Large Groups (over 4)

[JROSKA]

No pressing reason to bring this up, other than, it's occurred to me that with another summer winding down, I've been at this for 7 years, and of my 40+ Colorado mountain trips (successful summits and summit attempts), I still have yet to hike from start to finish as part of a group greater than 3 (including myself). There's only been one trip (Wetterhorn 2014) where I was in a group of 4 for even a portion of it - my hiking partner and I teamed up with two other people during the Class 3 portion of the ascent and the full descent. Every other trip I've made has either been with one hiking partner, solo, or with two people. I'm not sure of the exact stats, but I'm guessing it breaks down roughly as 60% with one other person, 20% solo and 20% with two other people.

My question is, for those who have climbed 14ers this way, what are people's general thoughts on climbing with a big group, like 5 or more. For the sake of argument, something in the top 20 in terms of difficulty, like Sneffels or Castle and on up. Not referring to 2 parents with their kids, but just a bunch of adults as a team. I admit that I tend to have a negative attitude about group sizes over 4. Then again, I probably shouldn't, because I've never attempted that. It just seems to me like a diminishing returns type of thing, in terms of higher potential for conflict, priorities, leadership, and varying risk tolerances among 2 respective members who may not know each other that well, or at all. Best example I can think of is, lightning tolerance, when to turn back, etc. Seems like we all know that about ourselves if solo, and it's an easy enough thing to discuss with one other partner, but it would become more problematic with a larger group.

Thinking it through, in other areas of life (personal and professional), I really don't have a whole lot of experience in working to achieve a goal as part of a large group. So maybe it's an area I can grow in. Just curious to see what other people's thoughts are on it. Again, I'm a skeptic when it comes to climbing a mountain with a larger group, but I'd like to think that I'm open-minded enough to consider it in the future if the potential benefits of it outweigh the potential pitfalls.

[Scott P]

In my opinion, groups of 4 or less are ideal on climbs.

That said, for sitting at the CG around the fire, bigger groups are fun.

[lpeabbles]

I'm not sure you gain much in terms of safety by adding extra people to your group after 2 or 3, and you end up with more coordination issues. More people that need to show up on time, have the same metal/physical stamina and desire to finish, remember their lunch, etc. The largest group I've done was 5 on a 13er, and I'd never go that big again. Once you get that big, there are just too many moving parts. Everyone has different goals in the mountains, and it can be hard to find 4+ people with the same ones.

[Urban Snowshoer]

I've been on some large group trips and noticed that once you get above 5-6 people it's very hard to keep the group together because the group almost always segments into a fast group, a middle of the pack group, and a slow group.

A good way to manage this is to a have a front leader hike with the fast group and a rear leader hike with the slow group and be sure every group meets up periodically.

The main issue with larger groups is that the more technical or dangerous the climb the more complicated climbing with large groups becomes because there is often a dynamic where no one wants to be the one to say something isn't right out of fear of seeming weak or ruining the fun: e.g. you're off route, avalanche conditions are too sketchy, or even just some intangible feeling that something doesn't seem right, even if others secretly feel the same way.

With the proper decision-making large group trips are no more dangerous that those of 4 or less. However, the emphasis in on proper decision-making, especially with respect to the difficulty of whatever it is you intend to hike or climb alongside the challenges that come with larger groups.

[GregMiller]

I've summited with a larger group twice. First was on my first 14er, Torrey's via Kelso Ridge (yeah, not sure what my friend was thinking leading us up). Second was on Wetterhorn. Both times the group stuck together pretty well on the way up (we got an early start so no one felt the need to rush up the mountain), but definitely spread out a bit on the way down. On Torreys, I definitely didn't know enough at the time to think it wasn't the best idea. For Wetterhorn, I knew everyone involved was experienced enough to trust their decision making skills in the terrain involved. Neither time did any outside risks (avalanche, weather) present themselves, so it never came up.

