|
|
|
|
roughster
Aug 10, 2004, 4:44 AM
Post #1 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
And I am not talking about the kind you ate in kindergarten :lol:
Yeah, here goes a feisty topic I see starting to creep into another thread, but this issue is one I am interested in hearing peoples opinion. For the sake of the below argument, lets completely remove the "chipping" argument. Lets not even muddy the waters with it. Lets just focus on gluing. Lets also assume that the person doing the gluing "knows" what they are doing. They are not creating running streams of glue where not needed. They are not smearing entire sections. They are carefully and most importantly effectively only gluing that which needs to be glued in order to secure the "feature".
Now when you say gluing in many peoples eyes you can mean on of several things. Let me lay out some of the different "gluing" uses and see what you think. Yes, it is obviously your right to say "ALL GLUING IS BAD STFU!!!" but in the hopes of revealing some serious and hopefully enlightening dialogue, lets forgo the STFU'ing and just discuss the "whys" of each point:
-----------------------
#1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
#2- Reinforcing a critical hold on either an already established route or a route that basically is bolted and ready to go but the FA'ist is debating the use of glue. Critical meaning that if this hold breaks, the once classic 5-star 5.11a now becomes a zero star 50 foot jug haul with one V7 crimper move.
#3- Gluing to make the rock climbable. Lets face it, some area the rock is so chossy that while it will hold large diameter bolts or glue-ins, the rock would literally break forever unless several holds were glued. Think places like New Jack City in SoCal. Once cleaned and glued the climbing is great, even some of the best around, but it is gluing which makes it that way not the "natural" state of the rock.
#4- Gluing for safety. Yes believe it or not, this is usually how "gluing" starts. A flake that people pull on creaks and bends but doesn't break. Instead of risking a climber pulling the said flake down onto their belayers head, the developer decides to create a layer of epoxy to secure it.
-----------------------
Ok now some reminders: The "gluer" knows what they are doing so we can eliminate the "visual impact" of gluing. They "care" and after the gluing is done, carefully camoflauge it. They don't glue what is not necessary.
I'll be very straight forward here. I have glued holds. I have never done #1, but have done all of the rest. With that in mind, I'll discuss why. If your goal is to tar and feather "gluers" feel free, but your opinion will mostly be completely ignored at least from my angle. If you want to present well thought reasons why you think people should not engage in this type of stuff, I will certainly give it thought. Also consider if whether or not any of your local areas that you climb on have "glued" features. What if all of a sudden all of the glued holds dissapeared? Would your climbing area still exist? Do you know enough to say for sure that you know of the extent to which glue was used to help develop your local areas? Not trying to persuade you either way, just making sure you think about it before you respond. Camo'd glue is hard to spot and IMO is much more frequently used then most people realize.
-----------------------
#1- I think this shouldn't happen. Not even on manmade structures like bridges, etc... I think this is just inviting trouble from both climbers and non-climbers alike.
#2- I say do it. Some will say that you are just delaying the eventual breakage, but I have to dissagree. If done properly, a glued hold will often be stronger than the surrounding areas which are not glued. One could argue that you are not leaving it in a "natural" state. I would counter that by saying you are doing exactly that by "preserving" the natural state of the route.
#3- Some areas are not blessed with large scale patches of perfect rock. Sometimes the best you get is compact kitty litter. Should people in those areas either move or resign themselves to driving 4 hours each way to the nearest crag, or should they use "glue" as a means to allow climbing on the chossy stuff closer to home? I personally think that gluing done correctly is only apparent to climbers. If then we assume that it is only apparent to climbers, would you still be against it for this use?
#4- I am the 1st person to pull out the crowbar if I think a feature is unsafe. However, eventually you come across that feature that teeter-totters-but-wont-fall-down. What do you do? Do you leave it as a possible hazard waiting to squash people? Do you just leave the line alone in hopes that eventually someone else won't follow behind you and decide to bolt it anyways and have to face the same decision? Do you glue the feature down snug to keep it from loosening further?
This is often a very NOT black and white scenario. I have spent as much as 2 hours working on a refrigerator size block, rocking it back and forth, prying here, prying there, back and forth, over and over till eventually it cut loose, but you do have to draw the line eventually. What is your take?
