Page 3 of 3

Re: Which 9000+ trailhead is the shortest drive from the Bay Are

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:24 am
by kpeter
That is a fascinating chart, and after many decades I had never seen that before.

As for the body adapting to altitude, there are long term and short term adaptations. It takes a very long time for the body to manufacture red blood cells (11 days to adjust for every 1000 meters) so unless you live at elevation the body is never going to adapt fast enough to help most short or medium length backpacking trips.

But the body also does some short term adaptations. The main one is a reaction to respiratory alkalosis. As you breath faster and deeper in the effort to get oxygen, the blood Ph changes and it is this Ph change that inhibits breathing and weakens you when you go up in elevation suddenly. Over a four day period your body compensates by excreting bicarbonate in order to lower your blood Ph so that you can breath faster and more deeply without ill effects. But you are still breathing harder and faster--it just does not feel labored. Wait long enough and your red blood cells build up you will be able to function at elevation without heavy/deep breathing--but that would be many more days.

From what I have read the body begins to rid itself of bicarbonate gradually in reaction to the change of blood Ph that happens when your lungs are laboring at elevation. It is not enough to be at elevation--you need to be exercising and laboring at elevation.

There is a drug that is given for altitude sickness that forces the body to excrete bicarbonate. I have no idea if anyone has ever prescribed it as a preventative measure: acetazolamide.

Re: Which 9000+ trailhead is the shortest drive from the Bay Are

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:05 pm
by markskor
Seems like you are seeing how your friend does at altitude rather than doing any acclimatization. In two weeks, any benefits gained by your being at 10,000 will have been negated by her return to sea level - Oakland .
I too would suggest Saddlebag and beyond: Water taxi, 10,000 foot plus, wilderness permits up there have no quotas.
Suggest over Shepherd's Crest to McCabes for a short-n-sweet workout,
Or perhaps Sawmill CG stay overnight and a short-but-strenuous (~1000 up), 3 mile trek to see the old mine ruins.
BTW, no overnight campng at Granite Lakes but there is above average fishing on the Granite Lake/Bennetville 6-mile loop.

Re: Which 9000+ trailhead is the shortest drive from the Bay Are

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:53 pm
by giantbrookie
maverick wrote:
Saddlebag Lake is around 10k and about 4.5 hours away.
Not from the Bay Area, at least not at near legal speed limits, but it would
the closest option, and my recommendation also.
Remember, that the driving times depend on where in the Yay Area one goes from. The East Bay, such as Oakland, is faster Sierran access than from the west side. 4.5 hrs to Saddlebag is in fact doable without abnormal speed, but the traffic must be nice to you and one has to be comfortable cornering fairly fast. I routinely reached the Tioga Pass/Saddlebag area in <4.5 hrs from Hayward in the days I lived there, but I haven't done this since ca. 2001.

To put this in a more modern context , let's consider my recent Fresno to Dana Meadows run on July 30 of 3 hr 58 min in a 2001 Nissan Sentra. With the Crane Flat Rd closed (El Portal Fire), I had to do the end-around to Merced, J59, 108 and 120. I'm pretty sure if you measured the driving time from Fresno to the common point from Oakland/E. Bay, which would be the J59-108 junction (east of Oakdale, and W of the 108-120 split), it would be pretty much equal from either starting point. In other words, my time to Dana Meadows, which is something like 4 minutes short of Tioga Pass, should be comparable to the expected driving time, under light traffic conditions (this was during a week day), from the East Bay. Excessive speeds were not attained during that 3:58 run but the key to good trans-Sierra drives is how well the curvy stuff goes, for this is where the most excess time is piled up. I am faster-than-average around the corners, but I've been passed by some and ridden with others who are much faster.

In any case, I agree with others that Saddlebag really offer the most options for what you'd like to do.

Re: Which 9000+ trailhead is the shortest drive from the Bay Are

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:41 am
by Dave_Ayers
I'd head to Ten Lakes in Yosemite. The pass is ~9,600 feet and the Lakes area is mostly over 9,000. I've driven the route many times and it usually takes less than 4 hours from Fremont including stopping to get a permit at the Big Oak Flat entrance station on the way. You can also hike out of White Wolf, shortening the drive a few minutes and lengthening the hike a bit. From Ten Lakes, you can head over to Tuolumne Peak (class 2, 10,845, great views) and bag that if you like. And you can head further to see May Lake, Mount Hoffman, etc., depending on how much time you have and how much climbing you want for conditioning. The whole area is very scenic and there are probably not too many hikers this time of year.

If you try to do a one way and loop back to White Wolf via a shuttle, be aware the Yosemite Park Shuttles may not run much longer, the Hiker's bus ends 9/14, and YARTs is weekends only in Sept. So call ahead before you depend on those.

Re: Which 9000+ trailhead is the shortest drive from the Bay Are

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:18 pm
by maverick
GB wrote:
The East Bay, such as Oakland, is faster Sierran access than from the west side. 4.5 hrs
to Saddlebag is in fact doable without abnormal speed, but the traffic must be nice to
you
and one has to be comfortable cornering fairly fast.
Yeap, that is key.