Sponsored By
ROCK
HARDWARE
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Prints |
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
| Author |
|
|||||
4:10:02 PM |
On 24-May-2018 FatBoy wrote: >On 24-May-2018 Wendy wrote: >>And would they look any better with a 2.5m grid of carrots? Shiny steel >>carrots on orange rock are not low viz. It would be a sea of sliver pimples. >>Which brings us back to my original comment on visibility being about >placement >>and camouflage. > >C'mon Wendy, I know you're prosecuting a line of argument here, but that's >demonstrably rubbish. We have eyes: carrots are 1/3 the visual intrusion >of hangars / rings and are very rarely shiny - countless times while on >route I've had to look for the carrot listed in the guide .. everybody >who's climbed at Araps has. Hell, I have to look for the fixed hangers ... especially if they have been camouflaged. Shiny silver anything stands out on orange rock. And stainless carrots are shiny. They are the same metal as stainless hangers. On most rock, I can't see bolts of any sort above about the 3rd. Unless they are currently catching the sun or uncamouflaged on orange rock. > >But I don't know that we want a 2.5m grid of anything do we ? My point being that a 2.5m grid of anything would look crap. It's not the bolt type that's the issue. |
|||||
4:22:13 PM |
On 24-May-2018 Dave_S wrote: >Two different incidents with the same carabiner failing at the same point? >That's a little concerning... Wouldn't have happened if they were nice safe carrots, now with more safety safe. |
|||||
4:27:14 PM |
On 24-May-2018 Wendy wrote: >Shiny silver anything stands out on orange rock. And >stainless carrots are shiny. They are the same metal as >stainless hangers. Nope, completely different metal. Unlike rings and hangers, it isn't possible to paint carrots, some quirk of metalurgy. That's why they are more visible than big bolts, but it's the only drawback. |
|||||
1:17:14 PM |
On 24-May-2018 Wendy wrote: >Sorry Tracey, we have digressed again ... > (snip) Hi Wendy and all, All good - It's a conversation....that's what happens. And it brings up other thoughts and tangents. Thinking about it more – it's difficult to keep it on track. What was I thinking, ha! It's a long post thread with many pages, which let's face it, not everyone will read. They will read some and comment on something that seems pertinent to them and then off we go. I haven't had the opportunity to put something specific down for the Chockstone conversation, more trying to work on overall communication - and only so much time. Once I have something down that reads okay, I will put it out there and on here. As noted previously, for some, Chockstone is not the preferred medium to have this discussion on. I think there is some great discussion happening and some good starting points and I applaud all for talking about it, especially in a forum setting where you can get shot down so quickly and especially on such a divisive topic.(No-one down as yet I think) I have also received private feedback with great points as well. I will continue to follow the thread and hopefully keep up with info that is being provided. There are others from the VCC who are also following it and I am sure that Bolt policy comments are also being noted. I am now clocking off for the weekend. (says she who tends to pop back to threads just to catch up on things......) Cheers! |
|||||
10:46:41 AM |
On 24-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote: >On 24-May-2018 Wendy wrote: >>Shiny silver anything stands out on orange rock. And >>stainless carrots are shiny. They are the same metal as >stainless hangers. > >Nope, completely different metal. Unlike rings and hangers, it isn't possible >to paint carrots, some quirk of metalurgy. That's why they are more visible >than big bolts, but it's the only drawback. Right so now they are more visible than fixed hangers? Make up your mind! Educate me on this metalurgy then. Are stainless carrots not the same grade stainless as best practice rings and expansions? Is that not just another issue with them? |
|||||
3:44:39 PM |
All new bolts these days are (or should be) made from exactly the same metal. So you can't go comparing a camouflaged ring to an unpainted carrot and come to the conclusion that carrots are more visible. Well, you can, but you look like a goose to anyone who notices the glaring logical error........which is everyone. | |||||
10:04:41 AM |
On 26-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote: >All new bolts these days are (or should be) made from exactly the same >metal. So you can't go comparing a camouflaged ring to an unpainted carrot >and come to the conclusion that carrots are more visible. Well, you can, >but you look like a goose to anyone who notices the glaring logical error........which >is everyone. Without going into too much detail ... there are a number of alloys of stainless steel that will be found in the various bolts used (generally 304 or 316). The level of 'shininess' of new untreated bolts depends on the manufacturing process. |
|||||
12:07:20 PM |
Way to totally miss the point, doc. New bolts should all be 316, and pretty much anything you buy from a name brand manufacturer (including non-climbing brands like Ramset) will be 316. But that is beside the point. The point is that you can fuching paint carrots, so just admit that rings are way more visible and lets all move on to the next stupid point. |
|||||
3:24:59 PM |
I don’t think this is the right forum for getting feedback on proposed bolting standards. The call went out across Facebook and other media for contribution to this conversation, and I’m not seeing a lot of posts here of other less vocal climbers in the community, it’s just the usual chockstone suspects. That’s fine, but it’s hardly a cross section of Victorian climbing community opinion.
Generally I take an ‘each to their own’ philosophy on the climbing style wars debate, which I think can be widely adhered to, until it comes down to bolting and how it can effect each others experience of climbing. I climb in the Grampians probably 2 weekends a month. I come from sport climbing in the US and have at least climbed at about a dozen different locations in both the US and in Australia. I enjoy a bit of trad here and there, but sport is my first love. Sport climbing accessibility seems to be a common issue among beginner to intermediate climbers in the Grampians. I think this just comes down to the ‘mixed’ ethic of the region, reflected in 1.3 of the VCC policy - routes in the mid teens will nearly always take gear at some point of the route. It’s the established ethic here that new development is carried out in this manner. This is where I think there should be some room to move with new development. Commentary in this thread around Dreamtime and how it’s a choss pile etc. - I can’t disagree with, but the reason people climb there is because some people only want to climb sport, and are not interested in trad, and may for whatever reason not be able to push their climbing up into the high teens, low 20s where sport climbing starts to become more accessible in the Gramps. I think there should be some room for new development of sport crags in the Grampians with potential for mid teens routes, where bolts are placed despite opportunities for gear. I don’t accept the ‘slippery slope’ argument - I think both mixed, sport, and trad crags can exist. They exist elsewhere in the world - take Horseshoe Canyon Ranch in Arkansas for example, there are trad, mixed and sport routes, including many easy low to mid teen routes that could take gear, but have been bolted. The mixed and trad routes are not getting retro-bolted by the sports masses. There really is no need, because there are a multitude of sport opportunities in the 12-17 grade range for climbers going to HCR - something like 150 well bolted, easily accessible routes. Comparatively, there are just 4-5 routes grade 15 sport in the Grampians that I would describe as such. So I think it’s understandable that sport climbers would like to see a little bit more development in that grade range. There are more than 1000 trad routes between the grades of 12-17 in the Grampians - there are just 56 sport routes in the same grade range. 2/3 of those routes are 16/17. If we drilled down into those routes - I’m sure we could cut out about a third of those routes as being suitable for beginners as they would garner PG or R ratings. I’m not suggesting that we go retro-bolting trad lines, and I'd be the first to grab my pitch-fork and join you for the burning if someone was to do that. However, I think there is at least enough untouched rock in the Gramps that could be candidate for this type of development. Say another half dozen crags that would yield another 50 or so routes in that 12-17 grade range. So I put my argument forward for some relaxation of the mixed ethic requirement on all new development. With regards to sport bolting approach, my thoughts; - Bolt spacing - In the Grampians, bolt spacing is generally widely spaced compared to international sport climbing crags I have visited. If you meet any international climbers coming to the Gramps, many of them note the broad spacing of the bolts. I don’t think broad spacing is that big of an issue provided; - Always 2 bolts between you and hitting the deck - redundancy. - ‘Easy climbing’, not a reason for ignoring above point. Bolts fail, holds break, tendons pop, all unexpectedly. - Reasonably limiting fall potential - if falls are on overhung rock into air, then sure, let’s take 20m whippers. If it’s vertical and there is potential for an impact with the wall, then it might be wise to reduce the potential fall length, and fall factor. Legs can get caught behind ropes, and catches can be hard, heads hit walls and ankles break. High fall factors can cause harness injuries and lower back injuries. I make this point because I think that even if you’re 40m off the ground, a 20m fall might not mean a deck, but it could still cause serious injury. Notwithstanding my above comments, some of which depart from the accepted norm in this region - I value any community decision on guidelines, and would respect said guidelines. I don’t think community members should be going rogue and following their own ethic. I donate to Victorian CliffCare and when I was in the US was a regular contributor to bolting funds and the Access Fund. |
|||||
3:45:15 PM |
Just as likely to have bad falls just above the bolt than far above the bolt. Spacing needs to protect you from dangerous obstacles, not bad belaying. Spacing is not the critical, placement is. I haven't spoken because I already agree with what has been said, no need for me to respond, many others think the same. Do you really want 200 posts of the same thing just to prove there is support for an idea. As long as points are raised and deliberated on it doesn't matter how many respond. Do you really think there is only a handful of fully bolted easy routes in the area under discussion? |
