Guyzo wrote:Because it's not a gym.
But I climb 5.11 in the gym!!!
by Steve Larson » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:36 am
Guyzo wrote:Because it's not a gym.
by SpiderSavage » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:59 am
by cb294 » Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:24 pm
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.
by lisae » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:19 pm
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
by cb294 » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:27 pm
Gary Schenk wrote:Most likely, the bolts are where they are because that's where the drilling stances are.
by Guyzo » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:44 pm
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
by Nate D » Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:38 am
by rhyang » Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:54 pm
by ShortTimer » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:41 pm
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.
by 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."
by ksolem » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:23 pm
by 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...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests