|
copperhead
Mar 14, 2003, 12:08 AM
Post #26 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
Hey Tom, thanks for the info. Are these 304 bolts available in most hardware stores or will I have to special order them? How much do they cost per bolt? I’ll see if I can find some and go out and test them. It would be great to have stainless rivets that are bomber.
|
|
|
|
|
pywiak
Mar 14, 2003, 12:22 AM
Post #27 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 105
|
Copperhead responded:
"Who is going to drill 3/8” bolts on lead for a ladder?"
Someone with a sense of craftsmanship who realizes that pioneering a route is about giving to the community, not stroking the leader's ego. Besides, it might encourage fewer ladders and more creative hard-core aid tricks with the natural features of the stone. If you're not going to use the natural features, you might as well engineer something structurally sound that's built to last. Just because our heroes experimented with garbage techniques doesn't make them right. Sooner or later someone is going to need to clean up the mess.
"Camouflage hangers? Why do hangers need to be camo’ed when they are thousands of feet off of the ground and the only people that see them are climbers? Rivets don’t need to be camo’ed because they are so small."
It's a matter of enlightened aesthetics, not size. It applies to all fixed anchor hardware, anywhere. We wouldn't want any eyesores, would we?
"Please don’t confuse sport climbing with aid climbing. There is a big difference."
Having logged more than a thousand pitches of each, I'm well aware of the differences. I find it interesting that most of the tricky aidwork I do these days is while setting sportclimbs.
"...a properly placed machine bolt rivet is pretty darn strong."
For the first season. After three years of freeze/thaw, it's a time bomb. I know, I've ripped them. Guess I should've bounce tested them harder, eh? It's also been my experience that most rivets don't meet the standard of "properly placed".
"How about you go climb one of those routes and come back and tell us what bozos they really are?"
I have and I did (before you even started climbing), but this discussion isn't about me. I respect your well earned experience, but I disagree with some of your views.
"This is about preserving the original style of Yosemite wall routes."
How noble and altruistic. While all the Valley wall routes I've done have their own unique and amazing characteristics, NONE of them could be done in "original style", and NONE of them reflected the pristine condition of the FA. Traffic has an impact on routes, and over time, things change. Enjoy your ascent, but don't expect it to be the same ten, twenty, or thirty years later.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Mar 14, 2003, 4:51 AM
Post #28 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Wow. Good points -- thanks for the perspective. I'm just a gumby who can't wait until I get on some of these classics. I'd like to see them preserved in the style that is closest to the FAist as possible. I realize some times that's a far cry from the original. This seems to be a case where the SS rivets would do the trick. Less susceptible to corrosion and still a challenge for the leader. When are you pullin' em, CHead? Heck, I might even have the cahones to try it after you've finished your restoration project.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
fishypete
Mar 14, 2003, 1:59 PM
Post #29 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2002
Posts: 200
|
It seems a safe bet that the "efficiency and style" benefits [of rivets in a ladder] raised by copperhead (plus cost of course!) will ensure that the danger of FA's installing 3/8 bolts with hangers remains pretty darn low. Pywiack - I think you have a tough sell on your hands there.
I cant imagine drilling a 3/8 ladder of any length by hand - and I hate to think of the visible scar such a line would make.
Nonetheless, I have a couple of questions:
1) Copperhead said
"Why do hangers need to be camo?ed when they are thousands of feet off of the ground and the only people that see them are climbers? "
Does that mean you (and climbers in general) are unaffected by the damage of remote/pristine places? From what I have read of your writing I am sure this isn't true. Can you clarify a bit for me?
IMO, surely it doesn't matter who can see it - a scar is a scar no?? My recent explorations in Europe have uncovered some horrific grid bolting on remote choss-piles only ever seen by climbers - still a pretty horrific sight that left a black mark on my experience.
2) "Bolts have a life span and need to be replaced but the character of the route should not be changed in the process"
I agree that routes should not be altered by subsequent ascents. However given that bolts/rivets must be replaced over time, wouldn't alternatives that can (generally) be removed be a better first choice? Given that rivets are often impossible to get out without shearing, doesn't this mean that buttonheads would be a better option?
