Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

Area	Location	Sub Location	Crag	Links
VIC Southwest	You Yangs	(General)	(General)	[ You Yangs Guide \| Images ]

Author

You Yangs - Flinders Peak Bolting?


IdratherbeclimbingM9

5-Aug-2010
11:54:09 AM

Hmm, while I have been off-line and typing a philosphical piece to add; Estey has come along and touched on similar flavour, of things that I was typing!

... so for what it is worth I shall continue with it, to supplement his good post.

Hey, I just found a soap box!

Regarding ‘hypocrisy and bolting ethics’ of routes.

In a tangential sort of way, I rather like the fact that time has historically rendered, for whatever practical reason, the Australian slab-climbing experience, as generally one of longer runouts than not.

Many of us have cut our teeth on the knowledge that slabs often equate to runouts. It is its own unique climbing style and adds variety to the other genres available, of which there are more today than ever before.
In the past (& I suspect today too), they were sometimes feared and or loathed by some, but for every climber who avoided them, they also had an equal number who thrived on them, and still hunt them out for variety in their climbing diet.

It is not everyone’s flavour of course, but it was never intended to be.

In my opinion, retrobolting, other than as one for one outright replacement of rusted out equipment, is something that should not be condoned; unless the first ascentionist/s agree that the climbing experience they created, should be ‘safed-down’ for the masses, and even then, done to a minimalist-style standard.

Climbing evolves, and so too do the expectations of some of the participants.
Back in the day, slab pretty much meant anything consistently less than vertical. These days some would perhaps consider it to mean anything less than overhung; ... but for all the advances in climbing equipment through technology; training philosophy; climbing abilities; etc, there is still a purity to be found in the quintessential runout experience that is mostly to be found on good old fashioned slab climbs.

I hope that never changes.

Scrape, clunk, click-
( ... packs soap box away).

~> Ok, back to your debating you lot!


cruze

5-Aug-2010
11:58:15 AM

On 5/08/2010 Estey wrote:
>Its a fine line between common sense and destroying the route. I recently
>retroed a slab on the request of the first ascentionist. For context the
>route now has 4 bolts in 30m instead of 3. I copped a spray from one local
>climber because he had led it in the original state. Another much more
>accomplished climber told me I should have wacked 2 more in.

Hey mate. Would I know the route in question?

5-Aug-2010
2:23:41 PM

This thread is longer, and about as interesting, as most of the routes in the youies..,.


Eduardo Slabofvic

5-Aug-2010
2:31:26 PM

On 5/08/2010 davidn wrote:

>Is it worse to:

Only if you wrap your dog up in a blue tarp and leave it in the back of your Subaru with the windows wound up.

gfdonc

5-Aug-2010
3:22:21 PM

On 5/08/2010 KP wrote:
>This thread is longer, and about as interesting, as most of the routes
>in the youies..,.

At least I got everyone back on-topic.
ES: I cackled about the plaque, but don't think I'll take up your offer.

Back to the argument: Spontaneous Combustion 17 is well bolted. 3 bolts in 21m, I don't think anyone could say it was overbolted, and you get to enjoy the 'fun' of slab climbing (read: runout) without risking your body. The problem is that most of the other routes lack one or two bolts to make them safe without removing all the fear factor.

egosan

5-Aug-2010
4:07:54 PM

On 5/08/2010 gfdonc wrote:
>you get to enjoy the 'fun' of slab climbing (read: runout) without risking your body.
>The problem is that most of the other routes lack one or two bolts to make them
>safe without removing all the fear factor.

The thing I have a problem with here, gfdonc, is your use of the word safe. You may not mean it sound absolute, however the way I read your statement is that there is some objective state of existence that is "Safe." Adding those bolts may reduce the likelyhood of a ground fall, in other words make them safer; however in making them safer you are also necessarily making them less scary. That in my mind is lowering the standard for those routes.

Safety is a very subjective thing. What is "safe enough" is subjective. There are slab routes at buffalo where I can stand on one bolt and clip the next on the other end of the spectrum there are routes with only a bolt to protect the crux. The choice to climb a route is up to the leader and his or her subjective sense of safety.

