by robertjoy » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:04 pm
by rhyang » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:11 pm
ShortTimer wrote:rhyang wrote:I've never done an FA, nor written a guidebook. I've only seen bolts being placed once -- with Misha, HJMC, Dragger and friends replacing some on an aid practice route on the LeConte boulder in Yosemite Valley. It looked like tiring, hard work with a hammer and hand drill, and that was for bolt holes which already existed. I suspect that even before my injury I would have found it fatiguing and frightening on lead.
I sometimes wonder though if it would be worth getting involved in FA projects just for the "educational" aspects, though I'm not really interested in doing FA's myself.
Rob, just consider that it is harder, scarier, and hurts way more than you want to imagine and leave it at that. Unless you are into that culture or a masochist, there just isn't much point in placing bolts on lead if you don't have to. If you really want an idea, go to your local bouldering area, find a pair of foot holds a foot off the ground (not to big a ones now) and stand there for 20 or 30 minutes while holding your hands above your head.
by Nate D » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:43 pm
robertjoy wrote:A good harness, rope, and bolts are basic climbing SAFETY GEAR. If a route is bolted at all, it should be done so that any fall above the first bolt will not entail "grounding out". That would be unsafe! A route which is bolted in a runout manner will certainly be more exciting, and a fall might entail some unpleasantness (abrasions, major bruising, dental trauma), but it should not be fatal.
by Guyzo » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:14 pm
Nate D wrote:robertjoy wrote:A good harness, rope, and bolts are basic climbing SAFETY GEAR. If a route is bolted at all, it should be done so that any fall above the first bolt will not entail "grounding out". That would be unsafe! A route which is bolted in a runout manner will certainly be more exciting, and a fall might entail some unpleasantness (abrasions, major bruising, dental trauma), but it should not be fatal.
Although certainly a good general rule of thumb, if the moves between the 1st and 2nd bolt ease up to significantly below the grade of the route, then most climbers have no problem with a runout to the second bolt (or next piece of protection).
In other words, if the crux is at or just above the first bolt, and then the climbing gets dramatically easier, then there is very very little chance of anyone falling off the easier moves if they were able to pull thru the crux. This is not uncommon, despite the ground fall potential.
Routes exist where there are only several bolts on 5.9 terrain off the deck, and then no protection on 5.6 for the next 100+ ft. Yes, definite ground fall (death fall) potential, but most agree this does not warrant an R or X rating. It is my understanding that the R rating is usually only designated when the crux move(s), or maybe slightly under, are in the runout section(s) of the climb. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Just sayin'... it's always situational.
by Nate D » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:31 pm
by ksolem » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:48 pm
by Guyzo » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:36 pm
Nate D wrote:Yes, most likely true - and if you think about it, either way, the route designation would probably be the same. Especially seeing as the "danger" aspect corresponds to the grade of the climb. 5.6 R is "dangerous" for a 5.6 leader. 5.9 with a 5.6 runout section is not really "dangerous" to a 5.9 leader. But what do I know?
Maybe you can share some specific examples where the overall danger qualified an R rating, but the crux moves were all well protected. I'm sure Tuolumne has many (and unfortunately, I have yet to climb there).
Probably no real hard and fast rules, which is why gaining consensus is important in my book.
by SpiderSavage » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:02 am
by Dave Daly » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:00 am
by ksolem » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:47 pm
knoback wrote:Why are sport climbs bolted? In Hyalite, why does Bulldog World have bolts, while Come and Get It doesn't?
by hikerbrian » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:24 am
ksolem wrote:Yeah right. Then why build trails? If you can't bushwhack it don't go.
I'd like to see you get around in my local San Gabriel Mtns without a cut trail. It would take all day to go 100 feet.
by rhyang » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:15 pm
Disagreement led to anger as tempers flared. Threats to access compounded the problem. To their credit, instead of fighting, Pinnacles climbers tried to work it out. In 1989 a meeting was held in an effort to air grievances. The meeting included virtually every person who was actively establishing routes at Pinnacles. [...] Eventually a consensus was reached by all the climbers at the meeting. They agreed that all existing climbs would be left intact. No bolts would be chopped and none added to climbs that had already been established, no matter by what method. It was also agreed that climbers would consider Pinnacles a traditional climbing area where the ground-up first ascent ethic was confirmed and embraced.
Although in some other places, misguided souls have placed extra bolts on routes created by other climbers, this form of selfishness has almost never occurred at Pinnacles. Do not add bolts to existing routes. [...] Better yourself so you can master climbs, rather than changing climbs to fit your ability.
by Guyzo » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:22 pm
by lisae » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:46 pm
rhyang wrote:Brad Young's summary of Pinnacles climbing history is pretty detailed - something like 14 pages worth. Near the end there is this note -Disagreement led to anger as tempers flared. Threats to access compounded the problem. To their credit, instead of fighting, Pinnacles climbers tried to work it out. In 1989 a meeting was held in an effort to air grievances. The meeting included virtually every person who was actively establishing routes at Pinnacles. [...] Eventually a consensus was reached by all the climbers at the meeting. They agreed that all existing climbs would be left intact. No bolts would be chopped and none added to climbs that had already been established, no matter by what method. It was also agreed that climbers would consider Pinnacles a traditional climbing area where the ground-up first ascent ethic was confirmed and embraced.
He also has a couple of pages on local ethics where he recaps some climbing history, and basically states -Although in some other places, misguided souls have placed extra bolts on routes created by other climbers, this form of selfishness has almost never occurred at Pinnacles. Do not add bolts to existing routes. [...] Better yourself so you can master climbs, rather than changing climbs to fit your ability.
I understand that other areas have somewhat different local ethics, but those at Pinnacles sound pretty well defined.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests