|
themeanieokc
May 13, 2004, 8:20 PM
Post #1 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2004
Posts: 69
|
How does one handle routes that are severe runouts (RX), with groundfall potential and no protection. There are many of these routes at two of the crags I visit, and I fear to attempt them, because it seems like it is really just free-soloing, even with a rope dragging behind you. Could these routes be considered trad, even if there is no place for protection? And what if there is, say, one bolt in the middle of a fifty-foot granite slab? Is that still a trad route? Would you attempt it?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
May 13, 2004, 8:30 PM
Post #2 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Climb within your means.
If you climb solid .9 (for example), then doing a climb with a .6 runout in it should be no problem. Really, if you climb solid .9, then doing a .9 runout should be no problem either, as you are solid at that level.
This does not mean climb runout x rated routes at your level, just that if you are solid at a particular level, then you should be able to climb it runout. It's a head thing. If you would not be willing to solo an x rated route till you get pro in, then you have no business on it.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 13, 2004, 8:34 PM
Post #3 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
For me it depends on the rating. If it's easy (subjectively) I'll hop on. Protection often doesn't equate to route quality and if you skip over everything with R or X, you miss miss some big fun. If it's a difficult, but single-pitch, I'm all for headpointing.
Now don't take this to mean that I actively seek out death routes. I don't!
And yes, I'd most likely consider this type of route trad.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
May 13, 2004, 8:47 PM
Post #4 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
its easy. dont fall.
ok, seriously, treat them as a kind of solo. if youd feel comfortable soloing it, you can do it, but if youre afraid, better avoid them for now.
and if its a local area, chances are that that RX isnt really an RX, but its more like an R.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 13, 2004, 8:48 PM
Post #5 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: Climb within your means. If you climb solid .9 (for example), then doing a climb with a .6 runout in it should be no problem.
Good point! I often run it out on easy terrain between cruxes, usually when time and rope drag dictate.
|
|
|
|
|
superdiamonddave
May 13, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #6 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 443
|
In reply to: How does one handle routes that are severe runouts (RX), with groundfall potential and no protection. There are many of these routes at two of the crags I visit, and I fear to attempt them, because it seems like it is really just free-soloing, even with a rope dragging behind you. Could these routes be considered trad, even if there is no place for protection? And what if there is, say, one bolt in the middle of a fifty-foot granite slab? Is that still a trad route? Would you attempt it?
If you are referring to Quartz Mountain, then I wouldn't refer to the bolt-only climbs as trad or sport. They are called bolted climbs. And yes, they tend to be run-out. The ethics at the time was to bolt on lead with a hand drill. I recommend using a TR or following someone up the first time on most of the RX routes at Quartz. Then, if you feel that with almost certainty that you can do it without falling, give it a go. Keep in mind that the Quartz classics that are RX in nature, falling should not be an option. Down-climbing skills can come in handy if you get into trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
May 13, 2004, 9:01 PM
Post #7 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
Maybe I am missing something here. If falling is not an option, then why is the climb protected the way it is? Why not add more bolts (only by the FA of course)? This happens a lot when when higher level climbers set up lower rated climbs. They get on them and say " this is easy stuff, why add a bolt" then some lower level climber gets on it and busts his rump when they fall. So, I agree with rradam. If you are solid at a grade or two higher, then maybe try it.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
May 13, 2004, 9:07 PM
Post #8 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
There's also the headpointing option.
|
|
|
|
|
superdiamonddave
May 13, 2004, 9:14 PM
Post #9 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 443
|
In reply to: Maybe I am missing something here. If falling is not an option, then why is the climb protected the way it is? Why not add more bolts (only by the FA of course)? This happens a lot when when higher level climbers set up lower rated climbs. They get on them and say " this is easy stuff, why add a bolt" then some lower level climber gets on it and busts his rump when they fall. So, I agree with rradam. If you are solid at a grade or two higher, then maybe try it.
Local ethics, my friend. Besides, the run-out factor on these climbs is what gives them the reputation. Just because you can add more bolts doesn't mean you should. And quite frankly, if bolts ever get added to the head-piece classics, they will be promptly removed.
Incedentally, several of the climbs at Quartz have been retro-bolted to allow a "friendlier" experience to less experienced climbers. It was all done with the permission of the FA, by the way. The popular consensus of the Quartz climbers (young and old alike) is DO NOT ALTER the classics. When a climber is READY to get on one of those, the climber will get to know the thrill and sense of accomplishment of sending one.
No one would dare add bolts to Bachar-Yerian and that, rightly so.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
May 13, 2004, 9:16 PM
Post #10 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
I can see dangerous runouts on climbs with no bolts at all but see no point in keeping exceptionally long distances between existing bolts. If it's going to bolts on it anywhere then it might as well be retrobolted to keep it safe. I see no reason why the X grade should be attached to any bolted line.
|
|
|
|
|
superdiamonddave
May 13, 2004, 9:20 PM
Post #11 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 443
|
In reply to: I can see dangerous runouts on climbs with no bolts at all but see no point in keeping exceptionally long distances between existing bolts. If it's going to bolts on it anywhere then it might as well be retrobolted to keep it safe. I see no reason why the X grade should be attached to any bolted line.
If you want to keep it safe then use a top-rope.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
May 13, 2004, 9:23 PM
Post #12 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
If there's a climb with 4 bolts in 100ft then what's the harm in adding 2 more to make it safer? It's already a bolted line to begin with, where's the ethic change there?
And don't give me any bull about original style.. if that was a valid argument then you'd be climbing in hemp soled boots.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
May 13, 2004, 9:58 PM
Post #13 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
I understand what you are saying. I wasn't implying changing a climb that already exists. I know some of them are classic hair raisers. I am more asking the question of climbs that are new. Do you walk up and say "gee this looks like a good RX"? Or can you say "Gee I am gonna set up a safe climb so noone behind me kills themself". I don't set up climbs myself so I don't know the train of thought one goes through. But I know how easy it is to get on a route only to realize it was sandbagged. You add an R rating and its spell disaster.. I kept someone from decking last week for this very reason. second bolt was too high up. He was solid a level above what he was climbing but it was in a different state. He gets on this climb and falls right before the second bolt. I just don't get why climbs like this are not bolted more safely in the first place. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
May 13, 2004, 10:14 PM
Post #14 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: I can see dangerous runouts on climbs with no bolts at all but see no point in keeping exceptionally long distances between existing bolts. If it's going to bolts on it anywhere then it might as well be retrobolted to keep it safe. I see no reason why the X grade should be attached to any bolted line.
I think you may be confusing bolting with rap-bolting. When rap bolting a climb there is no excuse for creating an unsafe (under protected) route. When you are hand drilling on a first ascent you put bolts only where you absolutely need them because it is hard any scarry.
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
May 13, 2004, 10:16 PM
Post #15 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: If there's a climb with 4 bolts in 100ft then what's the harm in adding 2 more to make it safer? It's.
Because SAFER=Less Challenge, Less Mind Game and Less FUN.
|
|
|
|
|
imnotbob
May 13, 2004, 10:18 PM
Post #16 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 80
|
I love this topic! :D
welcome to Oklahoma - the land of the bold!
its all a confidence game. I climbed a lot of the same routes over and over until I was real comfortable with knowing just what I (and my shoes) could do (and couldn't do) before moving on (I still climb those routes).
TR is good! Following is good! Get to know your ability. As someone above said, downclimbing skills are good too!
I like the classics the way they are. If the FA only placed in a couple of bolts then so be it (as long as they were placed on lead), I wouldn't chip in a crack so I could squeeze a nut into it either.
I see both sides though; why put climbers at (additional) risk? You just have to decide on a personal level, is it worth it? There are plenty of 5.10 climbers that won't touch Snakeshead (5.5) because a fall can get real ugly (although most likely you'd just slip a little).
It's almost like some climbs are practice and others are more serious - in Okla, practice on Echo Dome and get comfortable then climb at Quartz. (I don't mean to downplay the quality of routes on Echo Dome (I like'em), only the level of commitment)
Good luck!
Climb safe today so you can climb again tomorrow!
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
May 13, 2004, 10:20 PM
Post #17 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
In reply to: Because SAFER=Less Challenge, Less Mind Game and Less FUN.
Perhaps you should take up soloing. You don't have to clip the bolts just because they're there.
|
|
|
|
|
vicum
May 13, 2004, 10:55 PM
Post #18 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 167
|
In reply to: In reply to: Because SAFER=Less Challenge, Less Mind Game and Less FUN. Perhaps you should take up soloing. You don't have to clip the bolts just because they're there.
It's the same difference between swimming the English Channel head on, and swimming it with a boat following you. The fact that the bolt is there changes things completly, wheather you clip it or not. Just having the option makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
vicum
May 13, 2004, 11:00 PM
Post #19 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 167
|
In reply to: Maybe I am missing something here. If falling is not an option, then why is the climb protected the way it is? Why not add more bolts (only by the FA of course)? This happens a lot when when higher level climbers set up lower rated climbs. They get on them and say " this is easy stuff, why add a bolt" then some lower level climber gets on it and busts his rump when they fall....
