|
jcshaggy
Oct 12, 2004, 9:40 AM
Post #1 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 340
|
Are there any websites or links that discuss issues around bolting routes?
Reason I'm asking is that it has been discussed in my area-the whole issue of bad bolting, ethics etc.We have some seriously badly bolted routes at some crags I've climebd at and I was just wondering what is the consensus on what is good and bad?
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
Oct 12, 2004, 12:45 PM
Post #2 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
Explosive topic of the day?
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Oct 12, 2004, 4:12 PM
Post #3 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
Maybe explosive, maybe not. From what I have able to observe about the nature of most rock faces is that there really are not many lines that are 100% devoid of cracks, which would be the reason you would possibly want a bolt. The last sport developed area I visited had some very short cracks mixed in with the slabs and blank faces. So it is more a continuous spectrum of what lines would be better left trad, made into mixed routes, or fully bolted for sport. Each line takes some serious consideration.
It seems to me that if a line has been done in trad style, a good way to preserve the route is to catalog it and publish the ascent. Then there will be no ambiguities later when the line is observed by bolters.
There, that wasn't too controversial, was it?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 12:54 PM
Post #4 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
thats easy...
if its an established line, no retrobolting
if its a trad area, no bolting if ifts protectable by other means
if its a sport area, bolts are kosher
but please take time to asses your placements. how many bolts you need, where are the best places to put them (near big jugs and other rests) etc. normally its best to top rope the thing and mark places for bolts with chalk. then have someone else climb it (someone higher, smaller, heavier, of the opposite sex) and hear their opinion and adjust the placements if needed. also be wary of possible decking danger (especially with first 2-3 bolts and on roofs) and pendulums. also, put in only as much bolts as needed to safely climb the route. and make sure you put them into healthy rock.
thats all i can think of now.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Oct 13, 2004, 2:22 PM
Post #5 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: if its a trad area, no bolting if ifts protectable by other means if its a sport area, bolts are kosher.
Well that's the problem as I see it: there are very few areas that are strictly trad protectable or totally lacking in cracks. Areas with bolts and trads lines seem to be the norm, if bolts are allowed at all. Mixed routes utilizing gear and bolts appear to be falling out of style, if in fact they ever were in style.
Say you have a 115 ft. line, of which two sections approximately 20 feet long each are protectable with gear placements that range from good to so-so. Do you leave those alone? Some sport climbers might view those sections as just runouts and not understand that gear is needed. A developer might worry that their route might create a dangerous situation. Of course a route description noting gear placements can clear up the confusion. Or a developer might not think preserving a three foot crack is worth the trouble and go ahead and put a bolt next to it. You see this choice made a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Oct 13, 2004, 2:42 PM
Post #6 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: if its a trad area, no bolting if ifts protectable by other means
If it's a trad area, no bolting. Not every stretch of rock needs a route on it.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 2:51 PM
Post #7 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: In reply to: if its a trad area, no bolting if ifts protectable by other means If it's a trad area, no bolting. Not every stretch of rock needs a route on it. Rob
you see, here local ethics come into play. its ok in some areas, but no ok in other.
but you missunderstood... i wasnt saying that its ok to bolt if it cant be protected otherwise, i said that it shouldnt be bolted if it CAN be.
tim... i agree with your point. those "mixed" areas are kinda sucky. you can get either an almost solo trad route, a runout sport route, a trad/sport mix or a purely sport route.
its like that in paklenica, croatia. you need additional (trad) gear on some routes, or you can run it out. it sucks. IMHO all bolts or no bolts is the way to go, mixes just ruin everybodys day.
but then again, on some trad routes a bolt is really welcome and can save a beautiful line from becoming a death trap. but weather to put it in or not is up to whoever is putting the line up.
its really murky waters at best.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Oct 13, 2004, 3:05 PM
Post #8 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: but then again, on some trad routes a bolt is really welcome and can save a beautiful line from becoming a death trap
I like those. I don't climb them, but there's a sort of fearsome awe attached to seeing a 5.hard X route, knowing that some few outrageously ballsy people have climbed it.
In reply to: its really murky waters at best.
True enough. Unless the landowner or manager makes a choice, it's all opinion and whether ther first ascentionist chooses to respect those opinions.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Oct 13, 2004, 3:06 PM
Post #9 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
Bolt it.
