Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Why runout bolting ?

Minimally moderated forum for climbing related hearsay, misinformation, and lies.
 

Postby hikerbrian » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:18 am

Dingus Milktoast wrote: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."

Sure.

Question is, why bolt AT ALL? EVER?

If a route is impossible for you to do safely, then don't do it...
User Avatar
hikerbrian

 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 4:32 pm
Location: Sharon, Massachusetts, United States
Thanked: 11 times in 5 posts

Postby ksolem » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:23 pm

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.
User Avatar
ksolem

 
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:25 pm
Location: Monrovia, California, United States
Thanked: 13 times in 10 posts

Postby Guyzo » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:40 pm

hikerbrian wrote:
Dingus Milktoast wrote: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."

Sure.

Question is, why bolt AT ALL? EVER?

If a route is impossible for you to do safely, then don't do it...


Ah... somebody from the Mark Twight (sp) school of thought. :wink:

Sort of limits the amount of "Rock Climbing" you could do.

gk :wink:
User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Location: Moorpark, California, United States
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

Postby Guyzo » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:54 pm

Dingus Milktoast wrote:I don't need no justification to bolt, nor anyone's permission.

DMT


Or how.......

+ 1

:wink:
User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Location: Moorpark, California, United States
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

Runout, does that mean SCARY? or unsafe?

Postby robertjoy » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:04 pm

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.
User Avatar
robertjoy

 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 11:32 am
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 6 times in 5 posts

Postby 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.


:)

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.
User Avatar
rhyang

 
Posts: 8963
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: San Jose, California, United States
Thanked: 59 times in 38 posts

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

Postby 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.


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. :)
User Avatar
Nate D

 
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

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

Postby 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. :)


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:
User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Location: Moorpark, California, United States
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

Postby Nate D » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:31 pm

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.
User Avatar
Nate D

 
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby ksolem » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:48 pm

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.
User Avatar
ksolem

 
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:25 pm
Location: Monrovia, California, United States
Thanked: 13 times in 10 posts

Postby 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.


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:
User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Location: Moorpark, California, United States
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

Postby SpiderSavage » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:02 am

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.
User Avatar
SpiderSavage

 
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Sunland, California
Thanked: 7 times in 4 posts

Postby Husker » Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:44 am

I guess I am a little confused, I thought this thread was going to be about Bolt Running

Image
Husker

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby Dave Daly » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:00 am

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.
User Avatar
Dave Daly

 
Posts: 8390
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2002 1:34 pm
Location: Del Mar, California, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

PreviousNext

Return to Ethics, Spray, and Slander

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.