3) "3/8 bolt ladders are for pussies."
Does this mean that we should add "manliness" to the "efficiency and style" benefits you attributed to rivets?
Given my meagre drilling experience I haven't had the chance, but I bet the testosterone rush when telling all the lads around the campfire about one's bold use of nothing but 5/8 rivets is quite something.
What a crock.
It has been convincingly illustrated to us that rivets are "unbelievably" strong (when new), thus the FA is actually climbing quite a solid ladder. Of course later ascents when they are rusted to hell are infinitely different - but in this thread the topic has been the choice of hardware when creating a bolt or rivet ladder.
Thus it seems that the use of 5/8 rivets only sets the scene for subsequent parties to prove their "hardman" stature by gambling on a decrepit rivet ladder (e.g. TT?).
For those of us that want to do the route without breaking bones when rippping an ancient rivet ladder, what are the options? Replace every fourth? Replace all of them?
Copperhead, you started a thread about "Restoring Zodiac", but didn't ever weigh-in with any additional thoughts. What is your view? Should routes be returned to their FA status? It appears you dont believe that, because you intend to replace the low bolts of ZM with button heads, instead of chopping them altogether and thus returning the route to its FA condition. It would be great to get your input.
Thanks for the clarifications,
Cheers
Fishy.
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Mar 16, 2003, 8:03 AM
Post #30 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
First off, I assume that everyone is aware that this rivet thread is based on granite. Don’t take it for sandstone.
pywiak wrote:
In reply to: "Who is going to drill 3/8” bolts on lead for a ladder?" Someone with a sense of craftsmanship who realizes that pioneering a route is about giving to the community, not stroking the leader's ego. Besides, it might encourage fewer ladders and more creative hard-core aid tricks with the natural features of the stone. If you're not going to use the natural features, you might as well engineer something structurally sound that's built to last. Just because our heroes experimented with garbage techniques doesn't make them right. Sooner or later someone is going to need to clean up the mess.
“It’s hard to explain. All I know is that these routes I put up are not a public service. They are sorta like that whole Charlie Fowler defuse-the-time-bomb bit. If people go up there they’ll get what they deserve, and,” he adds with a grin, “they might get whacked.” – Klaus
-Climbing, No. 162, p. 89.
If pioneering new routes is supposed to be a gift to the community, then why did the Great Warren Harding and team chop their route as they climbed the Porcelain Wall in ‘76? And why would Robbins be driven to chop the WOEML? Do you think that Charlie Porter was thinking about his beautiful gift of the upper ladders on the Trip as he was drilling them? Hell no, he was thinking about climbing the damn wall and getting to the summit. Does Gerberding worry about short people when he puts up a new route? Was Bridwell thinking about those that would later climb his routes when he came up with the idea of using aluminum dowels? We know that dowels are garbage but this does not mean that we should jump from ¼” holes to 3/8” holes. Re-bolting is about giving to the community and the “someone” to clean up the mess is the ASCA. Others need to realize that re-bolting isn’t a crazy free-for-all. Ethical standards must be kept.
If establishing new routes is about giving to the community, then why do people duct-tape the loops of fixed heads and bolt hangers closed to prevent others from using a cheater stick on subsequent ascents?
Should we strive to create routes of mediocre difficulty to provide a gift to the greatest number of people?
pywiak wrote:
In reply to: "Camouflage hangers? Why do hangers need to be camo’ed when they are thousands of feet off of the ground and the only people that see them are climbers? Rivets don’t need to be camo’ed because they are so small." It's a matter of enlightened aesthetics, not size. It applies to all fixed anchor hardware, anywhere. We wouldn't want any eyesores, would we?
fishypete wrote:
In reply to: "Why do hangers need to be camo?ed when they are thousands of feet off of the ground and the only people that see them are climbers? " Does that mean you (and climbers in general) are unaffected by the damage of remote/pristine places? From what I have read of your writing I am sure this isn't true. Can you clarify a bit for me?