Is there any right or wrong to this subjectivity? Of course not. There is no judgement of good or bad to be made. Climbing is by nature a very individualistic pursuit. It is up to the leader to make the choice that is right for them. History is full of climbers who chose to retreat and full of monuments to those who didn't. I don't don't judge either group more harshly.

Who chooses? By choosing to climb or not climb a route you make the choice for yourself. By choosing to retro-bolt one chooses for everyone.

To sum up: Please don't assume that everyone shares your subjective assessment of safety.

Cheers,
Sol

egosan

5-Aug-2010
4:19:36 PM

On 5/08/2010 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>On 5/08/2010 davidn wrote:
>
>>Is it worse to:
>
>Only if you wrap your dog up in a blue tarp and leave it in the back of
>your Subaru with the windows wound up.

You have to leave the dog in the tarp to keep your toddler company. Duh.
Neither would be safe at the cliff side.

devlin66

5-Aug-2010
4:49:40 PM

On 5/08/2010 egosan wrote:
>Climbing is by nature a very individualistic pursuit.

The irony in that is the FA always dictates how everyone else must climb in a particular style to that piece of rock. The obvious retort to that is doing a FA trad climb on a previously bolted sport route.

>By choosing to retro-bolt one chooses for everyone.

By the same token, one choosing not to retro-bolt is also choosing for everyone. It swings both ways. It's not black and white.

:-)

Estey

5-Aug-2010
5:41:06 PM

On 4/08/2010 cruze wrote:

>
>Despite the number of times Chockstone has discussed the lack of bolts
>on low grade granite routes, it never ceases to amaze me how many times
>far stronger climbers rant about how easy it was for them to climb and
>argue not to reduce a climb to the lowest common denominator.
>
>And yet as the grades creep upwards so do the number of bolts per route.
>Hypocrisy.

I always thought this argument was more relevent to more vertical routes.

On a rough granite slab if you get into trouble 10m out on a grade 22 then you will probably ooze plasma for a year. If you get into trouble 10m out on a grade 14 you can lie down have a rest.

5-Aug-2010
6:25:02 PM

my 2c:
In *theory* everyone could be catered for if there were a "fair" mix of all sorts of face routes, namely: (a) solos, (b) sparsely bolted, and (c) "sport bolted". (ignoring trad lines). Say a fair mix is 33% of each. (If based on rates of participation the a:b:c proportions should be more like 1:33:66 !!)

In *reality*, around Melbourne:
1) below grade 22(ish) there's plenty of (a) and (b), but almost no (c).
2) above grade 22, there's almost no (a), a few (b), plenty of (c).
... and bugger all virgin rock to allow new routing to change the balance.

So retrobolting enough easy routes to get 1(c) up around 33% only seems fair. And those routes where the FA approves are a good place to start ...


wombly

5-Aug-2010
7:33:46 PM

While I'm personally in the non-retroing camp, I no longer live in melbourne so don't feel I should define what happens there. However, from the experience in the Sydney region when retroing does occur, it tends to happen on all the 'best' cliffs - i.e. that are easily accessible, and good quality rock. Hence, it's easy to end up with a situation where it gets hard to find heady routes that are both good quality and on good quality rock. So if you follow WM's 33% rule, to be fair to all camps it should be applied with an even brush (or drill) across rock styles, accessibilty, rock quality, so that heady climbing doesn't become an ever marginalised activity.

One Day Hero

5-Aug-2010
8:12:31 PM

On 5/08/2010 WM wrote:
>
>So retrobolting enough easy routes to get 1(c) up around 33% only seems
>fair. And those routes where the FA approves are a good place to start
>...
That's a pile of shit! Add arapiles to the mix and you get a mass of perfectly protected easy routes. In order to bring the ratio into balance you'd have to chop the bolts off every easy route in the Youies! You live in Victoria and open the arguement with "ignoring trad climbing"!?! That equates to "Ignoring all good climbing under gr 23"

Everyone who climbs hard now had to start somewhere, and that probably involved sketching around on runout slabs. I'm glad that I went through this process. It didn't allow me to tick the maximum possible grade asap, but did teach me all sorts of good skills related to sketching (including when to back off!)

