Author |
Soloing - A question of ethics? |
|
|
16-Nov-2006 12:04:29 PM
|
It was pretty good protection really - two skyhooks placed together and weighted down on a 1cm deep rounded edge. It would've held. There was a place on the left side of the hold that was deeper (1.5/2cm), but the thickness of the granite was more wafer like - and having had something snap on me already, I wasn't going to test that theory. There are people who do test these sort of things though. Just ask Patch Hammond, who placed 2 skyhooks on a route in Wales some years ago, fell off above the 2nd one, and the 1st one kept him off the ground - so yeah - they do work! The whole blue-tack thing though has never turned me on - hence the weight! As for doing without them altogether - no thanks. I have a German friend who was going to do just that, but then his parents were flying in the following day, so he decided against it (just in case). It could have really put a damper on their holiday!
|
16-Nov-2006 8:32:07 PM
|
nice one!
|
16-Nov-2006 10:46:41 PM
|
On 16/11/2006 boardlord wrote:
>It was pretty good protection really
Maybe, if you make it to the bolt and then to the flake! At least the crux is bolted whereas on Popular Misconception the gear is low and marginal for the crux and a couple of moves beyond. A fall up there would be serious.
But congratulations for Hopes, in my book the best effort anyone around here has put in for years. It also vindicates the chopping of the upper (retro)bolts. IMO, we need a few routes like Hopes, PM and Triad that test more than technical competence. No-one's forcing anybody to lead these, and they rarely are, but every now and then a boardlord comes along...
|
17-Nov-2006 8:28:43 AM
|
On 16/11/2006 prb wrote:
>but every now and then a boardlord comes along...
that's pretty funny! You're talking about a crap climber that spends most of his time on a 55 degree overhanging board. I think if someone with those credentials can go and climb something mentally demanding - then anyone can. It's a state of mind. By the way - I think the bolt should be chopped - and the entire thing led as trad.
|
17-Nov-2006 9:07:49 AM
|
On 16/11/2006 prb wrote:
>It also vindicates the chopping of the upper (retro)bolts.
>IMO, we need a few routes like Hopes, PM and Triad that test
>more than technical competence. No-one's forcing anybody to lead these,
>and they rarely are, but every now and then a boardlord comes along...
Very true.
For those who would sanitise the experience by making it 'safe for the masses', they are missing out on a meaningful experience.
There is room for both, and we are blessed with an abundance of rock to cater for all participants aspirations.
I like the idea of 'X' category climbs or at least skull/crossbone symbols in guidebooks. Those who want the 'safe experience' can then avoid testing themselves if they wish, but it does not give them the right to sanitise those climbs.
|
17-Nov-2006 5:50:06 PM
|
On 17/11/2006 boardlord wrote:
>By the way - I think the bolt should be chopped - and the entire thing led as trad.
So, as you're the only climber in 27 years to repeat a one-bolt Hopes, how would you feel about leading a no-bolt Hopes? The crux sequence lost another pebble when Vanessa was on it the other week...
|
17-Nov-2006 8:02:39 PM
|
I might go do it at Christmas time - anything to get away from the in-laws! But can I chop the bolt? Hope Vanessa had a good stay all up. Victor must have been something a tad different for her. So - another pebble has come off. That's why it's so scary. Soloing Arapiles routes is so much more secure!
|
18-Nov-2006 1:00:54 PM
|
On 17/11/2006 boardlord wrote:
>But can I chop the bolt?
But, to be fair, you'd then have to chop at least 99% of the bolts in Australia. Some would say that wouldn't be a bad thing!
I think leave it for the time being for those following in your footsteps. When padding through the crux of Hopes, the option of clipping the bolt would be appreciated by many. I appeal to your compassion. The climb is still full of interest up higher, as you and Kim know.
|
19-Nov-2006 11:40:04 PM
|
Vanessa should have stayed in Adelaide and lead Hopes. Probably safer than venturing onto the Fox neve over the last couple of weeks. I shall put a report in accidents and Injuries when I have caught up with life.
Didnt Carrigan bolt, then climb? So why chop the bolt? Thats a retro debolt.
It protects the crux quite nicely and prevents a nasty landing. The rest of the route is 3 grades easier, just a tad friable.....
|
23-Nov-2016 9:36:55 PM
|
On 19/11/2006 vwills wrote:
>Vanessa should have stayed in Adelaide and lead Hopes. Probably safer than
>venturing onto the Fox neve over the last couple of weeks. I shall put
>a report in accidents and Injuries when I have caught up with life.
>
>Didnt Carrigan bolt, then climb? So why chop the bolt? Thats a retro debolt.
>It protects the crux quite nicely and prevents a nasty landing. The rest
>of the route is 3 grades easier, just a tad friable.....
Where is Imaseriousyounglizard (ie Hex, the oracle of all things KC), when we need him to answer this Hopes in Slopes question?
|