Retrobolting
|
Had an interesting encounter on the page for Sky Pilot at Rumney. Quick story is: It was originally led on preplaced gear. Later, it was bolted, but the upper section was not. All the hard climbing is down low, and is well protected; up above, the climbing is much easier, but if you fall, you will probably deck. Someone asked about bolting the upper section, and the FA said it was OK with him, that he wants it to be safe. However, the upper section can be protected with gear. Keep in mind Rumney is almost entirely a sport crag. |
|
Justin Cantrall wrote:I'm not a "bolt-the-planet" kind of guy, nor am I a trad-purist; more middle-ground. That said; Not everybody uses guidebooks, and if the expectation at Rumney is that almost everything is bolted, then there could be safety issues. The two fundamental questions to be able to make a sound judgment of whether to bolt or not to bolt: Is it plainly obvious/visible from the ground that the second half requires gear?I think this is an important question to answer. I've been in a situation where I got on a 'mixed' climb without any trad gear because it wasn't plainly obvious that the middle section of the climb lacked bolts, and it wasn't super fun. Whether or not the climb takes gear doesn't seem to be much of an issue, as the protectable first half has already been bolted. In light of that information, the FAists approval, and the prevalence of sport climbing at Rumney, I would think that drilling bolts to the top of the route wouldn't be too big a deal. |
|
Bolts don't belong in the vicinity of good gear...sound like a protectable crack to me. |
|
Should all routes be made "Safe" by the addition of bolts? |
|
It seems typical to me that bolted climbs that are proteted well at the crux but have a section that is easy RELATIVE TO THE CRUX tend to be run out on the easy sections. I have actually intentionally set climbs in this manner. The logic is that if you can climb the crux you should feel comfortable on the easy terrain. My goal when I did this was to keep the climber equally engaged throughout the climb. Down low the crux was bolted every 8-10 feet. Up high the number grade eased off from solid 5.9 to 5.6. The last three gaps are about 20 feet. I felt that would keep the route memorable to the 5.9 climber and 5.6 climbers would never make it to that section or probably ever try and lead the route in the first place. That said, while you might go a long ways on this route I don't think you would deck if you blew it. |
|
Justin Cantrall wrote:Is it plainly obvious/visible from the ground that the second half requires gear? Is there an appropriate set of bail/rappel anchors prior to the second half of the route? I'm not sure what the local ethic is as to bolting a traditionally protectable climb is; look for a precedent that has already been set--are there other bolted routes in the area that could be protected with trad gear?No, it's not obvious from the ground that the second half requires gear, and there are no anchors at the end of the bolted section. Two climbs down, there is Blueballs at Christmas and it's a gear protected route, with an R rating, no less. On the other hand, there are routes on Main Cliff (just above the 5.8 crag) that have been retrobolted, after being led on gear. |
|
Not every route is for every leader. It's CLIMBING - you're supposed to have a challenge . Don't dilute the quality with extra bolts . |
|
I'm definetly in the middle when it comes to bolting, but I feel less is more applies to the topic. |
|
caughtinside wrote:hmm, an .11b 'sport' climb at a sport crag. personally I don't see what the big deal is about popping in one or two bolts to stay off the deck if a hold breaks. I'm not going to get a hard on protecting 30 feet of .6 crack.Exactly. There are bigger fish to fry. Throwing in one bolt additional bolt on a sport route at a sport crag shouldn't get anyone's knickers in a bunch, particularly if the FAist is good with it. Save your energy and your breath for stuff like this: supertopo.com/climbing/thre… |
|
Justin Cantrall wrote:Is it plainly obvious/visible from the ground that the second half requires gear?Do you close your eyes once you leave the ground? Do you rely on the written words of a guide? When I climb, I tend to look ahead. I generally know where the next bolt is or where some gear may be available. If it looks very runout to the next piece/bolt I get to make a decision which includes test my abilities and continue up, downclimb or lower off my last piece/bolt to get the appropriate gear or bail altogether. Or, we can create a climbing population totally dependent on others. Dumb it down, dumb it down America, dumb it down. |
|