I also never had a problem with the concept of toproping while aquiring skills (wobbling up a gr17 slab with bolts every 2.5m will only teach you to climb badly)

Anyway, better to save the stressing for good crags. Only time I went to the You Yangs was to support a mate racing the Tatts Cups.......didn't bother to climb anything, it all looked pretty shithouse!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

5-Aug-2010
8:22:11 PM

On 5/08/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
>(snip)

I enjoy your lateral thinking ODH.
☺


cruze

5-Aug-2010
9:38:04 PM

On 5/08/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
>Everyone who climbs hard now had to start somewhere, and that probably
>involved sketching around on runout slabs.

Unfortunately I think that this thread is now being populated by opinions of people who have never climbed the route in question.

I have climbed this route ground up. I didn't think that it was difficult and I didn't fear for my life... (in fact I happened to have a wobbly for a completely different reason which I discussed in over here: http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=Display&ForumID=1&MessageID=83895&Replies=29 )

...but either the first bolt is too low or the second bolt is too high. That simple. If the route were in the Blueys or Nowra the bolts would be repositioned and nobody would think twice. If we were in Canberra we would complain about the shite old home made hangers and argue for 20 years before replacing them. Seeing as the route is at the little sh!tpile called the Youies which is just down the road from our little Melbourne, and a crapload closer than the Wimmera sandstone, I don't think that we should suffer the less than perfect (by his own admission) bolting done by a first ascentionist.


salty crag

5-Aug-2010
9:47:28 PM

Enjoyed the soap box ramble M9

6-Aug-2010
9:18:37 AM

my post clearly relates to routes around rock-poor Melbourne so arapiles is irrelevant. And (to state the obvious, again) I am ignoring/excluding trad lines because I don't advocate that 2/3 of cracks be bolted! My query is, what's a "fair" use of other lines - those which are NOT trad protected.

edit: M9 your soapbox argument fails if you consider high grades. look at all the hard slabs at Buffalo - bolted to the bejeesus.

One Day Hero

6-Aug-2010
2:42:00 PM

On 6/08/2010 WM wrote:
>my post clearly relates to routes around rock-poor Melbourne so arapiles
>is irrelevant. And (to state the obvious, again) I am ignoring/excluding
>trad lines because I don't advocate that 2/3 of cracks be bolted! My query
>is, what's a "fair" use of other lines - those which are NOT trad protected.
>
>edit: M9 your soapbox argument fails if you consider high grades. look
>at all the hard slabs at Buffalo - bolted to the bejeesus.

If you start in with the "fair use" bullshit, I'll have to go and chop an awful lot of bolts at nowra and shipley and tianjara!

Maybe shitty rock around "rock-poor melbourne" shouldn't be bolted at all? The reason there aren't any easy bolted routes down there is that its Mexico......and everyone knows that Mexico is for trad climbing. If you want to climb easy bolted routes, move north.

Look, from what Cruze said, it sounds like adding 1 bolt to some 2 bolt routes will make them a lot better.......I don't know why you'd bother to discuss that sort of reno, just do it. However, if the climbing is shitty with 2 bolts it'll still be shitty with 3 bolts (and I reckon the Youies all looked shitty).....might be better to pull the bolts and forget it ever existed. Unmolested rock is more valuable than a bolted up pile of shit which attracts no ascents!

widewetandslippery

6-Aug-2010
2:51:43 PM

I hate crappy easy wingello slab routes with bolts every 2.5m. 1.5m grid max.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

6-Aug-2010
3:15:17 PM

On 6/08/2010 WM wrote:
>edit: M9 your soapbox argument fails if you consider high grades. look
>at all the hard slabs at Buffalo - bolted to the bejeesus.

It was not an argument, but instead was a bit of nostalgia on my part.
I am part of the old fossil school where slab means something closer to a 45 degree slope!
Although I have not climbed them, I have noticed many hard slabs at Buffalo that are 'sportingly' bolted. I guess others do too, and after a period of acclimatisation suspect that they recognise the bolters whose routes they choose to repeat / or not, as the case may be; as 'sportingly' is a relative term depending on who is using it!!

~> are we full circle yet(?), as gfdonc mentioned 'relative term' earlier in the original post...
Heh, heh, heh.

sportdad

6-Aug-2010
3:49:16 PM

I allways thought the idea of runout slabs was to try to kill off as many slab climbers as possible.
There a bit like Americans... the world would be a better place with a whole lot less of them! ;))))

There are 78 messages in this topic.