Drive By Questions

[alyssamma]

From searching this forum I can tell this is a passionate topic. However, I have some questions that I didn't see direct answers to, and hoping some of the more experienced travelers here can help.

 

1) If nature (and by that I mean the wildlife, *not* the scenic aspects of it) are not a top priority, than is an expedition cruise that much more important than a drive-by? Most posts I see talking about landing mention being next to penguins, etc. If that isn't something important, is a drive-by (almost) just as good?

 

2) If you've only done a drive-by and never set foot on the land, does it count as being to the continent? Obviously this is subjective, but wondering if there was an overall consensus.

 

3) Off topic, but ha anyone been to both Greenland and Antarctica? I mean further north like Nuuk and higher. If so, for scenery, which do you prefer?

 

TIA

[PerfectlyPerth]

17 hours ago, alyssamma said:

From searching this forum I can tell this is a passionate topic. However, I have some questions that I didn't see direct answers to, and hoping some of the more experienced travelers here can help.

 

1) If nature (and by that I mean the wildlife, *not* the scenic aspects of it) are not a top priority, than is an expedition cruise that much more important than a drive-by? Most posts I see talking about landing mention being next to penguins, etc. If that isn't something important, is a drive-by (almost) just as good?

 

2) If you've only done a drive-by and never set foot on the land, does it count as being to the continent? Obviously this is subjective, but wondering if there was an overall consensus.

 

3) Off topic, but ha anyone been to both Greenland and Antarctica? I mean further north like Nuuk and higher. If so, for scenery, which do you prefer?

 

TIA

I can't answer number 3 so will leave that for others. 
 

1) if you are happy with expansive amazing scenery and not close up sights of penguins and seals, then a drive-by will satisfy you. 
 

2) I guess that's down to the purists. At the end of the day your travels are for you - not as a competition with others. I count that I've been to India simply because I spent 12 hours sitting on a plane on the tarmac in Delhi surrounded by armed soldiers in the early 90s and that was ample India for me 🤣🤣 

[kaisatsu]

1. If you’re after the landscape scenery, a drive-by will likely get you some nice views.

 

That said, I’m an ice enthusiast over wildlife watching, and there are experiences I’ve loved that are still mostly expedition-only. Getting up close to smaller icebergs where you can see the details, breaking through swaths of sea ice, seeing grease ice and pancake ice forming, visiting some of the massive tabular icebergs, etc.

 

2. Personal preference. Some people insist on setting foot on the main continent, rather than an island. For me, I considered it “done” after my first landing in the South Shetlands. Had I done a drive-by before that, I probably would have counted it. I consider myself having “visited” Glacier Bay in Alaska, even though I saw it from a ship and didn’t touch the glaciers.

 

3. I wanted to visit northeast Greenland after my first trip to Antarctica, because several of the staff said they thought the ice was more spectacular than Antarctica. I did make it up there after my second Antarctic expedition, and while it’s incredible and beautiful, I think I still prefer the Antarctic, because of the sheer scale of the ice and the amazing blue landscape of sea, ice, and sky. In Greenland, there’s a surprising amount of vegetation, so you get the blue water and ice juxtaposed against other colors on shore. Greenland is paradise for geologists, though, because it has a massive amount of exposed rock with huge visible folds. I think I was more impressed with the rocks than the glaciers!

 

I have not been to the northwest, but I know people who have. The icebergs are definitely stunning, but whether they’re “better” depends heavily on which areas of Antarctica you visit and are able to compare.

[alyssamma]

3 hours ago, kaisatsu said:

1. If you’re after the landscape scenery, a drive-by will likely get you some nice views.

 

That said, I’m an ice enthusiast over wildlife watching, and there are experiences I’ve loved that are still mostly expedition-only. Getting up close to smaller icebergs where you can see the details, breaking through swaths of sea ice, seeing grease ice and pancake ice forming, visiting some of the massive tabular icebergs, etc.

 

2. Personal preference. Some people insist on setting foot on the main continent, rather than an island. For me, I considered it “done” after my first landing in the South Shetlands. Had I done a drive-by before that, I probably would have counted it. I consider myself having “visited” Glacier Bay in Alaska, even though I saw it from a ship and didn’t touch the glaciers.

 

3. I wanted to visit northeast Greenland after my first trip to Antarctica, because several of the staff said they thought the ice was more spectacular than Antarctica. I did make it up there after my second Antarctic expedition, and while it’s incredible and beautiful, I think I still prefer the Antarctic, because of the sheer scale of the ice and the amazing blue landscape of sea, ice, and sky. In Greenland, there’s a surprising amount of vegetation, so you get the blue water and ice juxtaposed against other colors on shore. Greenland is paradise for geologists, though, because it has a massive amount of exposed rock with huge visible folds. I think I was more impressed with the rocks than the glaciers!

 

I have not been to the northwest, but I know people who have. The icebergs are definitely stunning, but whether they’re “better” depends heavily on which areas of Antarctica you visit and are able to compare.

Wow....thank you so much for the detailed answer. It is much appreciated..

[kathynorth]

I agree with what @kaisatsu says. We were recently in Antarctica on a drive by and visited the southern coast of Greenland in August. We couldn’t manage an actual foot landing for too many reasons to post here, but I do consider ourselves to have been to Antarctica. We saw more wildlife when we visited Ushuaia, Volunteer Point, and El Pedral than we saw while in the waters of Antarctica. For us, the best part of the Antarctica portion of our trip was the witnessing of unspoiled nature. We were very lucky to have wonderfully sunny weather during our trip. Others have reported limited visibility due to rain, snow and fog. Switching gears here, cruising through Prins Christian Sund in southern Greenland was absolutely stunning. My guess is that northern Greenland might yield more of the same. Hopefully someone who has been to northern Greenland will post about their experience. 

