begin with. In any way shape or form, high flows, low flows, whatever. It is not the most difficult steep creek in the world, but it is still a place for advanced kayaking technique. Maybe not on the level of what "expert technique" means today in 2012, but still, FITW is not a run for "new" boaters. I know people progress quick these days, but those who skip class, pardon the pun, end up in class V with janky technique and tons of bad habits. Maybe we all have our share, but if you are going up to run FITW you shoukd be able to decide for yourself after walking the whole thing it is easy to scout. If you don't know well enough to come back when its flowing at a volume to your liking, what difference does it make what someone else says is "normal"? Look, this is the 21st century now. Our sport has progressed. Lots of advanced to expert paddlers like more push with yheir steeps these days. I passed the torch. Let these generations kick the ball down the court a bit. Me? Low water annoys me and high water scares me. I'm a medium guy. I like to run my favorite runs that challenge me at medium to medium high flows. I watched some kid drop Granite Falls recently at 5.8'. Stout flows for that seldom run rapid. If you drop into that, you'd better be prepared for an ass kicking even if you aren't looking for one. He got his at the bottom, and I was left with the impression that he didn't adequately scout the 3 or 4 stout drops below the falls. Nice guy, and did fine later on Robe, but I was surprised he didn't seem to know what he was signing up for. But hey, maybe he did and thats why he signed up. Not my style. |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 2:18pm
|
Now, if its a matter of inaccurate beta, then that is possibly a topic that the community (PP) should discuss.
If it ever becomes apparent that someone has inserted their min-max range and it has somehow evaded the moderaters who monitor the beta here, you need to bring it up. So really I should ammend my legalese above to include that we all should try to catch descrepencies on our rivers pages if they are in fact false. Tough to do with flow ranges in a way because they are subjective. But then again I can tell you that for the East Fork Lewis run, 400-1000 is WAY more skewed toward ONLY covering the low end range than 900-2500 is skewed toward a high end range. 900-2500 better spans the middle range, in my opinion. Whatever our flow ranges are listed as, the RECOMMENDED level is just that. Therefore it should try to reflect what the majority of the community considers average, including an average runnable low, and an average runnable high. That' s why the bare bones low flow SHOULD NOT be included in the recommended range the same as the Scary High Gnar flow shouldn't. That's why the Sky's low end RECOMMENDED flow should NOT be 500. 500 should be outside the bracket. In another example, Robe is only routinely run by a mixed bag of 20-40 individuals, maybe (hard to say). But only a few of them are out running it at, say, 7'. What I'm saying is the average paddler should be able to halfway trust those numbers highlighted in green. Boaters who love scraping down sh*t should accept the fact that the numbers they like are coded yellow, while the Sam Graftons of the world can get all stoked when they see the guage page lit up in blue. Its really pretty simple, folks. |
Posted By: PaddleGirl
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 2:29pm
|
Originally posted by jP
Originally posted by PaddleGirl well i find it funny that AW has the max at 500. things are different than here on PP. another level discrepancy: EF Lewis. AW = 400 - 1000, PP = 900 - 2500 Well, as far as this goes, what do you find funny about it? I find it "funny" that you didn't weigh in on which side of the coin should be face up. Either a) the high water estimates should be accepted as the prevailing beta or b) the lower recommended flows should be considered more aligned with the paddling community's sensibilities Or how about c) American Whitewater should be considered to be the more authoritative resource Or maybe d) Professor Paddle is a more hands on user generated resource that generally remains up to date... Oh wait: I'm going to choose e) These numeric values are all highly subjective. And I, as a free thinking individual, value all of the resources I have available to me. I understand that merely clicking on a web link and recieving a numeric value is by itself an absurd means of determining whether or not a section of river or creek contains the suitable amount of water for me based on my skill level, sensibilities, fitness level, ect. That for any guage reading to effectively convey any meaningful information to me whatsoever, it is entirely encumbant upon myself to learn and understand a broader tapestry of details including but not limited to the location of the guage, the current whether positions relative to the actual averages for that calendar day or week, the season(s) and how they influence. runoff, ect. Furthermore, I would prefer to have multiple resources that differ in their beta so I can better figure it out for myself, rather than several resources that all parrot one another. It is up to me and me only to know myself in this sport, know my local runs of interest, and know my resources and how to interpret them. I see it as a matter of a difference of opinion, not that one is better than the other, or that one source is or should be more authoritative for whatever reason.
it's a pretty big difference when there is only a small bit of overlap like on the EF Lewis. which is "funny" to me, and I'll admit that is a very poor choice of a word. words aren't and never have been my forte.
