rhyang wrote:

So I understand why the bolts were placed where they are on lead by the FA-ists, but why does that matter for us who are climbing it afterwards ? Why can't more bolts be put in to make it safer ?

We looked at each other, kinda shocked I thought I was gonna choke on my sammich a couple of times

If not for doing my first three leads, witnessing this conversation would have been the highlight of my day. Put up my feet and got out the popcorn.

Pretty amazing contrast between Dos Equis and Corona re:the bolts. I had thought before leading Corona, I can understand z-clipping in theory but I don't see how it would ever happen in practice. Now I can picture it!

Guyzo wrote:Because it's not a gym.

But I climb 5.11 in the gym!!!

Why run-out bolts: Because the FA chose to climb that way. Perhaps because of a ground-up ethic, or a ground up necessity. Perhaps because of the price of bolts or a lack of time. Perhaps they did it for themselves, not thinking of others. There are a long list of factors too boring to list.

If you create a climb for others, you take the time craft a route that many could climb safely.

If you climb for the sake of climbing you might leave as little trace as possible.

Good times at the Pinnacles Thanks everyone, we'll have some appropriate rhetoric in store next time someone asks this kind of stuff

SpiderSavage wrote:Why run-out bolts: Because the FA chose to climb that way. Perhaps because of a ground-up ethic, or a ground up necessity. Perhaps because of the price of bolts or a lack of time. Perhaps they did it for themselves, not thinking of others. There are a long list of factors too boring to list.

If you create a climb for others, you take the time craft a route that many could climb safely.

If you climb for the sake of climbing you might leave as little trace as possible.

Bolting as little as possible, as much as necesary does make sense. What does not make sense is placing bolts unsafely, regardless of absolute distances: The 2nd should always be closer to the 1st than the 1st to the ground, otherwise don´t bother placing it. If you decide to alter the rock, at least do it in a way that increases safety.

Christian

Gary Schenk wrote:Most likely, the bolts are where they are because that's where the drilling stances are.

+1

rhyang wrote:I think the point of this thread (mine anyway) is that while eating my sandwich I was trying to come up with what to say to this other party who was asking us things like this (forgive the rough paraphrase) -

So I understand why the bolts were placed where they are on lead by the FA-ists, but why does that matter for us who are climbing it afterwards ? Why can't more bolts be put in to make it safer ?

We looked at each other, kinda shocked I thought I was gonna choke on my sammich a couple of times

A confession, I had similar throughts when I first started climbing. That was before I understand what is involved in a ground up FA and bolting. Now, I notice that most routes I am on have bolts in logical places - ie at a good stance.

Gary Schenk wrote:Most likely, the bolts are where they are because that's where the drilling stances are.

Most likely true for traditional routes, which therefore generally have a more "scary" feeling. I totally agree that one should stay off these routes if one doesn´t feel safe at one´s skill level (and with the mobile pro that may or may not be placeable).

However, over here in the SaxonyGermany, bolts keep on being placed like that just to preserve that "traditional" feeling, even though hand drilling, bottom up placement is no longer seen necessary. Pure madness bordering on the criminal.

Christian

cb294 wrote:

SpiderSavage wrote:Why run-out bolts: Because the FA chose to climb that way. Perhaps because of a ground-up ethic, or a ground up necessity. Perhaps because of the price of bolts or a lack of time. Perhaps they did it for themselves, not thinking of others. There are a long list of factors too boring to list.

If you create a climb for others, you take the time craft a route that many could climb safely.

If you climb for the sake of climbing you might leave as little trace as possible.

Bolting as little as possible, as much as necesary does make sense. What does not make sense is placing bolts unsafely, regardless of absolute distances: The 2nd should always be closer to the 1st than the 1st to the ground, otherwise don´t bother placing it. If you decide to alter the rock, at least do it in a way that increases safety.

Christian

What Christian said is right on.

I don't put up climbs as public service.

I do them for the pure entertainment of climbing the unknown.

If bolts are needed, we slam them in. From stances or from hook placements, never on rap.

I feel that rap bolting, has it's place, but it's not for me or the crew I hang with and put up new climbs with.

Because I am involved with the first accent, the placement of the bolts is a measure of my climbing ability, it is a statement.

This is why I always like to know who exactly, did the FA.