-----------------------
Now I know I have laid out some pretty big assumptions, those being:
- The "gluer" knows what they are doing, which is often not the case.
- The glue is only apparent to climbers
- They are "effectively" gluing which means that the are not gluing and then the hold breaks anyways leaving behind a scar and now glue as well.
But indulge me those. Given the argument and ideas above, lets hear some (hopefully) open and well thought out ideas on them.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
musicman
Aug 10, 2004, 5:09 AM
Post #2 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 828
|
great, post, really awesome read. hopefully it remains that way with minimal STFU's like you put it. i definetly agree with you on the safety issue. when it comes to number 1, gluing holds to a featureless climb, i dont' know about that one. like you said, its not a black and white subject, there seems to be a lot of gray area in between. i do not think that that is always the best idea. for example, up A.F.Canyon, Utah. 20 years ago people never dreamed of climbing Hell'sCave routes (5.13b/c) but now its a popular climbing place. its definetly a tough and touchy subject, but great read and thanks for it!
|
|
|
|
|
climbnhi
Aug 10, 2004, 6:23 AM
Post #3 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 19
|
This is certainly one the better posts I've read on this site. I'll have to admit, at first the notion of glueing holds was repulsive to me. After seeing some the funky glue jobs at Smith Rock, I was put off by the idea. Granted, one of my favorite climbs there has glued flakes. This last sunday I was climbing at an area near Portland, and towards the end of the day one of my friends brought me to a boulder problem he had been working on. Two crimpers had been glued in place, and you could barely tell the difference. I got spanked, and blew a pad on one the crimpers. Although, the idea of glueing still dosn't sit well with me, I would not have several fun routes at Smith, and a good spanking on a quality problem in Portland without it. If glueing is thought to be neccessary (safety, route feasibility), it should not be done in a way that detracts from the integrity of the rock. For example, manufacturing a route to make it easier, or harder. I'm still looking over a wall at this subject, catching a glimpse at postive aspects and results of glueing. If some folks in the climbing community could educate themselves more properly about glueing, this wouldn't be such a sensitive issue (myself included).
|
|
|
|
|
g-funk
Deleted
Aug 10, 2004, 7:30 AM
Post #4 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Yet again, Roughster comes through with one of the best dialogue inducing posts of the site.
I'm still pretty new to climbing, and honestly had no idea that using glue on routes was something that was done. I've gotta say that if the question revolves around safety, it seems like an open and shut case of protecting our friends in the climbing community in the least intrusive way possible. If this means inconspicuously securing a crux flake, then so be it. On the other hand, securing an out of place hold on an otherwise good route for no reason other than downgrading something that's naturally out of reach. Well I think we can all agree that that's way out of line.
The only point that I don't agree with roughster is in point number 1. The only time that I know that I've seen glued holds was on a support pillar underneath a bridge where I lived in AK. I thought that it was totally cool. Here we have a great big blank ugly cement pillar, and suddenly it's a center for people to spend time interacting and bouldering outdoors, and out of the rain. I'm totally down with securing buildering problems on manmade structures. Obviously there needs to be some tact and consideration granted on this point. It's not doing the climbing community a favor to start establishing routes along the front side of a bank, but an out of the way tower under a train trestle, in my opinion, is fair game. I'd like to hear some response on this point.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 10, 2004, 9:47 AM
Post #5 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I like the idea of hold under bridges. Other than that, I'm pretty much with you Rough. Never touched a glued hold yet myself, but I see no problem with it, as long as it's there to keep the route intact, or to make it safer, and not to actually build the route, as in some cases I've read about (ugh!).
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 10, 2004, 10:01 AM
Post #6 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
heres my opinion:
1) never ever.
2) if its an established climb, id normally say glue it, but if its under development, clean the thing.
3) dont have any experience with this so i wont comment
4) if its a prominent feature, important for climbing the route (like in case no2) and its an established route than glue it, otherwise id say removing is a btter option.