i agree that is nice to get differing opinions in beta, and none of that is exactly a substitute for seeing it for myself and making my own decisions. pretty much agree with everything you say in your post, even though it rubbed me the wrong way the first time i read it.
|
Posted By: JayB
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 3:03pm
|
Originally posted by Travisimo
Thanks! That's what I suspected. I know I'm spoiled by having gauges on most of the runs I do... This is the second time I've headed up thinking it would be medium and found it gnar... I did run part of the run below Franklin (after the falls) and that was fun too. There's a good little class 3-4 from the campground to a bit past the bridge. I'd still like to know if anyone is running the actual falls. I think it's a bit wrong to call a level "medium" if even the gnar boaters aren't running "Fall in the wall." Maybe if we call it fearsome foursome to green room... As Eric pointed out, we used to run rootball too, but it's downright terrifying at the new "medium." I'm afraid we're gonna scare new boaters away from this awesome run. People are obviously going up there and being terrified thinking these are normal flows. We've had a lot of snow and little melt, so I look forward to some awesome laps later than usual on FITW. There is still some snow in the forest on the walk up there!!! It's rated as a class IV-V it's a solid V right now... Class 6 if you include rootball... Anyone that goes up there should scout rootball and the drop after. Wow, just wow. I can just imagine pulling out of the eddy at this level and what would follow Totally agree with you - on that one.
There's an annual debate over what constitutes low, medium, and high and in the end it always ends up like debating whether orange is a better color than blue, but at the very least we should update the run description with something that says "HEY- DON'T TRUST THE ONLINE GAUGE CUZ IT'S WAY DOWNSTREAM FROM THE RUN - USE THE CUP GAUGE!" and then refer the reader to the gauge rock photo in the "features" column. Adding something that says "This run is a full-tilt V at high water levels and above" would probably also be worth adding.
http://www.professorpaddle.com/media/photoview.asp?File_Id=5501 - http://www.professorpaddle.com/media/photoview.asp?File_Id=5501
My personal calibration for low, medium, and high runs about an inch lower than the levels shown in the photos - but I think that the levels shown in the photos are pretty close to the consensus that emerges when the ELF jockeys and the high-water-gnar lobby chime in and debate levels. ------------- -Jay |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 3:22pm
|
Yeah, sorry-- i'm a little too good at that (rubbing people the wrong way online) I guess the best we can do with this open source style of info is participate in it to the degree it is important to us.
Anyone on these forums who has a favorite run or two should periodicly check the description page and check the info posted their against their own personal knowledge. If info is way off base, it should be changed directly on the rivers page where it will be reviewed by a "rio bandito", or challenged in the forums much like in this discussion. We all just have to know ourselves and where we sit along the spectrum, and be aware that this beta is to serve the whole paddling community, and not just us as individuals. Like I said, I consider myself moderate both in how I rate the class of rapids and how I guage the river in terms of "low","medium", and "high". People from both extremes will likely disagree. My "medium" is generally relative to the river's medium in any riverbed: Tons of rocks in the riverbed= low. Rocks moderately covered yet the water is comfortably contained within its bank = medium. Bank full is obviously high. Yes it is subjective, but not as much as ALL OF OUR egos pretend it is. See the river as it is with unbiased eyes. Observe nature. The river will tell you what IT considers low, medium, or high. |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 3:25pm
|
Originally posted by jP Oh wait: I'm going to choose e) These numeric values are all highly subjective. And I, as a free thinking individual, value all of the resources I have available to me. I understand that merely clicking on a web link and recieving a numeric value is by itself an absurd means of determining whether or not a section of river or creek contains the suitable amount of water for me based on my skill level, sensibilities, fitness level, ect. That for any guage reading to effectively convey any meaningful information to me whatsoever, it is entirely encumbant upon myself to learn and understand a broader tapestry of details including but not limited to the location of the guage, the current whether positions relative to the actual averages for that calendar day or week, the season(s) and how they influence. runoff, ect. Furthermore, I would prefer to have multiple resources that differ in their beta so I can better figure it out for myself, rather than several resources that all parrot one another. It is up to me and me only to know myself in this sport, know my local runs of interest, and know my resources and how to interpret them. Well said, JP. I think a lot of boaters out there would benefit greatly to doing their homework. There's a lot more to it than just looking for a green light. |
Posted By: PaddleGirl
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 3:38pm
|
Originally posted by jP
Yeah, sorry-- i'm a little too good at that (rubbing people the wrong way online)
thanks, though also not necessary... i agreed with everything you said but for whatever reason my ego was a little bruised.
when i moved from the east coast, i expected there to be a bigger discrepancy in class ratings than i think there is. The bigger difference, in my opinion, is the low, med, high ratings. one person's medium is my high, their high is my "no effin way", my low is their "ELF - no effin way".
just an observation that one person's high max. rec. level can be another person's min. rec. level.
and i'm sure as i progress and/or get spoiled with having such an abundance of water all year long, things will evolve.
|
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 3:48pm
|
See, now with the color analogy, I disagree with you, Jay. Low, medium, and high are both measurements.
