| Aug. 11th, 2009 @ 10:30 pm Re: Sunday |
|---|
--- In hgcgroup@..., <dlbraun@...> wrote:
>
> Whitney was for left for the big dogs.
I object! Size-wise I am as small as the dogs go :) .
Actually, good things seem to happen when clouds are fairly low over the high
Sierra. Remember Peter Deane's 750 O&R in 2002?
Close to the cloudbase there usually is strong guidance from the clouds -- the
wisps and tendrils, the darkest spots, the sunny/upwind side etc. -- all the
usual signs that can be fairly reliable once you learn the day's character.
Down low there is equally strong guidance from terrain. The wind-facing bowls,
the sun-facing slopes, the peaks and the crests -- all the usual thermal
generators and convergence lines.
It's in between -- too far from the terrain and too far from the clouds -- where
the things get tricky. All guesswork and no guidance!
Now, when the two get closer it is a perfect one-two punch, the synergy of the
two. Lower clouds are usually spaced closer together, so there are more hints
from above. And they are also easier to match to the terrain below. When the two
give the same signs, running is easy. Sure, the working band is shallow, but who
needs to *work* if you can just cruise from bump to bump, and sometimes in
continuous sheets of lift for miles, and fast too!
Anyway, I was reasonably happy -- in fact a bit surprised -- with 132 km/h over
810 OLC km. The fastest 2.5 hour, 355 km OLC-league stretch was
at 142 km/h exactly over the high Sierra, and the altitude band was almost
entirely between 13.5 and the "measly" 15.5 Kft. In this whole
stretch I essentially had to circle three times -- once to jump onto the high
ground without scaring myself too badly, once to similarly get on top of Mt.
Whitney and once to top off just before leaving the high terrain.
Interestingly, unlike the Sierra, the Whites don't seem to work quite as well
under low clouds. Is it because the tops are wider there, and the terrain
features are generally less pronounced?
> Darren "U2"
--
Yuliy "L8" |