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Aug 10, 2004, 10:57 AM
Post #7 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
As a sport climber in SoCal and Las Vegas I have definitely encountered all four of the glue jobs described. here are my opinions:
#1 I believe this should never be done.. ever. two climbs in particular come to mind: "Clear Moment" at Mt. Potosi, NV, which has a small cube of limestine carefully glued between two miniature tufa features to create, in affect, a two-finger pocket.... as well as an unclimbed line at the Dream Streat wall at Echo Cliffs of the Santa Monica mts, which started on two crimpers composed ENTIRELY of glue (off of which one moves to a drilled pocket).. the glue crimps have been "removed" from the rock since, leaving something rather unsightly.
#2 In the case of reinforcing and saving a feature on a climb, and granting all your assumptions about the developer doing the gluing, I say yes.
#3 Need I say more than "Echo Cliffs?" I climb there.. it makes being a sport climber in SoCal much more bareable... so... well... for the sake of this arguement, I say do it. normally I say go with the established ethic at the crag, but you don't really leave me with that option if the question is about an area under development.
#4 if you're climbing on it, or creates a genuine danger for future climbers (and absolutely cannot be cleaned) then glue it.
peace and love :roll:
ike
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Aug 10, 2004, 1:29 PM
Post #8 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
Nice sticky ethical questions. Sorry for the pun.
I remember a while ago (like 10 years plus) there was a classic boulder problem in the Valley, some top climbers (Kauk if I remember right) protected a key hold (small flake) with some glue. Then some ethics policeman said "the hold flexed when I hung on it" so he pryed it with a fingernail clipper or something and broke it off. He saw the glue so he said he was vindicated. But isn't it worse to pry a feature off an existing route? Glueing is illegal in a national park, but ethics overrule laws IMO.
I guess for me it comes down to practicality. Glueing is like bolting on a trad route. You should only do it as a last resort. But if it's done right (you're not adding holds, etc.) and it's the only way to establish/preserve a route it's probably ok.
Now if I had a big blank boulder in my back yard there'd be glue and bolted on holds all over it.
|
|
|
|
|
walt511
Aug 10, 2004, 1:52 PM
Post #9 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 16
|
Philosophically I've come 180 degrees from where I was when I started climbing in the mid 80's and given your caveats I agree with your cases 2, 3, and 4 and even have no problem with case 1 on man-made structures (and possibly even some natural routes)
That being said I think there are some practical problems that make supporting this position troubling.
Problem 1 is illustrated by your objection to case 1. As you say
"[it] is just inviting trouble from both climbers and non-climbers alike". I think the same holds true even more so for climing in natural areas. The vast majority of them are on public land and I don't believe it would help our image - and our access problems - if the practice became widespread and our little secret got out to the general population.
Problem 2 is how do you regulate it. Your argument sets out some assumptions that aren't valid in the real world. Specifically:
In reply to: - The "gluer" knows what they are doing, which is often not the case. - The glue is only apparent to climbers - They are "effectively" gluing which means that the are not gluing and then the hold breaks anyways leaving behind a scar and now glue as well.
I just don't believe those assumptions will reflect reality if gluing becomes more accepted and widespread.
In any case - that's for the thoughtful discussion.
Walt
|
|
|
|
|
cerikpete
Aug 10, 2004, 2:07 PM
Post #10 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 4043
|
I agree with the general consensus.
I have an area nearby which is an abandoned quarry (i.e., choss). However, if you look at my location, you will realize that we are desperate for nearby rock. So at this quarry, many places have been epoxied to prevent them from breaking off. Nothing was added.
I see no harm in this and am grateful for it.
|
|
|
|
|
elblat
Aug 10, 2004, 2:17 PM
Post #11 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2003
Posts: 40
|
I've seen too many horrible glue jobs, and seen too many people new to the sport dissapointed, angered or saddened with finding glue on the rock, that I can't really advocate gluing at all.
Around here, I've also seen glue used to force a route to be much harder (filling in a whole
crack while leaving a two-finger pocket in a giant loose flake, or creating a "Hueco" out of bondo) or to force a line where there is a lot of virgin rock still to be explored. I've seen glue more often used to reinforce someone's ego more than to further the sport of climbing.