No, we don’t want eyesores. I was a little unclear. Yes, all (necessary) hangers, chains, and rap rings (minimize webbing), etc. should be made as inconspicuous as possible. Metolius Rap Hangers are good for rap stations. I make an effort to clean fixed mank and webbing from established routes to keep the climbing fun and better the appearance of the route. My point was that without hangers on bolts (i.e. rivets), camo’ing them is not an issue, whether the hangers are on a ladder or on just a few bolts between thin features. Any hanger will leave shadows. I still have troubles seeing rivets in front of me and that’s a good thing. Route finding? Wouldn’t want to follow a trail of fatty hangers…
pywiak wrote:
In reply to: "...a properly placed machine bolt rivet is pretty darn strong." For the first season. After three years of freeze/thaw, it's a time bomb. I know, I've ripped them. Guess I should've bounce tested them harder, eh? It's also been my experience that most rivets don't meet the standard of "properly placed".
All bolts will corrode and their placements will weaken over time, though stainless will last longer. 1/4” buttonheads (Rawl Drives) become spinners, right? Freeze/thaw. A machine bolt will last longer than 3 years. I spent a night in my ledge, suspended from a 24-year-old bent and rusty machine head rivet. It looked like crap but it was bomber. I will not argue with the fact that “properly placed” rivets are not always a guarantee, considering that I’ve botched a few myself and seen others of doubtful quality. With experience, machine bolt rivets can repeatedly be placed with a high level of confidence in their strength. I won’t hesitate to bounce on a suspicious looking rivet if I must, but then again, I’m usually carrying the equipment to replace it (in the haul bag).
pywiak wrote:
In reply to: "This is about preserving the original style of Yosemite wall routes." How noble and altruistic. While all the Valley wall routes I've done have their own unique and amazing characteristics, NONE of them could be done in "original style", and NONE of them reflected the pristine condition of the FA. Traffic has an impact on routes, and over time, things change. Enjoy your ascent, but don't expect it to be the same ten, twenty, or thirty years later.
Unfortunately, this is true. However, it does not mean that we must try to radically accelerate “change.” Pieces get fixed – the natural progression of a route. Pin scars are inevitable but become more ‘clean-placement-friendly’ over time. Routes ‘naturally’ degrade. If our resources are finite, must we intentionally destroy the original spirit of a route? Can we at least TRY to preserve the style?
fishypete wrote:
In reply to: "Bolts have a life span and need to be replaced but the character of the route should not be changed in the process" I agree that routes should not be altered by subsequent ascents. However given that bolts/rivets must be replaced over time, wouldn't alternatives that can (generally) be removed be a better first choice? Given that rivets are often impossible to get out without shearing, doesn't this mean that buttonheads would be a better option?
As far as ease of replacement and the continued use of the same hole, yes, ¼” Drives would be a better choice. Rawl does not make stainless split-shank Drives; they make a stainless Spike version instead that has nowhere near the holding strength of the carbon steel split-shank. Both 1 ¼” and 1 ½” lengths of the ¼” split-shank bolt can be used but the 1 ½” ones are a better bet in the event of rock craterage. These carbon steel bolts should last between 10 and 15 years, depending on how much water run-off they are exposed to. Another option is the super-mega-bomber stainless 3/8” x 2” Spike buttonhead; contrary to it’s ¼” cousin Spike, it has incredible holding power. The only problem with this bolt is that no one in their right mind would want to drill 3/8” holes on lead and the bolts defy any attempt to preserve original ¼” style.
The advantages to machine bolt rivets are that a shallower hole-depth is required (less drilling) and a 17/64” bit can be used (which is less likely to snap than a ¼” bit). An RP hanger can be used on either type of rivet; once a biner is clipped through the RP hanger, the hanger cannot come off of the rivet (provided a washer (11/16” OD; 11/32” ID) is used on Drives). Pseudo keyhole hangers have flaws. Although the placement of either type of rivet can crater the rock, Drives are more botch-proof than machine heads. I guess ¼” carbon steel Drives are a better choice on FAs for the long run… if we can convince the climbing community to spend the extra cash and change their ways, myself included. They are definitely the current choice for re-bolting ladders, etc.
fishypete wrote:
In reply to: Given my meagre drilling experience I haven't had the chance, but I bet the testosterone rush when telling all the lads around the campfire about one's bold use of nothing but 5/8 rivets is quite something.
