Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Interesting retro-bolting discussion

kieranl

7-Aug-2013
9:30:01 PM

On 7/08/2013 nmonteith wrote:
>I can confirm that is an accurate story. Someone fell, pulled a block
>off (with their trad gear), decked, broke their leg, a Nati local asked
>if i could place a bolt to replace the now removed piton, I placed it,
>then another local removed it, bashed in another piton nearby and that
>is the current state.
I think I suggested that you take a look at it as the peg had fallen out, not precisely that it needed a bolt. But that is splitting hairs. Putting back a crappy peg is just silly. It should have either been replaced with a bolt or left out. No point revisiting it though.

>On 7/08/2013 Tastrad wrote:
>>(snip) I fell off the upper crack and 2 cams I thought
>>were good ripped out and the old piton pulled me up one metre off the
>> deck and I kicked the belayer in the head.
>>(snip) But in the interests of preserving history...

I've heard a story that someone had drinkies then got on Snowblind, fell off, stripped the gear and hit the belayer. Can Tastrad shed any light on this or is it unrelated?

kieranl

8-Aug-2013
9:14:19 AM

Probably a major contributing factor to stripping gear on Snowblind is the change of direction at the flake. If I remember rightly there is a bomb-proof wire at the start of the flake but if you move up and place another piece then fall on that on a single rope, the rope angle will tend to flick out the "bombproof" nut. Then, if your top piece is a cam, the change in rope direction when the bottom piece flicks out may cause the cam to rotate slightly and allow a cam to open and pop the piece. If, like me, you're likely to fall off I'd suggest using double ropes and don't use the right-hand one until the flake.


Macciza

8-Aug-2013
4:56:26 PM

So basically the main thing with Snowblind is that if you have half a clue about 'trad' you should be fine - and if you are a single-rope only sport climber without a clue, you will likely run into trouble . . . and then claim that the climb is at fault, rather than the climber . . . .
Also to me 'bombproof' nuts don't just flick out because of rope angle - they should handle pretty much anything you might lob at them . . .

Re the original topic - it's a sad indictment of 'modern' climbing, rebolting something because they don't believe there was a a first ascent because they are unable to stepup to, or better, the original ascent. It does not seem he even tried it as trad - but simply decided it needed bolts to be climbable (safe). The only thing worse is rebolting trad projects for similar BS reasonings.

Re the possibilty that the FA made it 'runout' due to TR inspection is questionable - yes it may have been made adequately protected for the until then ungraded climbing. Once it has been climbed and has a grade, it is simply not the same thing fpr the next ascent. They now know how hard it is, and that there is protection available. They can then decide to go ground-up rap-inspect/pre-place or whatever they like but basically they are dealing with a somewhat known entity as opposed to the FA who was not. If they are unable to try it in good form then they should simply leave it to those who are prepared for such things . . .


IdratherbeclimbingM9

8-Aug-2013
8:55:13 PM

On 8/08/2013 Macciza wrote:
>Re the possibilty that the FA made it 'runout' due to TR inspection is
>questionable - yes it may have been made adequately protected for the until
>then ungraded climbing. Once it has been climbed and has a grade, it is
>simply not the same thing fpr the next ascent. They now know how hard it
>is, and that there is protection available. They can then decide to go
>ground-up rap-inspect/pre-place or whatever they like but basically they
>are dealing with a somewhat known entity as opposed to the FA who was not.
>If they are unable to try it in good form then they should simply leave
>it to those who are prepared for such things . . .

On one of the earlier links the first ascentionist fully described how his ascent was made.
He top-roped it extensively before eventually leading it.

mikllaw

8-Aug-2013
9:15:07 PM

pre-toproping replaces one form of security (protection) with another (prior knowledge). It is extensively used in societies with bad weather and little rock (Britain).

simey

9-Aug-2013
9:54:38 AM

On 8/08/2013 mikllaw wrote:
>pre-toproping replaces one form of security (protection) with another (prior knowledge).