This is not always true. I know of at least one route here, a Dr. Coolhead, which the guide book calls 5.10b RX, where the first ascentionist took several lead falls while bolting it.
I think it's also important to point out that on many RX routes (except for the ones which have zero pro), there are places where you can fall, and some where you can't. In free soloing, you can never fall.
|
|
|
|
|
themeanieokc
May 13, 2004, 11:55 PM
Post #20 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2004
Posts: 69
|
Yeah, Quartz and WWR are the land of the bold (and crazy). Some of those routes just fail to add up on the old sanity meter. but i do respect the FA, especially knowing they hand-drilled on lead, crazy. I would really like to try some of those classics, but i just don't feel like sitting out for a few months with two broken legs or isolated head injuries.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
May 14, 2004, 12:05 AM
Post #21 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: In reply to: Because SAFER=Less Challenge, Less Mind Game and Less FUN. Perhaps you should take up soloing. You don't have to clip the bolts just because they're there.
You don't have to climb it if you think it's too run out. There are plenty other safely bolted climbs for you to do. Leave us a few fright fests please.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
May 14, 2004, 12:12 AM
Post #22 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
I hear this arguement all the time. Dont cimb it if you are uncomfortable with the runout. And in general I do agree with this. I know my limits and I stay away from the RX. My problem is that there are many routes in some areas that are not marked RX but still have ground fall potential. If you have been climbing long enough you learn to recognize the hazards, but its frustrating when you hike all the way to a hard to get to place only to find that all the climbs are bolted with ground fall potential. It hurts worse when you look up and say "why wasn't that first bolt placed a little higher to keep it safer". These climbs weren't meant to be RX classics. These climbs are just bolted inproperly in my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
berserk
May 14, 2004, 1:14 AM
Post #23 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2003
Posts: 59
|
Just because the climb is there, doesn't mean you have to climb it!!!!!
If it's too bold for your liking, then simply leave it alone and for others to enjoy as is.
And what harm could a few extra bolts do? Well, for starters it ruins the rock permanently (so always limit the use of bolts). Secondly, a few of these run-out mid-grade classics would end up being a seriously boring walk-in-the-park if they were bolted for 'safe ascents'.
50% of rockclimbing (at least) is and should be about mind-games. Pushing your limits (and not just technically or physically).
In my books, one should always strive at ascending a climb in the purest style possible. If the FA did it with three pieces of protection, we should strive at doing the same or even better. Maybe only 2 pieces and so forth. Every time you make it safer, you make it easier and thus downgrades the climb, both technically and aestetically.
Set yourself the goal of climbing as pure as possible. This will also entail looking after our environment, as minimal impact whilst climbing is the key.
And if you want to be safe!!!! Find something else to do and don't ruin it for everyone else by gridbolting beautiful slabs, perfect crack-lines or ringbarking trees by excessive top-roping. I heard ten-pin bowling is rather safe. And you even have custom made shoes for this past time as well 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
tedc
May 14, 2004, 2:33 PM
Post #24 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 756
|
In reply to: In reply to: Because SAFER=Less Challenge, Less Mind Game and Less FUN. Perhaps you should take up soloing.
Perhaps you should take up top roping and leave the real climbing to people who are willing to evaluate thier climbing skills against what a certain route requires.
In reply to: You don't have to clip the bolts just because they're there.
This is the all time worst f%$*ing argument for putting in a chicken bolt that has ever been used. (Quoting it should be grounds for dismissal from the trad forum.)
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
May 14, 2004, 2:40 PM
Post #25 of 28
(3730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
I agree with what you are saying berserk. I think I stated the same thing about leaving a climb as is a few posts ago. I also already stated I believe the "dont like it, dont climb it, but dont touch it" idea. I am not recommending adding bolts. I am talking about climbs that already have a ton of bolts. So, I hardly think the FA was too worried about the damage on the environment. My issue is simply with the placement of the first and second bolt that can lead to a ground fall. I have climbed a few dicey ones and I agree they can be a real rush and a great feeling of accomplishment. I have also seen many climbs where smarter placement of the original bolts could make the climb safer. Maybe putting the bolts in a different place was not possible due to stance, but after climbing it I thought the first bolt particularly could have been placed on nice stance a little higher thus making the second bolt a no-grounder. But, hey, what do I know.. This is simply my personal opinion. I respect yours as well and look foward to climbing those classics on that day when I feel up to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
