French summer ride-about. Part 3: Grand Veymont

TRs for ranges outside California.
User avatar
dima
Posts: 1668
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Los Angeles

Post by dima »

Previous: part 1, part 2.

Day 7: Grand Veymont

I've been surrounded by cool-looking peaks, and I really wanted to summit something. Mont Aiguille would be the obvious choice, but it's technical, and I had neither equipment nor any adult supervision. I looked around, and decided to climb the highest thing here: Grand Veymont. At 7680ft, it's significantly higher than Aiguille and could be attained by a long hike.

Alright, so I got up in the morning, and biked to the trailhead. The mountains were fully in the clouds

Image

Lots of signage near the trailhead

Image

Image

Image

Image

I stashed the bike, talked to some climbers headed to Mont Aiguille, and started up the trail.

Image

The report is that the usual route up Mont Aiguille is an easy technical climb that zigzags a lot. And that the usual route down is a direct rappel. And that it's chossy and that there're many routes up and down with various difficulty levels.

The trail is steep, but well-maintained and easy to follow, and soon I was fully in the clouds.

Image

Image

I passed a group of hikers and was equipment-shamed again. "You're going up to Grand Veymont with that???" I was hand-carrying a bike pannier, which admittedly was kinda awkward. Somebody joked that I looked like I was delivering uber-eats. Whatever. I passed them, and didn't see them again until hours later, on the way down.

Every once in a while the fog would clear a bit, and I'd see some of the surroundings. Pretty great.

Image

The few things I read about these mountains (the Vercors) said that there were ibex and vultures here. The vultures were always presented as the thing to be excited about. I was more excited about the ibex. In any case at some point I actually remembered that I was supposed to be looking out for the ibex. I stopped, looked around, saw a funny-looking tree up above, saw it move, took a picture, and BAM. Ibex.

Image

It's near the top of this meadow. The trail zigzags a bit up to Pas de la Selle, and I saw this guy again, further up. Here's the pass:

Image

Here I finally was at the top of the vercors plateau. It is a land of grass and rocks and giant cairns.

Image

Image

Found some forester cabin (not open to the public)

Image

Image

I followed the trail, and saw another funny-looking tree far-off in the fog. Eventually I was near it:

Image

Image

Wow. There were more and more ibex on the way up, and eventually I stopped photographing them. Like the castles. Pretty great views of the plateau below as I ascended

Image

You can see the trail switch-backing up to the plateau in the gap on the left, to the Pas de Bachassons. The trail I came up is behind the prominent ridge in this photo (Sommet de Peyre Rouge and Sommet de Montavella), in the next gap. There're some interesting pits in the grass too; anybody know what created them?

Eventually there were birds too

Image

No idea if they're the cool vultures I'm supposed to be excited about. It's a real bad day for bird-watching, so this would have to do.

There were more and more ibex on the way up. Count the heads poking out of the fog

Image

Some babies and some adults jousting

Image

Eventually I summitted. This is the view I came here for:

Image

This is the view I got:

Image

Image

Not the same, but maybe... even better? This was just magical. I was up on top, in the fog, with the ibex walking around. Somewhere far below in the fog was a herd of cows, making noise with their cowbells.

I hung out on top for a bit, hoping the fog would clear. It never did, so eventually I gave up, and headed down. On the descent, the fog did clear, just never up on top. This still made some pretty great views.

Image

Image

Image

I had some nice ibex photoshoots

Image

Image

Stopped by the public cabin on the way down

Image

This is the view back up to the summit. The switchbacking trail is seen climbing up on the left. The peak is behind that; not visible. The smaller Petit Veymont is on the right.

I walked by a very civilized spring

Image

Image

Image

and descended my pass

Image

Here's a view near the pass: I'm dropping down the big gap on the left, and then traversing to the right of Mont Aiguille.

Image

Image

Got a real nice view of the back of Mont Aiguille

Image

And of the front

Image

Wow. I didn't plan anything for this whole trip, and somehow it ended up quite amazing. I think the whole area might be real nice. Recommended!
User avatar
Taco
Snownado survivor
Posts: 6094
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Taco »

I was wondering what you were doing. I’m glad you got equipment shamed for riding the pumpkin bike in the mountains. Clearly you suffered greatly as a result. Next time you’ll have carbon fiber underpants and they’ll run scared.

Very cool!
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

Laissez les bons temps rouler, as we say in New Orleans! Thanks for the TR.

I'm curious how much your bike weighs without the panniers and whatever that thing on your handlebar is. 40 years ago, I managed to get my steel framed bike down to about 26 lbs or so when I lived and biked around Austin. I can't imagine doing much climbing with that thing!
User avatar
dima
Posts: 1668
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Los Angeles

Post by dima »

A wise man once said: "if you weigh your Surly, they make you give it back." So I don't actually have numbers. Without any stuff, it's probably under 30lbs, but not by much. Probably. With racks, backs, water, etc, it's more. But I am always there, and I weigh a lot more, so in the grand scheme of things, it's ok.

When you got down to 26lbs, that was with the bare bike? What were you doing to save weight? Fancier components?
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

dima wrote: Thu Jul 31, 2025 5:24 pmWhen you got down to 26lbs, that was with the bare bike? What were you doing to save weight? Fancier components?
Yes, lighter components. Probably would have been cheaper (and more effective) to buy a lighter frame, but I enjoyed the idea of futzing with the various components. New road /track only rims and tires had the biggest weight savings, but I had to stick to nice paved streets. Run over a rock or sharp bump and I'd need a new rim. Pedals, saddle, handle bars, etc.
User avatar
Taco
Snownado survivor
Posts: 6094
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Taco »

Having a lighter bike does make a real big difference in climbing, but it’s not that big of a deal. I recently built a very light steel road bike for paved riding and commuting and yeah, it’s like cheating compared to my surly. But, but… it is real annoying how weight obsessed cyclists tend to be, and it’s often from dudes who don’t even do big challenging rides! Like bruh, yeah yer Pinarello Dogmouth is lighter than my bike by 4 pounds or whatever, but you just ride to the cafe and sit around. My buddies and I ride over mountain ranges on our dumb steel bikes and somehow we aren’t quite dead yet. Anyway, rant over. I like the Surly ‘give it back’ quote.

If you get a chance sometime to borrow a light road bike for a ride up in the hills, I recommend it, if you haven’t done that yet. Eye opening. Somewhere in all that one may find a bike that’s light but still practical, one that feels like riding a cloud yet can also carry yer crap you need for a few days or whatever, and that isn’t fragile. I built one but I think it’s too big for you. ;)
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

Aren't the bikes that the TDF riders ride at about 15 or 16 lbs?

From watching various accounts of the Tour it is apparent the bikes are fragile though. No chance you could survive one of your treks on that kind of bike, Ryan.