The Himalaya by the Numbers: A Statistical Analysis - Himalayan ...

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
22.7
718
37.8
2075
Members Above BC and Ascent Rates by Member Team Size For
All Peaks without Everest (1950-2006)
33.5
3820
28.0
5311
26.8
4297
25.0
3610
1 2- 3 4- 5 6- 7 8- 9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-19 20-23 24-27 28-31 32-35
Chart A-32: Ascent rates by member team size for all peaks without Everest from 1950-2006
(the horizontal scale is the member team size; the blue line is the
total number of members above BC for each team size increment;
the red line is the ascent rate for each team size increment)
For all the other peaks, the results are less clear. Optimal team size and number
of hired personnel are most likely very dependent of the particular peak. Again for
all other peaks, there reaches point where sheer expedition size becomes counterproductive.
The spike in ascent rate for teams of 28-31 members in Chart A-29 was
due mostly to two 30-member commercial Ama Dablam expeditions in 2004, and the
32-member USSR Kangchenjunga traverse in 1989. All three of these large teams had
very high ascent rates (60-85%).
Many of the larger expeditions from the earlier years often had members that went
above base camp to assist the primary summit team with the knowledge that they
would never have a chance for the summit themselves. But in recent times with
commercial climbs dominating the popular peaks, nearly all the paying members have
summit dreams, otherwise they would not pay the expedition fees.
Chart A-31 shows that for all peaks a hired/members ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 to be the
optimum for success. However, it will be shown later in the death analysis chapter
that a lower ratio of 1:1 to 2:1 is safer in terms of death risk. Many Everest commercial
expeditions currently use a ratio of about 1:1 (one Sherpa or Tibetan assistant for each
potential summit climber).
Charts A-32 and A-33 show the ascent rates for each team size increment (the red
lines) along with the number of members that went above base camp for each team
size increment (the blue and green lines). These charts illustrate how many climbers
attempted climbs at each team size and how well they did.
27.0
2233
31.6
Members Above BC (left scale) Ascent Rate (right scale)
1571
34.9
1773
29.5
794
33.6
241
46.0
235
15.2
132
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Ascent Analysis 69