:D
|
|
|
|
|
mother_sheep
Oct 13, 2004, 3:07 PM
Post #10 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Explosive topic of the day?
My thoughts EXACTLY!!!
|
|
|
|
|
jer
Oct 13, 2004, 3:14 PM
Post #11 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2000
Posts: 426
|
overlord,
It's a shame you see mixed areas as "sucky'. I have developed numerous "mixed" lines under the premise that "protection is protection", whether it's a bolt or a bomber cam. Leading a new route ground up and finding bomber gear 30% of the way just doesn't justify finsihing it off as a sport route to me. That said...I HAVE done routes where only ONE piece of gear is required to supplement the rest as bolts...sometimes I feel like that is a little ridiculous, but it is a statement of refusal to plug the rock with more holes than is needed.
I do realize that this is a bummer for alot of people, and have seen people turn mixed lines into 'x" rated lines out of ignorance or refusal to bring a rack to the crag.
However, just as it is true that "not every line needs to be climbed", I believe not every section of a route needs to be bolt protected either, just because of where it is located.
I saw a shameful thing happen at a privately owned crag recently. There were amazing mixed lines, and gear protectable face lines. The owners decided that unless it was a crack from base to top, it received bolts every body length, so all the mixed lines were retrobolted. Luckily I had the chance to climb most of the routes before the bolting-machine-gun went through the valley.
jer
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Oct 13, 2004, 3:18 PM
Post #12 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
The latest Rock & Ice seems to take a pretty big stab at this and several other issues. It's definitely a worthwhile read and props to jer for the outstanding artwork!
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Oct 13, 2004, 3:22 PM
Post #13 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
Earth First!
Bolt the other planets later.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 3:24 PM
Post #14 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
well, theyre sucky because i dont own any trad gear :wink:
and since the guide to paklenica tells what gear you need for specific climbs, its ok.
but i still prefer "clean" lines.
but thats just me. im in no way forcing my views to anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Oct 13, 2004, 3:26 PM
Post #15 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: Mixed routes utilizing gear and bolts appear to be falling out of style, if in fact they ever were in style.
There is tremendous consumer pressure for more routes with gym-style bolting these days, as expressed often on RC.com -- for example in the weekly queries about "I'm visiting Yosemite/JTree/Eldorado/Gunks, can you tell me the best multipitch sport routes under 5.10?"
But here in New Hampshire, even as Rumney edges closer to grid bolting, with parking troubles, erosion, traffic, trash and gymlike climber densities, there are less crowded cliffs not far away that have new routes developed in a different ethic -- bolts where you need them, gear placements where possible, and sometimes runouts where a leader climbing at that grade ought to be reasonably solid. This gives me hope for the future of local crags, although RC more often gives cause for despair.
|
|
|
|
|
asandh
Oct 13, 2004, 3:27 PM
Post #16 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788
|
:)
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 3:34 PM
Post #17 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
no... if you do the route in better style, that does not give you the right to chop bolts.
this behaviour leads into rebolting and rechopping and does only more damage to the rock. not to mention the tempers involved.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 13, 2004, 3:41 PM
Post #18 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: A developer might worry that their route might create a dangerous situation.
First ascensionists don't "create" situations, "dangerous" or otherwise, for anyone other than themselves. No one is in any danger on any route unless they choose to climb it - climbing, if nothing else, has always been about self-responsibility. Managing danger and risk along with difficulty is, in essence, what climbing (maybe until recently) is all about. This statement really highlights both key elements of the debate and frames the essential differences between the trad/sport mentalities.
I have never known trad first ascensionists who put up new lines as a "community service" or for any reason other than they were absolutely driven to simply climb some new line they had spotted and become obsessed with - it had/has nothing to do with anyone else by and large. The concept of first ascensionists performing this act as some form of "community service" I believe is almost entirely a sport concept that has evolved with the concept of "course/route setting" in gyms - that this is a skilled craft and/or creative activity you do for other people's benefit and for it to be appreciated and admired (primarily you, not the rock). "Developer" was an apt choice of words to describe a person thus motivated.