Not at all. 5/16” machine bolt rivets are quite common on modern to sub-modern aid routes and are much stronger than aluminum dowels or Zamacs. ¼” has always been the standard for on-lead anchors. I don’t see why anyone would spray about such a ladder. If the ladder consisted of only bat-hooks, ala Highway To Hell, then there might be something to spray about. I will admit that you might catch me spraying about how most people will not be able to reach my rivets.
fishypete wrote:
In reply to: It has been convincingly illustrated to us that rivets are "unbelievably" strong (when new), thus the FA is actually climbing quite a solid ladder. Of course later ascents when they are rusted to hell are infinitely different - but in this thread the topic has been the choice of hardware when creating a bolt or rivet ladder.
But the topic should also concern the choice of hardware when re-bolting a route as well, considering the TT, ZM, and ZOD references stated above and the controversy that has been generated, here as well as elsewhere.
fishypete wrote:
In reply to: Thus it seems that the use of 5/8 rivets only sets the scene for subsequent parties to prove their "hardman" stature by gambling on a decrepit rivet ladder (e.g. TT?). For those of us that want to do the route without breaking bones when rippping an ancient rivet ladder, what are the options? Replace every fourth? Replace all of them?
Hardware should be replaced when necessary, using appropriate techniques and acceptable bolts and rivets. Decrepit rivet ladders should not exist but there are far more bad bolts and rivets than there are those who can adequately replace them. If one is going to go through the work of re-bolting a ladder, then all of the inferior anchors should be dealt with. If necessary, yes, replace them all. But preserve the style. Re-bolting should be done before rivets/ old bolts break; the average wall climber is either incapable or unprepared to properly replace such anchors.
I think that all of the Trip has now been re-bolted though I disagree with the style in which it was done. For the most part, original holes were not re-used, old bolts were left as is, and every anchor is a 3/8” bolt, almost all with a hanger. A mindless clip-up. I don’t know if the old bolt mess has since been dealt with but the route has changed. It is no longer what it once was. To do the Trip now, isn’t the same. Is this a good thing or is this a bad thing? I’d bet that a consensus is not possible. The ladders could have been replaced with ¼” Drive bolts with washers and maybe a 3/8” bolt with a hanger every fourth or fifth one. Are cable rivet hangers and RP hangers destined to become extinct? Will the term ‘body-weight rivet’ also disappear?
fishypete wrote:
In reply to: Copperhead, you started a thread about "Restoring Zodiac", but didn't ever weigh-in with any additional thoughts. What is your view? Should routes be returned to their FA status? It appears you dont believe that, because you intend to replace the low bolts of ZM with button heads, instead of chopping them altogether and thus returning the route to its FA condition. It would be great to get your input.
The reasons why I started that thread were a) to see if I could get some feedback on others’ thoughts, and b) hook, line and sinker – see what I could dredge up. It was not meant as a ‘jab’ towards anyone. What are my thoughts? I think that matters such as these cannot be viewed as black or white, though Mr. Way would like to have it that way. As I have acknowledged above, routes do change over time. To try to preserve the route in its pristine FA condition is impossible. I have no problem with the 5th pitch variation on Zodiac. It is no different than the first pitch variation; they are both independent of the original line. The part that bothers me is the replacement of added bolts and chicken bolts. An example would be the bolts next to the wide flake above Peanut Ledge. Figuring out exactly what was original and what was added may be the crux but replacing all of them is a blatant changing of the route. Should this section be better protected for safety (i.e. fear of the A1 run-out), or is it for the convenience of having to bring fewer large cams? The bolt at the Nipple is a tough one. I don’t know how long the added bolt had been there and how many others aside from Charlie freed it. Should that bolt be chopped?… probably not. One of my bros added a few rivets to pitch 12 during a winter ascent but that was because they were the first up there since a section peeled off (see Supertopo guide). These rivets have since been replaced with fatty bolts. I believe that belays should consist of bomber 3/8” bolts if the belay is a bolted belay. Bolts should not be added to natural belays; bivy bolts/rivets should not be added for one’s convenience.
