|
|
|
|
g-funk
Deleted
Aug 10, 2004, 9:56 PM
Post #26 of 42
(4029 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: 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.
This seems to make sense. I'm not sure if I entirely agree. I live in an area that has lots of alternatives in case of poor rock quality, but if I lived in Nebraska, my choice might be a little more constrained. Nonetheless, I like the idea of keeping in perspective the unstable nature of the rock in some areas, and not trying to alter that substantially.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Aug 10, 2004, 10:05 PM
Post #27 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: #1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
Nope. Shouldn't ever be done on public land.
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.
My inclination is to not use glue at all. Let the hold break if need be and let the route progress naturally, without glue. Could always lower the anchors and make it a shorty.
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.
I'd say not on public land.
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.
See 1-3.
In reply to: 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.
Not "natural". I'd say, climb what the rock gives us, and refrain from building an artificial outdoor climbing gym on public land. Who knows? Maybe tomorrows sponsered climbers will excel at climbing loose rock and they'll be bummed if there ain't any (ha ha)...
I'd say, consider what if you had to ask a land manager their opinion? Well placed and camoflaged bolts are a tough enough issue. Adding glue, I think, crosses the line between developing or "opening" a new route, and manufacturing one. I don't think we should be manufacturing climbs.
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Aug 10, 2004, 10:14 PM
Post #28 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
a well-written beginning to an interesting thread.
it seems the responses have been somewhat split and the reasoning somewhat situational.
as someone who has chosen to glue at some crags and not to glue at others, i'll be watching this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Aug 11, 2004, 11:18 PM
Post #29 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
In reply to: The bolt hold on the Lightning was flexing pretty good years ago before Kauk put some glue behind it...
My mistake, I thought the upper part also had a hold that broke, forcing the sloper finish. Regardless, the point was that the word "classic" get used too often.
In reply to: I live in an area that has lots of alternatives in case of poor rock quality, but if I lived in Nebraska, my choice might be a little more constrained. Nonetheless, I like the idea of keeping in perspective the unstable nature of the rock in some areas, and not trying to alter that substantially.
Like you, I have a ton of options available which is why I find it offensive that so much glue is used nearby. Gluing rock provides only one move that will break anyways. Going to a gym has more alternatives, creating a home wall is not that expensive for those that don't have access to a gym. Again, it's about preserving access and value to this limited resource. Not to mention saving something for the future generations to test themselves against since we can't.
In reply to: a well-written beginning to an interesting thread.... as someone who has chosen to glue at some crags and not to glue at others, i'll be watching this thread.
Watching does nothing. You've glued at many places over several years, put in your two cents. A discourse is only good if everyone jumps in. Then the only thing that matters is how folks react after the discourse is over.
Put five climbers in a room and you get five different opinions. In the end, it's all talk with no action. Roughster started this for one of two reasons. (1) to create yet another worthless "debate" from which gluers will still glue, and non-gluers will not, or (2) provide a forum from people from both sides can voice their opinion, and just maybe create a consensus from which people will follow. So far, only two folks seem to believe gluing is good.
If opinions can't be changed though, then go on and scream, curse, slander, and carry on in the usual rc.com way. i.e. resolve nothing. If open to understanding, discourse, and reason, then maybe there's hope.
|
|
|
|
|
mungeclimber
Aug 12, 2004, 1:17 AM
Post #30 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
In a theoretical way Roughster points out the conditions in which gluing might be acceptable. But as mreardon, DMT, and Walt511 pointed out, the assumptions upon which the theory relies does not play out in practice. The actual practice is really the devil, as in, the devil is in the details, so I can't in the pursuit of rational discourse grant those premises.
Much like the conditions under which corporations might be allowed to vitiate consumer protection in pursuit 'assuming' the risk of a faulty product. The devil is in the details of what is liable product and what is acceptable. Basically make a safe product, don't race to the bottom so to speak. (not sure that is the best analogy I could make but it seemed like one was called for there)
Thus in the pursuit of a rational principle upon which all climbers can act, I would say no gluing, because as BrianinSLC pointed out there should be no gluing on public lands, and it is likely those who are not expert gluers will take up the epoxy and start using it in public land areas risking access.