[alyssamma]

43 minutes ago, kathynorth said:

I agree with what @kaisatsu says. We were recently in Antarctica on a drive by and visited the southern coast of Greenland in August. We couldn’t manage an actual foot landing for too many reasons to post here, but I do consider ourselves to have been to Antarctica. We saw more wildlife when we visited Ushuaia, Volunteer Point, and El Pedral than we saw while in the waters of Antarctica. For us, the best part of the Antarctica portion of our trip was the witnessing of unspoiled nature. We were very lucky to have wonderfully sunny weather during our trip. Others have reported limited visibility due to rain, snow and fog. Switching gears here, cruising through Prins Christian Sund in southern Greenland was absolutely stunning. My guess is that northern Greenland might yield more of the same. Hopefully someone who has been to northern Greenland will post about their experience. 

Thanks for the detailed reply. We are going to Greenland in July (up along the western coast - Nuuk and Ilulissat) and will be doing a drive by in Antarctica in Jan 2025. I'd love to be able to set foot on land (just to say I've done it), but the cost is prohibitive for me. We got a great deal on this cruise - 14 days, Ushuaia, Puerto Madryn, Port Stanley, Montevideo, Cape Horn, and 4 days of drive by all for $6700 (balcony, drinks, wifi and tips included). We couldn't pass that up.

 

I know others have said to save and just splurge on an expedition trip, but I figured I would see it first inexpensively and then return if I felt I needed to be on land.

 

I also wanted to be able to get a good comparison to Greenland.

[kathynorth]

Your cruise is similar to ours. Are you leaving from Buenos Aires? We loved our time there. Also when we went to Iguazu. It’s very easy to plan a side trip to Iguazu and that’s a lifetime experience on its own. We felt similar to you. Splurge with an expedition cruise or drive by that will allow us to afford additional sailings elsewhere. Have you been to Iceland? Absolutely beautiful everywhere we went. However this is definitely a place where I’d recommend a DIY land tour. Super easy to navigate, friendly locals.

[alyssamma]

2 minutes ago, kathynorth said:

Your cruise is similar to ours. Are you leaving from Buenos Aires? We loved our time there. Also when we went to Iguazu. It’s very easy to plan a side trip to Iguazu and that’s a lifetime experience on its own. We felt similar to you. Splurge with an expedition cruise or drive by that will allow us to afford additional sailings elsewhere. Have you been to Iceland? Absolutely beautiful everywhere we went. However this is definitely a place where I’d recommend a DIY land tour. Super easy to navigate, friendly locals.

Yes, leaving from BA. We were in Paraguay a few years ago and that is the only time we've been to South America. We thought about doing Iguazu, but honestly we fell in love with Paraguay and didn't want to spend the time to make the trip down there. We'll get there eventually 🙂

 

We've been to Iceland (spend about a week there in the winter) and are going back on our Greenland trip. We are overnighting in Reykjavik and renting a car. When we were there before we did most of the touristy things so this time just driving the coast and stopping at waterfalls.

 

Also doing Norway up to the Arctic Circle in July, so doing all of the "cold" places at once 🙂

 

Almost everyplace we go we do DIY. Obviously some places we need to do organized trips, but that is rare. 

 

 

[donaldsc]

On 3/19/2023 at 2:09 PM, alyssamma said:

From searching this forum I can tell this is a passionate topic. However, I have some questions that I didn't see direct answers to, and hoping some of the more experienced travelers here can help.

 

1) If nature (and by that I mean the wildlife, *not* the scenic aspects of it) are not a top priority, than is an expedition cruise that much more important than a drive-by? Most posts I see talking about landing mention being next to penguins, etc. If that isn't something important, is a drive-by (almost) just as good?

 

2) If you've only done a drive-by and never set foot on the land, does it count as being to the continent? Obviously this is subjective, but wondering if there was an overall consensus.

 

3) Off topic, but ha anyone been to both Greenland and Antarctica? I mean further north like Nuuk and higher. If so, for scenery, which do you prefer?

 

TIA

 

Everything is personal experience but  

 

1) I have not done a drive by but I would say "no".

 

2) No.  You have to set foot to count.  As an example if you drove through Rhode Island going from one place to another in the US would you say that you have visited Rhode Island.  

 

3) The answer depends upon where you have been in Greenland.  I have been to both places but only on the western side of Greenland around Nanortalik and Qukoratok and there is no doubt in my mind that Antarctica is much much better.  My brother has been to the other side of Greenland where almost nobody lives and where very few ships visit and based on his photographs I am not sure which is better

 

DON

[trtog7]

As we get older and are unable physically do what we use to, a drive by is a good way to continue with travelling.

Would rather do a drive by than not travel

[alyssamma]

6 hours ago, donaldsc said:

1) I have not done a drive by but I would say "no".

Can you elaborate on why? 

 

6 hours ago, donaldsc said:

2) No.  You have to set foot to count.  As an example if you drove through Rhode Island going from one place to another in the US would you say that you have visited Rhode Island.  

I'm not sure this is an apt analogy. If I spent 4 days driving through RI, looking at the sights, I think I'd say I'd been there.

 

But, your response here actually helped me come up with an answer to my Q, though. I think a much better example would be, if you took a helicopter to see the Grand Canyon instead of hiking it, would you have still visited it? 

 

For me, the answer is a resounding yes. I think others may disagree - as I said, passionate subject - but I think the helicopter/GC is a much better analogy.

 

 

As for your response to my 3rd Q, I specifically said "further north like Nuuk and higher" That is where I'm interested in the comparison...

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by alyssamma