I say, leave the glue at home and improve your own ability and/or boldness.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Aug 10, 2004, 2:37 PM
Post #12 of 42
(4671 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
who says every piece of rock absolutely has to be climbed and conquered? gluers do...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 10, 2004, 3:07 PM
Post #13 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I don't think glue should ever be used on trad or alpine style routes. Occasional use on sport climbs and boulders seems in keeping with the articifical difficulty of those sports. And point #1 is an argument of convenience... glueing on a loose flake that is going to fall as soon as it iscranked upon is no more ethically pure than glueing the same flake back on once it fell.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
diesel___smoke
Aug 10, 2004, 3:16 PM
Post #14 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2003
Posts: 507
|
"ALL GLUING IS BAD STFU!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
b_fost
Aug 10, 2004, 3:16 PM
Post #15 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Posts: 1268
|
I personally think that gluing holds isn't something that just everyone should be doing. Just like bolting, before you go out there and glue, take some time and learn how to do it right, so that you don't make a huge mess or improperly glue flakes etc.
In certain situations, mainly those that roughster outlined, gluing is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with local ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 10, 2004, 3:24 PM
Post #16 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Around here, I've also seen glue used to force a route to be much harder
Modern sport climbing and bouldering often involves the creation of artificial difficulties. If you are glueing on flakes or prying off 'loose' rocks, the result is an artificial climb. Harder or easier, is that relevant?
If the goal of sport climbing is to create difficult but well protected climbs, and you go into with the knowledge that much of it is artificial or at the minimum contrived, glue just doesn't seem to be that bad.
I've ever even been tempted personally.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Aug 10, 2004, 3:27 PM
Post #17 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
This issue depends a lot on the area and the specific climb you want to glue. Hard to make generalizations about when it's right or not. I think we can all agree that we'd always rather NOT have to use glue. So be cautious with the stuff, learn how to glue well at home before doing it at a cliff. Practice with it in your garage. Add local rock dust/flakes into the glue so that it matches well. Many people have climbed on glued routes and not even realized it because the job was done so discreetly.
I am disappointed that some people immediately want to bust out the glue without a moment's thought. It should always be used with caution and moderation. Even at areas where there is a precedent of using glue.
|
|
|
|
|
elblat
Aug 10, 2004, 3:57 PM
Post #18 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2003
Posts: 40
|
In reply to: Harder or easier, is that relevant?
No, you are absolutely correct, it is not relevant, except that in the one case I had in mind when I wrote it, it required so much glue as to be an eyesore (gluing a several foot crack), which I guess could have been done just as poorly to make the route easier too.
At this same crag, people have bolted holds to routes to make them easier (one was a bright green jug, easily seen from the road) on the justification that the wall was already glued to make an artificial route.
Why not keep artificial routes in the gym and let the rock dictate the lines "in the wild"?
Every weekend this summer we go out and find new, good rock. We climb the obvious, excellent lines that the rock has presented. If it's too loose, we move on. Here, there is no need to manufacture anything, yet people do it. Why?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 10, 2004, 4:10 PM
Post #19 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Here, there is no need to manufacture anything, yet people do it. Why?
Ego?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Aug 10, 2004, 4:20 PM
Post #20 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
In reply to: I've seen too many horrible glue jobs, and seen too many people new to the sport dissapointed, angered or saddened with finding glue on the rock, that I can't really advocate gluing at all. Around here, I've also seen glue used to force a route to be much harder (filling in a whole crack while leaving a two-finger pocket in a giant loose flake, or creating a "Hueco" out of bondo) or to force a line where there is a lot of virgin rock still to be explored. I've seen glue more often used to reinforce someone's ego more than to further the sport of climbing. I say, leave the glue at home and improve your own ability and/or boldness.
Sounds more like manufacturing than gluing the way you describe it. I have gotten over gluing - it's very prevalent in southern california, and there are a lot of good routes with glue on them. But I also know a lot of good routes without glue. Both types of routes break, it's true. I guess I agree with DMT, depends on the crag / situation. Glue has no place at Tahquitz or Suicide but it's going to be found at the local sport crag, no doubt.