I'm a big proponent of adventure (not to the exclusion of fun) so that in my mind practices like wholesale chipping, gluing or drilling holds means that one isn't pursuing the idea of self-overcoming or elevating oneself in the pursit of aspiring to excellence or some "peak' performance, rather you are working the system for some other goal. And maybe that is what is at stake. It's not that these concepts are black and white and otherwise not workable, but that on the whole, our goals should be not one of devolving but aspiring. Is gluing something other than bringing the rock down to one's own level? Would like to hear others opinions on this issue.
Roughster please forgive the slight step away from the tenor of your thread. But yes, granted your assumptions and the artifice of much of sport climbing, and gluing under those above conditions would be feasible and useful to creating routes that are predetermined for a particular outcome. Does that make sense?
As an aside, I think that gluing and camouflaging old chopped, pulled or holes for bolts if done well, can improve the quality of the climbing experience. Does this violate the above principle of adventure? Not sure that it as the same situation? Can this principle of using glue to counter act the history of artifice (bolt holes, old bolts chopped), be a different principle- the goal being to put the climb into a more natural state?
Sincerely,
Mungie
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Aug 12, 2004, 1:52 AM
Post #31 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
In reply to: #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.
In reply to: #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?
Not everything is black and white.
I learned to climb in Dallas, where manufactured routes up bridges where the closest thing to choss within a 3 hour radius. As a result, your views on #1 and #3 are in direct conflict - routes were manufactured on man-made structures because they were the only things available to climb, period.
Please commment.
(PS, Please dont PM for directions to the routes in Dallas. I learned of them on my own. Get wild. Explore your urban jungle.)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 12, 2004, 2:29 AM
Post #32 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
People have been doing glue ups on artificial structures for at least twenty years. One of the so cal originators is a member of this site. Bouldering and lead climbing. I have no ethical qualms about this whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
cgranite
Aug 12, 2004, 2:50 AM
Post #33 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2003
Posts: 366
|
It makes me sad that so many people support glue. This is why you don't hear about new climbing areas any more. :roll:
If you live far from rock that is NATURALLY climbable, then move.
Better yet, I wouldn't want anyone with a mentality like that moving to my area.
It's like Sharma said, "There is enough rock out there to climb on."
I came across a boulder problem that had a broken hold glued back on it.
The thing that really made me sick was that I climbed it without using the hold...and it wasn't hard...NOT relatively speaking here. If a hold falls off, it wasn't meant to be. The route will either become harder or impossible, and you can go on feeling good, knowing that the area is all natural with minus one problem.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Aug 12, 2004, 2:56 AM
Post #34 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*My mistake, I thought the upper part also had a hold that broke, forcing the sloper finish.*
Legend has it that a foothold for the move out to the bolt broke after the first ascent and that bachar got the first ascent of the problem as it now stands. ask johnnyb about "the force" and his nailclippers next time you see him if you wanna hear about glue...
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Aug 12, 2004, 3:14 AM
Post #35 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
In reply to: #1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
In my opinion this is as bad as chipping.
|
|
|
|
|
korporal
Aug 12, 2004, 3:15 AM
Post #36 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 175
|
Where I climb this is not an issue bucause it is a mostly traditional area where the only bolts are belay anchors and some people are mad about those. Take what I say with not a grain of salt but a whole pound.
#1: No good. I think this is not ethical on natural rock. Maybe on a cement pillar or something as long as it was out of the way and the owner gave the gluer permission. Wouldn't this essestailly be creating a gym outside?
#2: This is no good eithier. I was following a route earlier this week and there was a move onto and up a flake that didn't seem natural at all. I got to the belay and the leader said that there used to be a bunch of blocks that went straight up rather than traversing over to this flake. He also said that everybody knew that the blocks were going to fall down and that it was only a matter of time. Rather than gluing them or trying to magically wedge them into place people just climbed on them untill they weren't there any more. When the blocks weren't there somebody figured out a different way up. Yet again this is in a traditional area.