While whether or not you prefer orange or blue is a preference that really has little importance beyond aesthetics. My argument has always been that the low/medium/high debate needs to be rooted in the river's hydrological and fluvial rthyms, rather than simply being a matter of preference arbitrarily left up to a group of individuals to decide on. Yes, it is a preference. So is how much salt you put on your food. But if you don't have standards to meassure it, how can you be sure it'll taste good for ya? And of course we can all agree that's at the heart of what we are discussing. I'm just saying it shouldn't be left to Elf Boater X's opinion and his merry band of low water wingnuts. Nor should it be left to Floodstage Freddy and his Fratternity of class Five Freaks to opine about what they think defines the three brackets of the spectrum. It should be left to the river. Then we have our guages. And, we have the cup rock. From this, we have the cupdate, and thousands of words typed by PPeeps describing how to interpret it to your liking. But until USGS puts an online guage up in there, we are stuck with this visual guage. Its been described in great detail. Verbally, with photos, ect. So after all this I'm hard pressed to see any problem here (with regard to FITW). Paddlegirl has, through this process, sparked a possible worthy topic about how to correlate PP w/ AW. But that would be its own topic, and to get anywhere with it we'd have to delve deeper than the initial observation of some dicrepencies and move forward with spotlighting the top five worst or something. Then take a fresh look on a community level and make those five river descriptions more accurate. But that takes more mental effort than an online community devoted to whitewater can muster, perhaps? If so then we have to be happy with the imperfect info we have, which is already arguably too much. I tried to get community involvement with this stuff a few times, and it ussually fizzles out. Its up to all of us to participate, otherwise just accept what ends up as the default. All I know is that we are lucky to have all kinds of water coursing through these cracks in the mountains. It still flows downhill, just like yesterday, and I'm about to go get some! |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 4:14pm
|
If you prefer Low water, you are still paddling on low water! You aren't paddling on "medium" flows because you prefer low water and your base line reference is medium to you. It shouldn't work like that. What's low then from that reference point? Bone dry? Because 400 on the East Frk Lewis is absurd. I have never heard of it being paddled that low. If you prefer UBER HIGH f**king FLOODSTAGE MADNESS, but are boating on a run at a medium flow, you are not boating on "low" water because it is low relative to your preference. You are boating on medium water based on what that drainage is designed to discharge. It may be as widely subjective as you all seem to assert, but it shouldn't be. Have you seen William Nealy's book KAYAK? He's got a page in there that illustrates what I'm saying. I've seen similar illustrations on nature kiosks along hiking trails. That's what I'm saying when I refer to the three brackets. Now, the cruel irony here that actually destroys my own argument can be illustrated with a hike through the tunnels into Robe. If you go down to the stretch after the tunnels where Hotel California sits, and look at the river when it is runnin, lets say, 5.6' (what we consider as paddlers a medium flow) you will possibly observe like I have that it is actually kind of "low" for the riverbed itself. Looking at the canyon and how many rocks are exposed, how nested deep in the trench all the water actually is, its clear that the S. Fork Stilly is designed to carry a lot more water. And we know it does. Those Robe Gnomes don't move all those house sized boulders around by themselves. They use the water to help them. But for most whitewater runs, an unbiased look at nature's hydrological and fluvial effects generally indicate what low, med, and high are. Its a bit more standardized than most of us think. |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2012 at 10:21pm
|
How did we get to Robe? I just say that you cannot rate "Fall in the Wall" unless you fall into the wall. I have never seen anyone run it at the PP "fat-high" and certainly not "soiled undies"!!! I'd love to see video though, and I'll hold the camera and rope anytime!  When I said "new" boaters maybe I should have said new boaters to that run, because that's what I mean. At low flows FITW is perfect for new class V paddlers. At "medium" not so much. I just don't want people thinking that FITW is some evil run. It was one of my first V's and is an awesome low stress day at low flows. I know people have gone up there recently and been scared off, maybe forever. That sucks. If you are comfortable with the falls at the beginning, I'd say you'll have a good time on the run. If you're a gnar boater, that level will increase. ------------- H2O please |
Posted By: huckin harms
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 8:01am
|