|||||
4:04:33 PM |
On 27-May-2018 rightarmbad wrote: >Just as likely to have bad falls just above the bolt than far above the >bolt. >Spacing needs to protect you from dangerous obstacles, not bad belaying. >Spacing is not the critical, placement is. All other things being equal, a longer fall creates a greater risk of injury. >I haven't spoken because I already agree with what has been said, no need >for me to respond, many others think the same. >Do you really want 200 posts of the same thing just to prove there is >support for an idea. Support which idea? >As long as points are raised and deliberated on it doesn't matter how >many respond. Isn't the point to get a broad range of opinions? Community consultation in other spheres usually involves trying to garner as wide an audience of opinions as possible. Assuming that others agree with what has been said is just assumption, and I'd argue that all of us stay somewhat within our climbing circles where others share the same 'ethics', so it's easy to assume everyone agrees with you, when they may not. >Do you really think there is only a handful of fully bolted easy routes >in the area under discussion? I had thecrag open while determining those numbers; I think these numbers don't reflect routes that are classed as 'sport' routes, but that would not be that accessible for someone who is climbing at closer to their limit for that grade. 17 - 22 routes 16 - 15 routes 15 - 8 routes 14 - 2 routes |
|||||
4:31:55 PM |
Longer falls also give you more time to react, short hard falls can slam you into the wall with no ability to deal. As long as somebody has raised points I see need raising there is no need for me to raise them again. Half a dozen people can easily represent the entire climbing community if all points are raised. I have a guide here that has seemingly endless climbs as you describe. How many do you need before you develop the ability to move on to higher grades or more comprehensive styles? |
|||||
5:15:28 PM |
On 27-May-2018 rightarmbad wrote: >Longer falls also give you more time to react, short hard falls can slam >you into the wall with no ability to deal. I'm not talking about bolting to turn an 8m fall into a 2m fall for safety. I'm talking about turning a 15m fall into an 8m fall. However, I'm less married to that point than I am the importance of redundancy in bolts keeping climbers off the deck. >Half a dozen people can easily represent the entire climbing community >if all points are raised. How do you gauge the level support for each opinion? If this is about community consultation with the aim of establishing guidelines that will be accepted and adhered to, then there needs to be some legitimacy to those guidelines - if a large cohort have felt they have not been consulted, they're unlikely to adhere to them. >I have a guide here that has seemingly endless climbs as you describe. I'd be interested in that guide - because I'm not aware of any guides with 'endless' sport routes in the range I posted above, that are not already on thecrag. >How many do you need before you develop the ability to move on to higher >grades or more comprehensive styles? Valid point on moving up the grades, I'd say it's around where I've states about about another 50 sport climbs in the 12-17 range. As regard to styles - some people have no interest in learning to climb trad or mixed. |
|||||
5:28:43 PM |
On 27-May-2018 jacksonclimbs wrote: >How do you gauge the level support for each opinion? It's not a referendum. >about about another 50 sport climbs in the 12-17 range. You're kidding yourself. Easy sport climbing is a hungry beast with an insatiable appetite for new crags. >As regard to styles >- some people have no interest in learning to climb trad or >mixed. And there is no reason why those people should be catered to. Learn to place gear, get better, toprope, or move to a sport climbing area. |
|||||
6:00:04 PM |
On 27-May-2018 jacksonclimbs wrote: > Sport climbing accessibility seems to be a common issue >among beginner to intermediate climbers in the Grampians. I think this >just comes down to the ‘mixed’ ethic of the region.... This is where I think there should be some >room to move with new development. Demand side crag development is utter bullshit. The reasons for there being so few easy sport routes in the Grampians are obvious. Bolting shit lines on shit rock next to gear placements in a national park just because 'the market' demands easy sport routes should be banned. People who want this are not part of my community. We have nothing in common, and one of my aims is to ensure that you don't get what you want. >Horseshoe Canyon Ranch in Arkansas Fuch Horseshoe Canyon Ranch in Arkansas! We're discussing a nationally significant park which is also a world famous climbing area. Don't bring some dinky little bumbly seppo crag into this. Others may not agree, but I don't give a helicopter shit if you want to grid bolt Werribee Gorge and put up a via ferrata and a flying fox. That is the type of poxy cliff which low grade sport climbers deserve. |