In reality, a first ascentionist's only responsibility to others is to not endanger anyone else while actually working on the route. Their primary responsibility should be to have a great time and to respect the rock while developing the route with the least possible impact. Again, meeting those criteria, they have absolutely no responsibility to anyone else for any reason unless they so choose to adopt or assume one and that, to my mind at least, starts generating a lot of questions around motive.
The reason they have no responsibility to anyone else again strikes at the heart and essence of the argument: you are only responsible to/for yourself if you start up a route that is hard, has difficult/complex/subtle pro, or is hideously runout over bad rock - you and only you. The first ascensionist has no responsibility in your good/bad decision whatsoever. Climbing is dangerous and climbs are by their very nature an "attractive nuiscance" and that is precisely what draws us along in this vertical world. Any notion that routes need to be drilled down to the lowest common denominator for the "community" is misguided at best and a prime example of delusional group think.
I personally have no problem with the "post-gym" world that has developed with it's attending hordes of climbers seeking to simply replicate their [absolutely] "clipping" experience outdoors - until their numbers shift the center of gravity such that they start attempting to exert a "logical and natural right" to risk-free climbing at the expense of the rock. This is consumer behavior plain and simple and a prime example of an interest group defining its own reality and pushing it as the norm. This is how trad climbing went from being simply "climbing" to "trad or adventure climbing" and sport climbing became "climbing". It is a perceptual shift on the order of a 9.0 earthquake from my perspective, exemplified by the yelling of "take" as opposed to "falling" - a devolution and descent of the spirit into suburban commonality and banality that is inescapable when 20' runouts become widely viewed as a "danger to the community".
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Oct 13, 2004, 3:43 PM
Post #19 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: tim... i agree with your point. those "mixed" areas are kinda sucky. you can get either an almost solo trad route, a runout sport route, a trad/sport mix or a purely sport route.
Ha ha ha. I actually didn't say or imply that I thought that mixed areas were "sucky" as you put it. Just describing them and a hypothetical development decision.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Oct 13, 2004, 3:44 PM
Post #20 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: Not every stretch of rock needs a route on it.
Well, there goes aid climbing! :P
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 3:45 PM
Post #21 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
ok, sorry, missunderstood
do you ppl know whats funny... two pages and still not a flame war.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 13, 2004, 3:50 PM
Post #22 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: What IF we are talking about a relatively new climbing area and the Sport Bolters got there first and rap bolted the cracks ? What are the "Ethics" here ?? Do the trad climbers get to come in and remove the bolts next to cracks after they have climbed them trad style ? This is not a troll. Its an issue relevant to many new areas. no... if you do the route in better style, that does not give you the right to chop bolts.
Any bolts next to trad protectable placements are fair game for removal as are any bolts retroed on existing trad climbs - if FA sport climbers act indiscriminantly and without regard to pro the result should be revised and repaired.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Oct 13, 2004, 3:51 PM
Post #23 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: do you ppl know whats funny... two pages and still not a flame war.
I'd venture to say that many of us have mixed feelings about bolting. Pun intended. Talking about this stuff openly is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 13, 2004, 3:59 PM
Post #24 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: Any bolts next to trad protectable placements are fair game for removal as are any bolts retroed on existing trad climbs - if FA sport climbers act indiscriminantly and without regard to pro the result should be revised and repaired.
you see, ppl like you (and the ones who retrobolt) are the ones who start bolt wars that in the end dont result in anything good. why do bolts bother people so much??? you dont need to use them if you dont want to anyway.
well, you could ASK the FAer to remove the bolts, but if he doesnt want to, you shouldnt do it. if they bother you, go find another route (you know, first come, first served). but, like always there are exeptions, like bolting in an all-trad are, in that case the bolter is a jerk and chopchop all you want.
btw, im a sport climber, and i DO have mixed feelings about bolting and i DO believe that it should be kept to a minimum. but removing FAers bolts doesnt solve anything.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Oct 13, 2004, 4:14 PM
Post #25 of 67
(9998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: why do bolts bother people so much??? you dont need to use them if you dont want to anyway.
Some of the disagreements on this thread and others are related to regional differences, though. In the hills around here, the likelihood that bolters will discover and overbolt a previously unknown crag is fairly low; the likelihood that bolters will retrobolt or fit in squeeze jobs on already-developed crags is quite high, and has been the source of most controversies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