Pre-inspection and pre-toproping prior to bolting run-out routes is definitely a pet hate of mine. As for the route in question, this definitely sounds like one of those. A lot of older routes in the States were established ground-up with bolting on the lead and I originally thought this route might fall into that category, but it doesn't. Therefore the history of this route doesn't sound like it is worth preserving and in the ensuing years no one has given a rats arse about the climb.

Routes have a first ascent history and a repeat ascent history, both of which are worth taking into consideration. Sometimes the repeat ascent history involves no ascents, but everyone knows about the route and respects its boldness, in which case such a climb's legacy should be respected. However when a route is established in some half-arsed fashion and then completely forgotten about for the next few decades, it is not surprising that it becomes fair game for some re-equipping. I am surprised the re-equipping of this particular route gained so much hostility.

As for Snow Blind (23)... I never understood the rationale for retaining the peg (over a bolt) on this particular route, particularly as there has always been a bolt at the start of the route! Its first ascent was rap-inspected and rap-equipped with both a peg and a bolt, so exactly what are we trying to preserve here?

I see Snow Blind very differently to say Plimsoll Line (22) up at the Flight Deck. Plimsoll Line is protected by two pegs (or it might just be one now) down low and the climbing feels rather committing. As much as I would like this climb to have bolts so it could be the perfect warm-up route for the area, it would go against a stack of other factors that I think are worth preserving. It is a great natural line, originally aided and many years later free-climbed. The first ascent parties I suspect met the challenges ground-up and obviously decided they could meet the challenges without resorting to bolts. The climb has had loads of ground-up ascents since and is well-respected as a worthy, although slightly bold grade 22, requiring commitment from leaders. Climbers need to determine the state of the pegs and their own ability prior to launching up it. It is all a part of the character of the route and as a result I feel is worth preserving (even though I wouldn't mind a bolt at the start nowadays!).

One Day Hero

9-Aug-2013
1:45:05 PM

On 9/08/2013 simey wrote:
>Therefore the history of
>this route doesn't sound like it is worth preserving and in the ensuing
>years no one has given a rats arse about the climb.
>
I usually agree with this sentiment, however, the default fix shouldn't be a bolt every 2m (which sounds like what this dude did). Often all that's required to bring an old route back into circulation is a good cleaning, an advertising campaign and maybe a bolt or 2 in sections where the rap bolter didn't take ground up ascentionists into consideration.

And with Gerry's near miss, clearly the number one problem was having unjustified faith in the holding power of cams in slippery rock. I can see replacing the peg with a bolt in that case, but had Gerry pinged off another 2 moves up, the nature of the fairly low fixed pro would have been irrelevant.

simey

10-Aug-2013
9:53:24 AM

On 9/08/2013 One Day Hero wrote:
>I usually agree with this sentiment, however, the default fix shouldn't
>be a bolt every 2m (which sounds like what this dude did). Often all that's
>required to bring an old route back into circulation is a good cleaning,
>an advertising campaign and maybe a bolt or 2 in sections where the rap
>bolter didn't take ground up ascentionists into consideration.

Fair point.

rolsen1

10-Aug-2013
10:56:01 PM

On 6/08/2013 E. Wells wrote:
>On 6/08/2013 rolsen1 wrote:
>>On 6/08/2013 One Day Hero wrote:
>>(snip)
>>>issue. My tolerance for sportfaggots framing a convenience issue as
>a safety
>>(snip)
>>
>>Interesting (and unacceptable) term you chose to use there, why did you
>use it?
>
>Like many many many others I am a raging homosexual trad climber and I
>find ODH's terminology inoffensive.

Which is fine, and same for me, but still I wonder why he chose to use it, seeing as he isn't a 15 year old how, doesn't know better, yet for some reason he still acts like one. I don't worry for you, I worry for other who are more impressionable by those who carry petty prejudices, or those who feel discriminated against.


ajfclark

10-Aug-2013
11:03:18 PM

I've been trying to get him to say sportvegan instead but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it apparently.