As far as the ZM bolts go, I am only referring to the first 4 of the route. The damage is done and the 3/8” holes are there - might as well re-use them to minimize impact. If I were to restore the shoulder-stand, someone would certainly come along and drill a new rivet because the topo says that there is supposed to be one there. That is the problem with all of this – the fact that someone will come along and fire in a bolt here or there because there is one in the topo or they see that one has been chopped and don’t see (or want to use) the other alternatives. Have they no respect for the route? Do they feel that they are entitled to drill to get themselves up the route? Should they have acquired more experience beforehand?
Given, there is a difference between replacing bolts to restore a route and replacing bolts to make a route safer, what is the motivation behind making a route safer and easier? Is it to enable more people to climb El Cap? Is it to make climbing more fun? Is fun relative?
With respect to replacing bolts on trade routes, where do we draw the line when it comes to the hardware that is chosen and replacement versus chopping of added bolts?
These questions are never easily answered.
Check out the ASCA website:
http://www.safeclimbing.org/
If you don’t like manky bolts, then support the ASCA.
More about rivets:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?m=16091&f=50&b=0
Rawl bolts:
http://www.powers.com/mechdesc.htm
Optimum belay bolt = Rawl 3/8” x 2 ¼” stainless 5-piece (Power-Bolt) with Petzl hanger.
3/8 bolt ladders are still for wussies.
Nobody ever said that wall climbing was supposed to be totally safe – a challenge, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
apollodorus
Mar 16, 2003, 10:59 AM
Post #31 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 2157
|
Stainless machine bolts are available at all three hardware stores in my town. Two places have them in bulk bins, and even have boxes of 100 you can buy. The third place has them in little drawers that hold about ten of each size. They're about 20 cents each, for the 5/16" x 1".
Marine supply stores often have 304 SS bolts. They might have 316 bolts instead, which are more corrosion resistant, but a little bit weaker.
|
|
|
|
|
fishypete
Mar 17, 2003, 10:48 AM
Post #32 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2002
Posts: 200
|
Thanks Copperhead for the comprehensive and well thought-out reply. You make a compelling case, which has filled in several grey areas that had persisted for me.
Whilst the guidelines for (re)bolting free climbs are simple (and easily accessible e.g. on the ASCA website), I have always had the impression that the situation for walls was more undefined and "grey", despite reading everything I could find on the topic.
It seems that the battle against "chicken" and "convenience" bolts will be impossible to win, all that could be hoped for would be more education in an effort to reduce the rate of their appearance.
However with respect to planned re-bolting of aid routes, I get the impression that there remains more "grey" than there needs to be, and that perhaps a more accessible set of guidelines would improve the average education level of those scaling the big stone.
Do you see a need/niche for a published set of guidelines, recommending what the best course of re-bolting action is for walls? Do you think this would reduce the flow of awful decisions on El Cap?
To take a specific example - is it known who rebolted TT? I see on the ASCA site that they replaced 102 bolts in 7/2002 - were they responsible for replacing the bolt-ladders with 3/8 bolts and hangers? What is their policy, do they ever add rivets? Or do they only add bolts?
Overall I wonder if there is a way to improve the education of climbers, as I get the impression that the growth in climber numbers over the last 15 years has far outstripped the availability of good info, direct from knowledgable sources.
This seems hardly a new problem. Steve Roper describes in his book Camp 4 a situation where the "weekenders" weren't up to date with the newly evolving (anti-bolt, anti-siege) ethics of the full-time climbing set - and that was in 1960!
Forty years later I wonder if we have a related problem, one that stems from the fact that most climbers today do not have access to people and information that can strongly outline what the ethics are of different areas, and what are acceptable and unacceptable practices.
Is there still too much reliance on the historical approach depending largely on the "grapevine" in the valley? Is the idea of agreeing on a list of big wall re-bolting guidlines an impossible dream?