i have never been on this route so i cannot speak from experience but i have climbed a lot in rumney. in rumney bolting is the ethic, there are routes all over rumney that could be sewn up with bomber cam placements that have been bolted, for example Son of Sammy on lower new wave and many of the routes at bonsai. does this mean i support bolting the top of sky pilot i am not sure, but surely one bolt on the top couldn't hurt i would say put one bolt in it for no more reason than to prevent a ground fall in case someone doesn't do their homework and blows one of the easy moves. that's just my opinion... |
|
There is a part of David's original post that seems particularly relevant to me, whether or not this is a Sport crag: "The FA said it was OK." |
|
I've always been one to clip bolts and rarely one to place trad, but since it seems like there are plenty of other routes to clip bolts I would leave this one in it's current state. There is a cliff in NC called Sauratown which is 90% sport with a few trad climbs and even less mixed routes. No one complained about the mixed, or trad routes needing to be retrobolted. Especially since it's a 45 min hike up a steep hill so packing light is the norm. Keep the route the way it is, and go climb something else since there are so many other routes at Rumney to clip bolts. |
|
i have done the route in question many times... and second im not normally in favor of retro bolting... im fine with the route the way it is but wouldnt be against one more bolt at the run out spot... i dont belive it has been mentioned yet that there are 2 pins on the upper section that are in fine shape... i do think that bringing a small rack of nuts to the crag would be the best bet as one nut on this route would render it perfectly safe... |
|
I've also done Sky Pilot a bunch. To be honest, the route is all about the lower (bolted) part. The upper half is simply ledge climbing to the chains. And no, it's not a splitter crack, as some are suggesting. I don't think a bolt or two would detract from climbing the upper half, as there's not much from which to detract. |
|
Jay Knower wrote:I've also done Sky Pilot a bunch. To be honest, the route is all about the lower (bolted) part. The upper half is simply ledge climbing to the chains. And no, it's not a splitter crack, as some are suggesting. I don't think a bolt or two would detract from climbing the upper half, as there's not much from which to detract. If it's a sport route, in a sport area, then it should be safe, by definition.Thanks for mentioning that out, Jay...it's definitely not 3-star climbing at that point. And as Lee pointed out...there are pitons, i forgot about those as well, but if I remember correctly, if you don't make it to the first one, that's where the groundfall danger is. So, if the route is all about the lower part, shouldn't anchors be added right above where the bolts end? I'm not saying this to be a devil's advocate. If more bolts are to be added, might as well just cut off the lower-quality climbing at the top. The only reason why I enjoyed the upper section when I first climbed it was BECAUSE it was run-out... |
|
Jay Knower wrote:I've also done Sky Pilot a bunch. To be honest, the route is all about the lower (bolted) part. The upper half is simply ledge climbing to the chains. And no, it's not a splitter crack, as some are suggesting. I don't think a bolt or two would detract from climbing the upper half, as there's not much from which to detract. If it's a sport route, in a sport area, then it should be safe, by definition.So if it's a trad route at a trad area then it should be runout ? |
|
Jay Knower wrote: If it's a sport route, in a sport area, then it should be safe, by definition.Curious where you got this definition Jay? I can name about 100 "sport" routes in "sport" areas that are not "safe". Many of the original routes at Shelf Rd, the Flatirons, Penetente, even Rifle. By your definition none of the climbs at Ceuse are sport climbs....Should we be adding bolts to all these routes to make them safe? |
|
Here are a few examples...I am sure you can think of more. |
|
john strand wrote: So if it's a trad route at a trad area then it should be runout ?In my mind, a sport route should allow you to focus on the climbing and not on fear of dangerous falls. A dangerously run-out bolted route is not a "sport route" in my opinion. Calling a route a "trad route" makes no assumption of relative safety. There can be safe trad routes and dangerous ones. I think "sport" assumes relative safety. Dangerous bolted routes should not be considered "sport routes." |
|
Kevin Stricker wrote:Here are a few examples...I am sure you can think of more. Paris Girl - Eldorado Discipline - Flatirons Bullet the Blue Sky - Penetente Feline - Rifle It should be mentioned that all of these have runouts on hard climbing....Haven't done the others, but I never felt in danger of an unsafe fall while climbing Feline. Felt like a sport route to me. On Sky Pilot, a slip on the upper part would certainly send you 40 feet to the ground. That's not sport climbing, in my opinion. |