|||||
6:57:34 PM |
On 27-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote: >On 27-May-2018 jacksonclimbs wrote: >>How do you gauge the level support for each opinion? > >It's not a referendum. It doesn't have to be a referendum, but if CliffCare are representing the community in talks with PV etc. then I think the community should be consulted overall. Chockstone is a small subset of the climbing community, and, at least with most climbers I have interacted with in the Grampians, does not have a reputation as a place where civil and constructive debate can be conducted. You can review the Facebook posts of the CliffCare post and the commentary there which also supports this point. >>about about another 50 sport climbs in the 12-17 range. > >You're kidding yourself. Easy sport climbing is a hungry beast with an >insatiable appetite for new crags. If that is the case, why don't we have hundreds of easy sport routes from that insatiable, hungry beast? What has stopped it from happening already? >>As regard to styles >>- some people have no interest in learning to climb trad or >mixed. > >And there is no reason why those people should be catered to. Learn to >place gear, get better, toprope, or move to a sport climbing area. Why should we cater to you, and not those climbers? |
|||||
7:42:38 PM |
On 27-May-2018 jacksonclimbs wrote: >If that is the case, why don't we have hundreds of easy sport routes from >that insatiable, hungry beast? What has stopped it from happening already? There's no potential for good easy sport routes in the gramps because most of the good easy climbing was done as trad over the last 50 years. Good taste and lack of interest in beginner routes has kept the first couple of generations of bolters from wrecking things. Taste and ethical standards are gone now, and career bumblies are buying drills. Most other climbing areas in the country are now getting terrible sport routes squeezed in everywhere. Why do you think the Grampians will be any different? >Why should we cater to you, and not those climbers? You should because I'm trying to preserve some semblance of wilderness, and a climbing culture which is distinguishable from the global lowest common denominator. You won't, because deadshits think that their right to convenience trumps everything else. Why do you want bolts next to perfectly good gear placements? If a route is safe as trad or mixed, why would you personally want it to be sport bolted? |
|||||
7:44:01 PM |
On 27-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote: >On 27-May-2018 jacksonclimbs wrote: SNIP... >>Horseshoe Canyon Ranch in Arkansas > >Fuch Horseshoe Canyon Ranch in Arkansas! We're discussing a nationally >significant park which is also a world famous climbing area. Don't bring >some dinky little bumbly seppo crag into this. Others may not agree, but >I don't give a helicopter shit if you want to grid bolt Werribee Gorge >and put up a via ferrata and a flying fox. That is the type of poxy cliff >which low grade sport climbers deserve. Damo, What has Werribee Gorge done to deserve such vehemence? Apart from the loose, crumbly rock, short climbs and crowds;) |
|||||
8:10:05 PM |
On 27-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote: >On 27-May-2018 jacksonclimbs wrote: > >>If that is the case, why don't we have hundreds of easy sport routes >from >>that insatiable, hungry beast? What has stopped it from happening already? > >There's no potential for good easy sport routes in the gramps because >most of the good easy climbing was done as trad over the last 50 years. >Good taste and lack of interest in beginner routes has kept the first couple >of generations of bolters from wrecking things. Taste and ethical standards >are gone now, and career bumblies are buying drills. Most other climbing >areas in the country are now getting terrible sport routes squeezed in >everywhere. Why do you think the Grampians will be any different? Because most people have adhered to the existing guidelines, have they not? Did the other parts of the country with squeeze job routes start out with a mix of sport/mixed/trad in a similar ethic that the Grampians currently has? >>Why should we cater to you, and not those climbers? > >You should because I'm trying to preserve some semblance of wilderness, >and a climbing culture which is distinguishable from the global lowest >common denominator. You won't, because deadshits think that their right >to convenience trumps everything else. If that's your intent, then you need to influence more people than you chop bolts, and in that aim, you might catch more flies with honey. >Why do you want bolts next to perfectly good gear placements? If a route >is safe as trad or mixed, why would you personally want it to be sport >bolted? I don't want that everywhere - just noting that I think it would be good to have a handful of crags with routes in the aforementioned grade range. I believe that's possible, I don't believe the slippery slope argument. |