JP has made some important points here. One that I found most interesting is the observation we all can make about a river's capability to carry water and our ability to judge it's level based on it's capability for carrying it. Look at the Sky... the benett book declares 5k the high end for running the Sky. Now most of us know that the Sky has been run way higher, say 45k higher, and that would be considered high by anyones standard. But if you look at the riverbed at say 5-6k it is clear that its still low for the rivers carrying capacity. 10k is much closer to a medium for the river itself, where the waters fill in most of the banks nooks and crannies, yet theres still plenty room for more water to rise. Travis, who cares if somebodies been 'scared' off from running FITW for life. IF so then maybe this isn't the hobby for them. IF it is truly classV then maybe they should be scared off and that's a good thing. IMO true classV in its essence is going to be scary and nervous nancy's need not apply. Come back when your resume is ready or look elsewhere for your fix. It's not for everybody and if it were I'm pretty sure some of us would be looking for something else to do. Low lows FITW is not class V. And Travis, what's this fascination with that janky waterfall at the top. Why do you feel like it's 'got' to be included in the run? ------------- |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 8:39am
| Being nestled sky high in between the lush cleavage of town wall and haybrook does not give you northerners the right to call our local goodies "Janky" |
Posted By: Jed Hawkes
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 9:51am
|
Something to consider about the sky is that the only thing that makes 10k scary is Boulder drop, at 10k the rest of the run is nice and filled in and really a perfect medium. But BD being an outlier changes the way we look at the run. That is also a common thing on other rivers with outlier drops that change the way we look at the run (ie husum falls, white salmon).
------------- The line will become apparent 978-273-7723 |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 10:02am
|
It is interesting to hear that what a river can hold should be used for the level. Interesting, but I disagree. Many runs, like the Muddy Fork of the Cowlitz through Stevens Canyon are suicide unless they are super low... Where I do agree that the river itself is low, when I talk to kayakers or look at "levels" I want to know what it can be run at, not how full the riverbed is. As far as my fascination with the waterfall... it's fun, it's the name of the run, and I feel like the "acceptable" level has been pushed up by cutting it out of the run. As one of my first waterfalls I will always think of it as part of the run. I just love FITW and want to see more (capable) paddlers on it, go get it! ------------- H2O please |
Posted By: Sam_Graftton
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2012 at 11:09pm
| Is FITW still high? |
Posted By: JD_G
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 7:42am
| Call it med-high last night. Maybe a couple inches of the downstream point showing. |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 8:07pm
| Crazy to think mid July FITW has not yet come down to the friendly levels yet this season. Most years it is over and done with by now for a couple weeks. |
Posted By: ellsw121
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 11:22pm
Cupdate at 6:30 pm today. /media/photoview.asp?File_Id=7295">
|
Posted By: JayB
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2012 at 11:33pm
|
Having a hard time interpreting that (thanks for posting the picture, though!) - looks like everything but the upper edge of the cup is buried in that pic? Crazy for mid July if that's the case....
------------- -Jay |
Posted By: ellsw121
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2012 at 7:44am
| Your correct, picture is turned wrong i just needed to rotate it. perfect medium level. |
Posted By: BrianP
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2012 at 1:35pm
| Water is well below the cup, maybe 6-8 inches below? Sorry no picture. Still boats though, a lot less grinding than it looked like there would be. |
Posted By: flowtorch
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2012 at 2:45pm
|
FYI, I'd like to paddle FITW on FRI FTW on my way to the Cooper. Har har har. Anyone wanna get it semi early? I'm from CO and have never run it so I dont mind a little low flow scraping. Within reason. |
Posted By: JayB
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2012 at 10:21am
|
Originally posted by chipmaney the wood was tied up last year, for what reason it's unclear. i agree whoever tied it up should remove the rope, otherwise the log will never transport itself downstream and will continue to be a navigation impediment. In addition, I think the log has moved farther downstream than it's original tied position and is more in the thalweg than last year, when it seemed to be contained in the eddy. Tied log has been removed. It's now un-tethered and sitting fairly high up out of the water on the right bank. Any water high enough to dislodge it should be high enough to flush it over Franklin falls. ------------- -Jay |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 1:31pm
|
Thanks! That thing sucked.
------------- H2O please |