#3: I could see this if it was a small area with a few routes in the middle of flatland somewhere. I disagree whole-heartedly with gluing an alpine area to make it into local crag, but if there is an abandonned quarry or something it might be worth cleaning and gluing the choss together a bit. I would just make sure that it isn't an established climbing spot already and that absolutley nobody would care if you did it. Then again I climb in an area where fixed belay anchors are questionable.
#4: No. "Exfolliating" is part of how the rock evolves and how those flakes got there in the first place. If a flake is going to pull then I say let it pull. Yet again I climb in an area where fixed belay and sometimes rappel anchors are being questioned and/or getting chopped. I don't get all these people ranting about safety. Look at Stone Mountain in North Carolina. Those are bolted routes but there is definatly potential for groundfall. People still climb them...They just know what they are getting into. Why would climbing an unglued "unsafe" route be any different? Maybe that route should be left as an alpine route? Or maybe left alone all together?
Yet again take all of this with a pound of salt. I climb in an area where fixed belay and rappel anchors are constantly being pulled.
|
|
|
|
|
walt511
Aug 12, 2004, 3:16 AM
Post #37 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 16
|
This discussion reminds me a lot of the frenzied debates that went on about sport vs. trad climbing in the mid/late 80's. It seemed to me then - and it seems to me now that there were several similar issues under consideration, namely, environment, access, and experience -- in decreasing order of importance to me.
I remember in the sport climbing debates how the environmental impact of bolting was debated ad-nauseum (BTW - I was highly anti-boting at the time) In the end most of us realized that it had nothing to do with the environment and that driving to the crag had a more deliterious impact than sinking a few bolts. I suspect that the thoughtful among us will come to a similar opinion regarding glue.
Access on the other hand was - and is - an issue that is impacted by bolting. The general public does not like the idea of people engaging in unregulated construction projects (regardless of how trivial or how trivial the environmental impact) on public wilderness lands! I suspect the same holds true for gluing and I remain unconvinced that we can keep it a secret. This is by far my biggest issue with bolting and gluing.
The final issue is "experience" (sometimes loftily referred to as climbing "ethics"). This is basically what we as a community accept as standards of behavior within the arena within which we play. To be honest, the gluing issue seems a lot more trivial than the bolting issue to me. What's the difference between bolting a hanger on or bolting/gluing a hold on except to the extent that it changes the experience of other people climbing the route?
My personal opinion is that I'd rather not see gluing. But then again, I'd rather not see nearly as many bolts as we have today. On the other hand I realize I am only one member of our community and I realize that my opinions are based on my own personal prefereces. I'm willing to accept either gluing and/or bolting to the extent that it is desired by the climbing community at large and more importantly - it does not adversely impact access issues.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Aug 12, 2004, 3:28 AM
Post #38 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
In reply to: In the end most of us realized that it had nothing to do with the environment and that driving to the crag had a more deliterious impact than sinking a few bolts.
Did you think about how bolted routes bring more people to the now more accessible crag, meaning more people driving their cars?
|
|
|
|
|
walt511
Aug 12, 2004, 4:16 AM
Post #39 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 16
|
In reply to: In reply to: In the end most of us realized that it had nothing to do with the environment and that driving to the crag had a more deliterious impact than sinking a few bolts. Did you think about how bolted routes bring more people to the now more accessible crag, meaning more people driving their cars?
Exactly my point - it had nothing to do with damage to the crag - the real impact was all the other stuff we were doing. (and, by the way, would probably be doing irrespective of the bolts). The bolts themselves (or glue - or whatever) was insignificant environmentally.