|||||
10:22:21 PM |
Thanks for the contribution JacksonClimbs. Nice to hear a new voice. For the record, my thecrag profile suggests that I predominantly climb trad but I too love a bit of sport climbing and that's where I've spent most of my recent climbing. A few points. 1. Slippery Slope seems to be the argument dismissal tactic de jour used by the pro-bolters here. The trouble is, for many who have climbed a long time, they'd argue that we're already well and truly on it. "Slippery Slope" is *only* a logical argument fallacy if there's no correlation between the activities - think "gay marriage leads to people marrying animals ..." for a case where you could successfully dismiss a line of argument. That isn't the case here. We're suggesting that the some people bolting leads to more people bolting. Or the creation of entirely sport crags has led to the creation of more sport crags. Or some people adding retro-lower-offs leads to more people adding retro-lower-offs. All of which are happening now ... so you can choose not to believe it, but it doesn't make it any less real for those of us with our eyes open. 2. I simply can't accept an argument of demand-based climbing. That would imply a few things but the nastiest conclusion I can come to is that you appear to have some religious like sense of entitlement that suggests we have dominion over nature ... that it's our plaything to configure however the hell we want. Quite simply with a demand-based approach to equipping climbs, Rosea would absolutely be grid-bolted. And yeah, some people will have to learn this truth: "Hey, there's just not that many grade 15 sport climbs, either get stronger, or go and climb the world's greatest trad crag, with a fistful of wires and a cam or two. Otherwise, choose a different state, country or sport." And that's okay. 3. On the right to access to easy sport routes ... um, why ? There is no such right. See previous point about demand-based climbing. 4. On achieving some sort of equality in terms of the numbers of sport routes (and careful using thecrag for your numbers, even sport routes go in as mixed, trad or unknown if care hasn't been taken to update the style). Perhaps the biggest bugbear of all. I can finish a new trad route, wait for the rain to wash off the chalk and no-one will be the wiser for my presence. Not-so with those establishing sport routes - it's permanent alteration. These things are not the same. 5. You've conveniently overlooked Tracey's (now numerous) warnings that PV - you know the land managers of the area we climb in - are not happy with the current direction. And yet you are suggesting *more* sport routes ? (Until we reach equilibrium and thecrag reports that we all have exactly 33% bouldering, 33% trad and 33% sport I assume ?) We're tone deaf if we ignore such warnings. 6. We are not the only users of The Grampians. Our approach to crag development (and it drives me spare when I see people driving round the gate at The Ravine, or DT for example) suggests we think otherwise. Seriously, there is already more than one lifetime of sport routes available in the Grampians. Can't we just leave it alone now and play with the toys we have ? Sincerely though, thanks for the input - even if I disagree ! |
| There are 225 messages in this topic. |
Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia
Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.
Australian Panoramic |
Australian Coast |
Australian Mountains |
Australian Countryside |
Australian Waterfalls |
Australian Lakes |
Australian Cities |
Australian Macro |
Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo |
Landscape Photography |
Landscape Photography Australia |
Fine Art Photography |
Wilderness Photography |
Nature Photo |
Australian Landscape Photo |
Stock Photography Australia |
Landscape Photos |
Panoramic Photos |
Panoramic Photography Australia |
Australian Landscape Photography |
High Country Mountain Huts |
Mothers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Mothers Day |
Mothers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Mothers Day |
Wedding Gift Ideas |
Christmas Gift Ideas |
Fathers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Fathers Day |
Fathers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Fathers Day |
Landscape Prints |
Landscape Poster |
Limited Edition Prints |
Panoramic Photo |
Buy Posters |
Poster Prints