Bouldering, however, I think should be devoid of glue. There's just no point. Problems break, they evolve, that's ok.
|
|
|
|
|
elblat
Aug 10, 2004, 4:31 PM
Post #21 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2003
Posts: 40
|
That would be my guess, too.
And it's the examples here that have soured me on the idea of gluing. It has created a lot of anger and dissappointment in so many people and created ugliness in the rock around here that I don't feel that it's worth creating a new sport line or boulder problem.
In the instances where a hold has broken or is about to break, well then the rock has just upped the ante. More often than not, the line still goes and the quality is not diminished by a broken hold.
So, perhaps we are just really lucky in this area to have lots of rock, or maybe we are just looking harder, or perhaps people have done much better glue jobs elsewhere.
But I will state that in all the new areas we have discovered and are developing, a precedent *has* been set, and all lines are %100 natural.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Aug 10, 2004, 6:27 PM
Post #22 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
This could be good if it doesn't turn into the typcical rc.com slanderfest.
In reply to: #1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
On natural rock, no. If you can't do it with the natural features, then save it for another generation. Bachar/Kauk could have glued up "Mandala" but chose to save it for the future. It took 20+ years, but Lamiche onsighted it, then added a sit start.
In reply to: #2- Reinforcing a critical hold on either an already established route or a route that basically is bolted and ready to go but the FA'ist is debating the use of glue. Critical meaning that if this hold breaks, the once classic 5-star 5.11a now becomes a zero star 50 foot jug haul with one V7 crimper move.
Too many routes with glue have seen the glued hold break off over time leaving a nasty glue scar. "Masters of Reality" (V5) at Stoney Point was glued, eventually broke off repeatedly, yet still goes at the same rating. "La Machine" (5.13d) at Joshua Tree has a ton of glue scars where holds eventually broke, not to mention the verbal war when it happened, yet still goes. And Echo Cliffs continues to break whether glued or nor. These three examples cover almost 20 years of gluing techniques on three types of rock and the holds are still breaking every day. It's obviously a technique that is not working.
Rock changes when repeated pressure is applied. I believe that we need to change as well. Being a control freak is part of climbing, but there are certain things we cannot control.
As far as keeping/creating a "classic"? That word has been used too often to describe things. "Midnight Lightning" is a classic because of it's standing after years and the people visiting. A hold broke and was never replaced. "Mandala" is considered a modern classic. Two key holds have broken, yet again, not replaced. And those are boulder problems where every hold is vital. Rope runs tend to have alternatives because the routes are longer and body styles are different. If the hold breaks, then the next climber needs to get stronger. If it becomes "reachy" when the hold breaks, then it won't be done by a short person. Plenty of problems exists naturally this way, there is no viable reason to change that.
The other problem here is that once you glue a hold back to keep the "classic", then what happens when the hold itself is not the right size? Do you recreate it, thereby violating rule #1? Do you chip, which alters the rock in a way that it never was? If you put up the route, are you going to stick around to ensure that it always remains the same? Will you also constantly wash off the chalk to ensure people have the same texture as the FA? Remove any footholds you didn't use? Bar people from finding other beta? Rhetorical obviously, but lends to the problem. In the end, nothing is permanent and future climbers will be stronger making today's "classics" just warm-ups if even bothered with. To try to force anything other is ignoring reality.
In reply to: #3- Gluing to make the rock climbable. Lets face it, some area the rock is so chossy that while it will hold large diameter bolts or glue-ins, the rock would literally break forever unless several holds were glued. Think places like New Jack City in SoCal. Once cleaned and glued the climbing is great, even some of the best around, but it is gluing which makes it that way not the "natural" state of the rock.