If "Moe klinsky" did the FA. I know I had better bring it all, because that guy can climb, and he will only slam in a bolt to keep him from death. (check out "Straight to Hell" at the Needles, 5.12R)

"Tripper Jack" on the other hand, makes climbs for the masses, he will go back and add bolts so it's "well protected for the grade". (check out NewJack City out by Barstow)

It's all climbing, some fish are just bigger and meaner.

You pick your poison. Trout or Barracuda......

gk

This is an important discussion, as the question posed to rhyang will only be heard more and more frequently by new and even some relatively seasoned climbers. Especially considering that "safe" sport climbs are undoubtedly rapidly outnumbering traditional "runout" routes.

I've even heard from one ground-up traditionalist that continuing to put up bold routes on lead can also be viewed as a public service, as there are plenty of climbers out there who enjoy the adventure and risk inherent in such routes. Valid in my book.

Ultimately though, as has been said, if you ever get the interesting opportunity to do an FA involving bolts, do what YOU deem comfortable. 'Cause no matter what, if anyone else climbs your route, one thing is GUARANTEED: somebody will eventually say the bolts are either too close or too far apart!

Climbers are an awfully critical lot, and you'll never please 'em all.

SpiderSavage wrote:If you create a climb for others, you take the time craft a route that many could climb safely.

If you climb for the sake of climbing you might leave as little trace as possible.

A decent way to frame it. I think there is room for both, myself, under the big tent of climbing!

If I decide to rap bolt a sport route I insure it is safe. If I am on lead with a power drill again I will insure the route is safe. I may err on the side of caution too, have done so a couple of times to the point of overbolting.

A burden of conscious I must bear.

Done the runnout thing too. Its all good. Never have I 'blamed the bolter' for my own lack of cajones though.

Cheers
DMT

Nate D wrote:This is an important discussion, as the question posed to rhyang will only be heard more and more frequently by new and even some relatively seasoned climbers. Especially considering that "safe" sport climbs are undoubtedly rapidly outnumbering traditional "runout" routes.

Its one of the reasons why good old timer stories are quite necessary. Around campfires both real and virtual, its important for elders to tell their tales and for hot blooded youngsters to scoff at those tales.

But out on the rocks the hot young guns of the next generation will learn some respect... if they know enough groundwork to understand what it is they are seeing and experiencing that is.

Its part of the circle!

This place is a good forum for a very wide latitude of experience. However those noobsters who join here are not the typical clueless noobs. Those attracted to mountaineering are either not all that interested in rock climbing to begin with or (generally) are more informed than some rock jock gym escapee.

Supertopo.com is an excellent place to get schooled in the old bold rock ethic too btw. There is in daily participation there, the very core of that ethic, in terms of elders of our Tribe. The very core I shit you not.

But if you old timers are taking the time to tell your tales... you should! And try to do it in a non-curmudgeonly way, eh?

DMT

cb294 wrote:Bolting as little as possible, as much as necesary does make sense. What does not make sense is placing bolts unsafely, regardless of absolute distances: The 2nd should always be closer to the 1st than the 1st to the ground, otherwise don´t bother placing it. If you decide to alter the rock, at least do it in a way that increases safety.

Christian

Can't say I agree with this carte blanche.

Consider

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/968796/burning_down_the_house-_25_years_later

The General wrote:The Schneider thread got me thinking this morning of a route we did together 25 years ago this month.

Burning Down the House was a line i had spied on the north side of Fairview during the summer of 1984. While doing F.A's on the whales back i got to the see the line light up in the evening and see an amazing route going through these steep arches.

It is a dangerous route (I am told) done in the purest of the old school ground up style by two of the boldest climbers to come out of Yosemite. AND... they purposely climbed into X territory before placing the 'next bolt.' More than once.

They did it as a statement to the world and a test unto themselves. Surely ego played a huge role but Kurt Smith and Steve Schneider went on to do some of the greatest climbs of their generation.

Burning Down the House has not seen a 2nd ascent.

There- has - got - to - be - a - way

BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE!

Got sack??? 2nd ascent of one of the boldest routes in Tuolumne Meadows, a traditional bastion of bold ground up climbing.

I think climbing NEEDS routes like this as much as it needs safe sport routes.

I think we need 'the Impossible." And for me? Burning Down the House is impossible. I would not ever consent to be guided up such a climb. If I could not swing leads I would not try it at all.

Cheers
DMT

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.

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.