I would enjoy your thoughts,
Cheers
Fishy.
|
|
|
|
|
mrhardgrit
Mar 17, 2003, 3:17 PM
Post #33 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2001
Posts: 153
|
You asked about who re-bolted TT? Well, I met the guy last year at the bottom of Mescalito (which he was also going up to re-bolt) and he said that he had some kind of agreement with the rangers/climbing shop for re-bolting some of the routes. I mentioned that I had seen TT done, and said that he had done it. Can't remember his name, but know he has done tons of walls and is pretty well know in the Valley. Has anyone been on Mescalito since it was re-bolted? I did it just before and was wondering if they replaced any of those pitches of rivets in the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
onamission116
Mar 18, 2003, 2:06 PM
Post #34 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2003
Posts: 60
|
The hornet's nest has been officially stirred up. Remind me not to mention any kind of drilling question on the site again. Thanks for your answers though about rivets, I appreiciate it.
:) Matt
|
|
|
|
|
fishypete
Mar 18, 2003, 2:38 PM
Post #35 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2002
Posts: 200
|
Does anyone have any more info on the TT or Mescalito rebolting?? Surely a well-known and experienced valley figure wouldn't be re-bolting ladders with 3/8 bolts, would he??
Fishy.
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Mar 19, 2003, 7:19 PM
Post #36 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
The bees are stirred up but they don’t sting. They are buzzing around, making noise in order to protect the Queen Bee and their precious honey.
Fishypete, thanks for your comments.
The ASCA did not do the re-bolting though they do list bolts that have been replaced by others. The re-bolting of TT has been going on for a few years now with different sections of the route being replaced at different times, by different people. I did a little work on the first 4 pitches but now wonder if the ¼” buttonheads that I placed have been replaced with 3/8” bolts. The ASCA site lists cumulative bolt totals and the last date that work was done on the route. Names are not important. I will say that the quality of his work is very good and I respect the amount of effort that he has put into these routes. Re-bolting is hard work and drilling will fry your arms.
I would certainly bet that the middle pitches on Mescalito now have 3/8” bolts instead of the original aluminum dowels (i.e. pitch 17). It’s unfortunate that those who climb the route will no longer experience the original flavor.
In reply to: Is the idea of agreeing on a list of big wall re-bolting guidlines an impossible dream?
No. I think that some sort of a set of guidelines can be agreed upon. Those in favor of the use of strictly 3/8” bolts claim that many climbers including some FAist support them. It seems as though these people are operating under their own set of ethics.
Having talked to many Valley locals including some that have been around for quite a while, I have not found many (if any) who would agree with the use of 3/8” bolts for ladders such as those on the Trip. In fact, a somewhat shocked reaction was more common. Some questioned ‘what’s up with that?’
I have posted this information about some of the re-bolting controversies because I feel that this should be a public discussion, given the fact that we are dealing with something that affects us all. First ascents enable one to express their own personal style; re-bolting trade routes should not.
Support the ASCA.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Mar 22, 2003, 4:19 PM
Post #37 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
I absolutely agree with copperhead here. I have spoken with a number of valley hardmen about this issue with the ladders etc. I've recieved comments like: "Abso-f**kn-loutely stupid", and "If you need 3/8" bolts on a ladder, you should find something else to do." and my favorite: "We used smaller bolts for belays on Trango".
While I absolutely applaud the efforts, time, and money spent by the individuals of ASCA, I cannot comprehend why they would ingore the comments and advice from long time valley wall rats. I know for a fact that some of these people have spoken directly with Chris Mac. and others about these issues. Only to be ultimately ignored.
If you are going to perform a community service, which is exactly what this is, then you damn well better listen intently to the community in which you serve.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
bigwalling
Mar 22, 2003, 5:19 PM
Post #38 of 38
(5643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 728
|
So, in the Valley some routes have 3/8" bolts for all the rivets? With hangers?
If that is the way it is that is a joke! The hanger part is really funny. Just climb a few of those routes and you got a good hanger supply. Plus you've likely done a public service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