Okay, let's not state that NJC is "the best around". Joshua Tree, Red Rocks, and Owen's River Gorge are the same drive time for many and I don't see people from around the world choosing NJC over them. :D
If the rock needs that much glue to hold it together, and glue is not permanent and will always eventually break, then maybe people shouldn't even be on it. Personally I think that it is only a matter of time before someone gets put into a wheelchair or is permanently hurt/killed from one of these glued up choss piles. People laugh about needing a helmet for the belay. That will close access. That's not rock climbing, it's gym climbing with a dangerous aspect to it. You wouldn't put up a bunch of "spinners" on a gym route and go for it would you? The bigger problem to this is that it might be the knowledgeable climber who glued and cleaned the place, but now the next person who claims to be knowledgeable believes this is accepted practice, and before you know it, even worse choss is glued, or an area that doesn't have glue starts seeing it. And again, this only leads to worse ethics as holds refuse to stay on. Tomorrow's technology may provide an answer, but not today's.
So no. If the rock is that bad, stay off it because you only fool others who are less skilled into believing they will be fine as well.
In reply to: #4- Gluing for safety. Yes believe it or not, this is usually how "gluing" starts. A flake that people pull on creaks and bends but doesn't break. Instead of risking a climber pulling the said flake down onto their belayers head, the developer decides to create a layer of epoxy to secure it.
How big a flake? How critical to the climb? What hold do you create/lose if you remove it? If it's a 10 pound block it will hurt, but what about a pebble? Close to the ground it won't hurt, but 20 feet up? 50? 100? The higher the hold, the smaller it can be to create the same amount of damage. If you glue it rather than remove it then you've modified it. There's no answer to how this can work. Glue is not permanent. If it is already creaking, then you glue it, now people believe it is solid and pull harder than before eventually ripping it off in likely dramatic style. Either remove the hold, or mark it with a warning. "O'Kelly's" at Joshua Tree has a creaking hold on it. It's been there at least 16 years. "Waltzing Worm" the same. Both have markings warning people. Glue would only give a false confidence to it's eventual failure and provides the potential for even more harm.
Again, no.
In the end, gluing does not lend itself to keeping the rock in it's natural state, nor does it decrease the risk of the hold coming off. It's a short sighted solution and merely provides a temporary fix. Rock changes but people refuse to allow themselves the same ability. If you cannot do the move with rock in it's natural state, then you are not strong enough either physically or mentally. However, someone in the future will be and to deny them that privilege is just plain wrong.
People climb in Eberstand (sp?) and the Fisher Towers on rock that you can literally scratch your fingernails into. Gluing these routes, both mini and multi-pitch is not even an option. That same logic applies to a single hold.
In the end, rockclimbing is a contrived sport because there is usually an easier way up the rock. So either get stronger, or move to another problem. It's not as grey an area as people make it sound.
Now if you want to talk about Kindergarten, I'm all for Elmer's....
|
|
|
|
|
darth_gaydar
Aug 10, 2004, 6:39 PM
Post #23 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2004
Posts: 168
|
"Lets Talk About Glue"
Yes, let's.
You need to lay off the stuff. Step away from the model airplane and open a window. From the read of your rant, you must have a serious three to four tubes a day habit.
If you stay clean for a few weeks, I am sure what you are doing will begin to make sense to you again, and you will see what an monkey's arse you have been.
And thank you once again for illuminating us all as to how myopiccally self absorbed a single human being can get. The curator at the Smithsonian will no doubt want you as a specimen one day.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Aug 10, 2004, 9:30 PM
Post #24 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
#1. It shouldn't be done. If the rock can't be climbed the way it is, then the climber should move on to something that he can climb.
#2. Nature is dynamic, and so should be the routes. If they change, so be it.
#3. This looks like the same situation as #1. If people want to manufacture routes that are not naturally climbable, they should move on to something they can climb. An exception would be like what Cerikpete mentionned. If the area is an old quarry, then the area is already manufactured, so changing it even more won't damage anything natural.
#4. If the route sees a lot of traffic and if the feature breaks, it would pose a serious threat to safety, I wouldn't oppose to making if safer, although I would rather see it be left alone. Everyone knows that climbing has it's risks, and climbers should always keep that in mind when heading out.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Aug 10, 2004, 9:44 PM
Post #25 of 42
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*As far as keeping/creating a "classic"? That word has been used too often to describe things. "Midnight Lightning" is a classic because of it's standing after years and the people visiting. A hold broke and was never replaced.*
The bolt hold on the Lightning was flexing pretty good years ago before Kauk put some glue behind it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