One of the times I didn't summit was with a group hike in the spring for Antero. There were 16 people on the trip (yeah, that should have been the first red flag), I was the only one to have taken AIARE 1 (second red flag), and most folks brought sleds to sled down what to me was an avy-chute, not a sled run (third red flag). We ended up turning around at ~13700, due to high winds that most were not prepared for. That trip for me was a wake-up call on what hiking with a large group entailed, and how proper partner selection and group sizing could greatly affect both safety and success in the mountains.

Anymore, I'll do group hikes with something like CMC, where there's risk rules, clear leadership, and expected experience and gear going into it, but even then I'll only do that for less-technical things. Class 4+ I'll keep to groups of 4 or less, just too much to go wrong there.

[polar]

To be successful in a group, I think everyone in the group need to have the right expectations based on the size of the group.

For me, if my objective is to go get something with a high chance of success, I will go solo. Sometimes I’ll go with one or two other person for logistical reason (carpooling, or climbing with ropes). But I will adjust my expectations based on their fitness/skill level.

If I’m going with 3 to 5 other people, my goal is no longer to simply summit something, but just to enjoy the company of friends, socializing, relax, have some fun, or maybe to teach. It is very important to make sure everyone has the same expectation, otherwise they may be very frustrated if their goal is different from the group’s. Group size of about 5 seems to be the magic number, any larger than that, the group tends split into smaller groups. That may be ok if everyone expected that and it’s safe to do so. I usually set the ground rules ahead of time during the trip planning stage, before we even get together at the trailhead so there are no surprises.

In my previous life, I sometimes led outdoor leadership trips with a group as large as 20 students. But we usually try to keep the group size to about 15 students, with a 1:5 instructor to student ratio. The larger the group, the harder it is to coordinate everything, manage the group dynamics, different personalities, different fitness and skill levels, etc. A big group can work, but it helps a lot when there’s someone with good leadership skills leading the group, and it also helps when all the students are willing to work as a team. It is especially important to set ground rules for a large group ahead of time, because once you’re in the field it’s too late to set rules and you will end up herding cats.

[two lunches]

in larger groups, we usually go sort of "pirates code" with the leaders stopping every half mile or so just to let everyone regroup before moving on. that said, i've never been a part of a hiking group that took more than 60 seconds' pause to rest except on summit and the "regroups" last about 10 seconds before leaders move forward. hiking is very much a solo sport and it's best for all members involved to find and adhere to their own pace

[Sean Nunn]

A little off topic since you specified "tougher" 14ers, but I have led groups up "easier" 14ers for many years. You can flame me if you want, but I think it is imperative communicate to the group (that may have several newbies in it) the need to adhere to the basics of the "mountain climbing code), which would include:

1. being responsible for yourself
2. not leaving trash
3. staying on trail as much as possible
4. turning around if necessary rather than taking a risk
5. being respectful of others.

As I said you can criticize if you want to, but in the last 15 years I have probably been able to teach 100+ young people the right ethics of mountain climbing. Hopefully the small number who choose to continue to climb later in life will remember what they have learned.

I would not feel comfortable with a large group on anything over easy class 2.

[DeTour]

I've in groups of five, on three climbs - Longs, Huron and Tour d'Abyss. It never seemed like a problem. We would string out a bit but keep within eyesight and regroup periodically on the ascent. Descending, we tended to stick fairly close initially, but felt free to spread out more as we got lower. We were always able to maintain good decision making. But we also had excellent weather all three times, which no doubt makes decisions easier.

I would think a larger group in general would be likely to move a bit slower, as it would tend to reflect the slowest pace in the group. And I would get leery if the size got any larger. Exception might be if 6 or 7 climbers knew each other well and were pretty close in speed, risk tolerance, skill level, etc.

[pbergmaier]

Interestingly, I hiked Antero last weekend in a group of 10! Not ideal, but we actually all summited within 5 minutes of each other. Did it in about 4 hours too (starting at 10,800'), which certainly isn't fast but I wouldn't say it was slow either. Obviously, Antero isn't one of the "top 20" though. We did spread out at times, with faster hikers out in front, but regrouped every once in a while. No one was in much of a hurry since the weather was wonderful. If there was a chance for afternoon storms, my suspicion is that such a large group wouldn't have stuck together nearly as well.