Page 3 of 5

Runout, does that mean SCARY? or unsafe?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:04 pm
by robertjoy
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.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:11 pm
by rhyang
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.


:)

It's kind of an ego boost to lead a route that challenges me, but in the end I have to realize that the folks who FA'd it were dealing with the unknown, probably looser rock (considering that it is Pinnacles ;) ) and perhaps hours on end of hammering. They might have taken a fall, maybe multiple falls to establish it. Maybe it took them a number of trips to get it all done.

Like Chief alluded to I think I'm just satisfied to savor the moves and hope my climbing partner(s) that day enjoyed it too.

Re: Runout, does that mean SCARY? or unsafe?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:43 pm
by Nate D
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. :)

Re: Runout, does that mean SCARY? or unsafe?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:14 pm
by Guyzo
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. :)


Nate. I always thought the R or X or PG was a rating of the general overall "Danger" of the entire climb. ..... not just the crux.

gk :wink:

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:31 pm
by Nate D
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.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:48 pm
by ksolem
This is an ambiguity in the rating system, that the R and X say nothing about the difficulty of the run out climbing. For example, "Compassion of the Elephants" in Joshua Tree is graded 5.10cR. The R climbing is about 5.7. "Gorge and Purge" in the Owens Gorge is graded 5.12aR, the R section is about 5.6. On both of these climbs the crux is well protected.

In an ideal world, the grade would be 5.12a/5.6R.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:36 pm
by Guyzo
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.


Nate... I sort of look at the entire climb and sort out the danger factor.
Things I consider are, rock quality, the protection, steepness and objective hazards, like chopper flakes.
So a 5.6 R may be because of loose rock.
5.6 R could be because if you fell right at that spot you would chop your balls on that flake :twisted:
So I guess I see danger as how easy to get hurt/killed doing this?
When I rate something I think this way. :wink:

Some well protected climbs with a R rating, with well protected cruxes:. "Carson Kodas Arete" at Courtwright and the "Hobbit Book" in TM and "A Good Day To Die" in JT and "EBGB's" in JT.

I agree 100% - no real hard and fast rules :wink:

I guess it's like porn..... hard to describe but I know it when I see it..... :wink:

PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:02 am
by SpiderSavage
Breakfast of Champions; JT, 5.8 R - Lovely climb but I'll never do that again. As I think about it, that climb would be a major trade route if someone sewed it with 3/8 bolts every 8 feet. I kinda like that you could slip off the class 4 end moves and pitch off nearly to the ground over 120 feet below. I think it was more fun with the 60 ft runout at the end.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:44 am
by Husker
I guess I am a little confused, I thought this thread was going to be about Bolt Running

Image

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:00 am
by Dave Daly
I know partly why many routes were and are still runout, which in part is due to the nature of stance placements. Sometimes its tough to get in a bolt on a seemlessly blank slab, knowing the next spot to place fixed pro may be 30..40...50.....sometimes 70' out. I've found more slab routes to be runout than say vertical face routes, where features may present themselves more often. In fact, there are a few routes that myself and partners have done that are runout. One example, 'Sizzle Lean' (5.8R).....3 bolts in 100'. Not intentional....simply it was hard to find a good stance to make a placement. Not a normal practice on my part.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:47 pm
by ksolem
knoback wrote:Why are sport climbs bolted? In Hyalite, why does Bulldog World have bolts, while Come and Get It doesn't?


Hmm. Maybe "Bulldog World" is a reference to the Bosch Bulldog cordless rotary hammer drill?

The name "Come and Get It" sounds a bit like "You asked For It" in Tulomne, an invitation to a death defying stunt.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:24 am
by hikerbrian
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.

I hear you dude. Why build trails? It's a great question. I've hiked in parts of AK where the spruce bark beetle has been at work and it has indeed taken all day to go less than a quarter mile. No joke. Trail building is a bit different from bolting though, right? I mean, chaparral grows back. Rock, not so much (at least not on the same time scale). I'm not trying to bust anyone's balls, I hardly have any business doing so, just looking for different opinions. I always hear people talking about sparsely bolted 5.8's and it's always followed with, "if you're not comfortable with the grade, climb something else." Kind of applies to all grades and all bolting, right? There's plenty of rock out there to be climbed, but not so many people who have the balls to run it waaaay out on "difficult" terrain. I don't see why that's a problem. Why alter the climb to fit your ability, whatever your ability might be?

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:15 pm
by rhyang
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.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:22 pm
by Guyzo
Rob. I think the attitude at the Pinnacles is pretty universal in the USA.

Do you know of anyplace where the roots have had bolts added?????

I can not, but I don't get out of California to much.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:46 pm
by lisae
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.


Rob, there are a few routes at the Pinnacles that have had anchors added, to make the descent safer. The first sister is one example. After an anchor was added mid-slab, you can get off the route with one rope. An anchor was also added to the forth pitch of the Old Coastanoan on the Citadel. I also know a few routes where the FA went back and added a bolt to make it safer.