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Aug 12, 2004, 4:45 AM
Post #40 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
having been called out by mr. reardon, here we go:
first off, i wasn't trying to avoid getting involved; i just came across the thread at the end of a long day and did a quick post. i always intended to post more on the topic and now that i find myself at the end of yet another long day i'll take the time to do just that.
first some background. i've been bolting routes for a lot of years (20 +/-) and in recent years have chosen to glue more and more regularly. The gluing i'm talking about here is the reinforcement type (can't remember what number that was).
i do not always glue on my new routes. it depends on the area and on the rock type and hold(s) in question. despite the amount of gluing i've done i have reservations about justifying its use straight across the board.
i never used to glue at all and subscribed to the "if it breaks, oh well" state of mind. this is all well and good on moderate to good quality rock. however, in the mid 90's i began to bolt some new areas locally that were absolute choss. they were appealing due to their length, steepness and hold type (all unique to these crags locally). in the beginning i did very little gluing and holds broke on the routes with just about every passage. before long some of the routes featured huge blank sections where the features had broken off. at that point myself (and the other area developers) made the conscious decision to not only clean the routes a lot more, but to also begin gluing to a greater degree.
the main crag i'm talking about here is echo cliffs in the santa monica mountains. quite honestly if it wasn't for glue, this crag would not be the crag it is today. ten years after the first bolts were placed, the area sees 40-70 climbers a weekend day during the climbing season. true we rationalized the use of glue when we decided to begin using it more, but the end result is a crag featuring 160+ sport routes up to 200 foot tall, and another option for local climbers that led to fewer crowding issues at the other area offerings.
i'm not 100% convinced that i would do the same if faced with another crag that had echo's potential and poor rock quality, but i'm proud of what echo became and the enjoyment that it offers so many other climbers.
the flip side of my experience with glue is that i became much quicker to glue when bolting at other crags. this is something that i'm aware of and am making a conscious effort to change. i have already walked away from several potential new routes due to the fact that if i were to do them i would probably glue on them and i didn't feel it was appropriate for the area involved.
when i said in my original post that i would be watching this topic i meant that i was interested in seeing what opinions people had on the subject. the use of glue adds a lot of additional expense and time to the development of new routes (often more than the bolting) and if i were to find that the majority of local climbers opposed it, i would definitely reconsider future actions.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Aug 12, 2004, 4:45 AM
Post #41 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
In reply to: Exactly my point - it had nothing to do with damage to the crag - the real impact was all the other stuff we were doing. (and, by the way, would probably be doing irrespective of the bolts). The bolts themselves (or glue - or whatever) was insignificant environmentally.
I understand your point, although there are a lot of people that choose to only climb bolted routes these days and probably wouldn't be climbing outdoors if it wasn't for the increased safety, so there is more damage being done then there would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Aug 12, 2004, 4:50 AM
Post #42 of 42
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
Case 1: I'm gonna have to go with a "no" here except for man-made structures (they're artificial anyway, might as well make them climbable and good - no categorical difference between making a concrete wall and gluing holds on). For natural walls... we don't have to force a baby-butt smooth roof to be climbable if it doesn't want to be... some stuff will be impossible for people to ever climb, but a lot of stuff we see as "impossible" or completely blank may oneday yield a route for some mutant.
Case 2: this one is harder. i think it really depends on how much it will change the grade. Now hard-core anti-gluers will say that "Oh if it makes it harder, you just have to wait and eventually someone could come along and climb it" blah blah blah... but, BUT, how often do you think someone strong is gonna come along to attempt the 80 foot 5.10b with a 10 foot V13 crux move? No one in their right mind would work such a route...
Case 3: i've never been on rock this bad, but if it is really too chossy to climb on, go ahead. this is also a safety thing too i think... breaking holds tends to make for bad falls.
Case 4: DEFINATELY GLUE!! NOTHING, i believe, should EVER supercede safety. If there is a potential widow-maker you can't dislodge, glue it and save a life.
I tend to think of glue as more "preserving the natural state of the rock" since it keeps the rock in its natural state BEFORE some fat human decided to tear at it.
oh and this was definately a great topic... very thought provoking and well written. thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