Duang Daunk

11-Aug-2013
6:26:50 PM

>>>On 6/08/2013 rolsen1 wrote:
>>>Interesting (and unacceptable) term you chose to use there, why did you use it?
>On 6/08/2013 E. Wells wrote:
>Like many many many others I am a raging homosexual trad climber and I find ODH's terminology inoffensive.
>On 10/08/2013 rolsen1 wrote:
>Which is fine, and same for me, but still I wonder why he chose to use it, seeing as he isn't a 15 year old how, doesn't know better, yet for some reason he still acts like one. I don't worry for you, I worry for other who are more impressionable by those who carry petty prejudices, or those who feel discriminated against.

Interesting (and unacceptable) logic you choose to use there rolsen1, why do you presume to be an advocate for others? Why not let the others speak for themselves (if they exist), and simply speak for yourself? Oh, that's right, it's fine by you.

I think I am impressionable, and I probably carry petty prejudices (who doesn't?), and I feel you are discriminating against me.

I think you would be better off getting a life and going climbing than arguing with people on the internet over issues that they choose to wind you up over. Please stop worrying for me.
Consider yourself trolled rolsen1.


nmonteith

11-Aug-2013
7:17:18 PM

Mod warning to ODH and others. If I see the word faggot used again consider yourself banned for a considerable time. I'm very serious. This is not acceptable on this forum in any way.


ajfclark

11-Aug-2013
8:34:20 PM

Can I keep making fun of vegans?

One Day Hero

11-Aug-2013
8:43:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IFloXOuLgA


Miguel75

11-Aug-2013
10:14:25 PM

On 11/08/2013 ajfclark wrote:
>Can I keep making fun of vegans?

Vegans; No... Redheads; Yes!


nmonteith

12-Aug-2013
7:46:55 AM

On 11/08/2013 One Day Hero wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IFloXOuLgA

Would you use that word - in a job interview? In front of your kids? In a speech to the general public? You can twist and weasel your way out of it but it is clear you wanted to make a demeaning and derogatory meaning to the word in context with 'sport'. If you can't understand why this is not acceptable on this public website then perhaps you need to stay away.


ajfclark

12-Aug-2013
8:07:53 AM

On 11/08/2013 Miguel75 wrote:
>Vegans; No... Redheads; Yes!

But redheads didn't choose to be annoying... It's not their fault...


Miguel75

12-Aug-2013
9:01:07 AM

On 12/08/2013 ajfclark wrote:
>On 11/08/2013 Miguel75 wrote:
>>Vegans; No... Redheads; Yes!
>
>But redheads didn't choose to be annoying... It's not their fault...

One word - Carrot top!

Mr Poopypants

12-Aug-2013
8:14:58 PM

On 12/08/2013 Miguel75 wrote:
>On 12/08/2013 ajfclark wrote:
>>On 11/08/2013 Miguel75 wrote:
>>>Vegans; No... Redheads; Yes!
>>
>>But redheads didn't choose to be annoying... It's not their fault...
>
>One word - Carrot top!

One word would be Carrot-top!
:-)


IdratherbeclimbingM9

12-Aug-2013
8:55:44 PM

On 12/08/2013 Mr Poopypants wrote:
>On 12/08/2013 Miguel75 wrote:
>>On 12/08/2013 ajfclark wrote:
>>>On 11/08/2013 Miguel75 wrote:
>>>>Vegans; No... Redheads; Yes!
>>>
>>>But redheads didn't choose to be annoying... It's not their fault...
>>
>>One word - Carrot top!
>
>One word would be Carrot-top!
>:-)

Didn't you know M75 came top in his maths class? This is why he is still working out when enough gear for climbing is enough! ☺
... He is actually ahead of me on that score, as I was twice his age before I realised I had more than enough.
Heh, heh, heh.

There are 42 messages in this topic.