Retrobolted anchors on Lotta Balls descent route removed.

Rob Fielding wrote: A few examples of currently retrobolted routes are adventure punks and the walker spur.

Two interesting and different examples.
In the case of AP, you had a route that was always rappeled directly, from the time of the FA. The problem was; you weren't rapping off trees or slung blocks or other "natural" anchors. The "fixed" anchors consisted of a few bolts(even some drilled angles!) and the fixed nuts, cams and pitons. The problem with that is that 1 persons booty and acceptability of risk isn't the same as the next persons. So you might get to an anchor, expecting to find a solid rap, and find a sinle nut with a sling and no rings/carabiners. Thats because the party in front of you thought that was good enough. That route needed to have bolted anchors for the descent. Especially as popular as it was to become. I'll give you 1 guess as to who installed the bolts.

The Walker Spur on the other had isn't a rap route. The protection bolt shouldn't have been added. The bolt that was added next to the exsisting Protection bolt, creating an anchor, shouldn't have been added either. I know who was involved, I spoke with them about it. There was some confusion between the leader and the person who added the bolts. It was supposed to have been purely a replacement of the exsisting Protection bolt. It's to bad.

Now chopping the bolted anchors in the descent gully from LOBs wall in silly. I'm for having that, well used, descent bolted and saving the trees for as long as they can live there.

josh

TomCaldwell wrote: Thanks for leaving the last part of that sentence out since it was the most pertinent. The strength loss is reversible unless it freezes.

What I am getting at is according to you if I am 8 pitches up a route and it starts raining, I better not fall because my rope is only at 30% strength. Your freeze thaw statement has nothing to do with that, so I left it out. I'm no nylon expert but I find that very hard to believe - source please?
Additionally, your contention that back in the glory days of MP we had nothing but intelligent & civil discussions around here.... Yarp's, Eric Schmidt's and David Sahalie types have been around since the beginning - deal with it - it's the internet.

JoeP wrote: 70%, eh? You sure about that?

Page 11, number 3 of the FAQ section. sterlingrope.com/media/docu…

Glenn Schuler wrote: Additionally, your contention that back in the glory days of MP we had nothing but intelligent & civil discussions around here.... Yarp's, Eric Schmidt's and David Sahalie types have been around since the beginning - deal with it - it's the internet.

So what you are saying is that is just becoming more acceptable to be inconsiderate. I stand corrected.

TomCaldwell wrote: So what you are saying is that is just becoming more acceptable to be inconsiderate. I stand corrected.

Nah, I'm just stating the obvious. You're so sensitive today Tom, lighten up man - It's Friday and we've got record hi temps here on the front range!

Back to the thread drift - is it possible that Sterling sites skewed numbers to help with sales of dry treated ropes? I don't ice climb so I never buy treated ropes. I find the 70% strength loss hard to believe. Otherwise we would hear about ropes breaking on occasion wouldn't we?

A quick Google search yielded this test for 1" wedding itrsonline.org/PapersFolder… If it's on the internet it has to be true right? Nowhere near 70% loss of strength. Maybe someone with some expertise will chime in.

To continue with thread hijack:
Glenn The way I read this is (page 11 on sterlingrope.com/media/docu…) they are talking about the UIAA fall test, so if you are going to take 7 factor 1.7 falls in a row, holding onto a large goat, in the rain, I would start to worry

ed hall wrote: so if you are going to take 7 factor 1.7 falls in a row, holding onto a large goat, in the rain, I would start to worry

Oh crap! You mean I'm gonna have to leave my goat at home now if the forcast is iffy? He's gonna be pissed.

Maybe get a mountain goat?

Went down this descent recently. The current state of the anchors, as they are, is about as good as you can expect. The first two trees are absolutely bomber, but the final bolted anchor is only disheartening due to the lack of effort to even camo the bolts. Gold-plated looking bolts...if you are going to put in the effort to place them, please do it the right way. While not an eyesore from a distance, they definitely had my partner and I a bit taken back by it. Very surprising to hear that someone placed bolts where those two bomber trees are, and to boot that one of the bolting jobs was poorly executed. Again, the way things are right now on that descent is above adequate.

RE: the assertion that this is an easy walk-off for 'most of us'? I'm not so sure about that...

Anyway, the merits of sling anchors vs. bolted anchors will be expounded upon, rehashed, and argued ad infinitum, but most of us know when one is a good idea vs. the other when we see it, I would suspect.

J. Thompson wrote: Two interesting and different examples. In the case of AP, you had a route that was always rappeled directly, from the time of the FA. The problem was; you weren't rapping off trees or slung blocks or other "natural" anchors. The "fixed" anchors consisted of a few bolts(even some drilled angles!) and the fixed nuts, cams and pitons. The problem with that is that 1 persons booty and acceptability of risk isn't the same as the next persons. So you might get to an anchor, expecting to find a solid rap, and find a sinle nut with a sling and no rings/carabiners. Thats because the party in front of you thought that was good enough. That route needed to have bolted anchors for the descent. Especially as popular as it was to become. josh

Josh, I completely agree the anchors should have been replaced on AP, I was talking about the two retrobolts on the last wide pitch which could easily be protected w/ two #6's.

But my main point is if we replace a bomber tree anchor on LOB descent, should all descents w/ trees be replaced w/ retrobolted anchors? I know plenty of descents that require raps from trees... the south gully from mescalito and the descent off of cactus flower tower (if not rapping the warrior.) Should that be the new standard? I just think it opens up a can of bigger worms when we think about all the descents in RR that do have natural anchors set for rappel.

Personally, when I come across either slings or bolts (even where slings could be) in serviceable condition, I never get the urge to start chopping, cutting or drilling. I'm always a little surprised to see someone force their ethics on everyone else. It's one thing to update, replace, etc when things aren't safe but to yank bolts out bc *you* don't agree with something someone else did in a *public use* area takes hubris I just can't relate to. Maybe someone can help me understand.

And the "because it's the way they did it way back ..." argument is out to pasture. I started climbing in 90 and, well, I'm headed into the pasture as it is but I don't subscribe to that "well, that's the way it's always been done" mindset. Damage to the trees isn't the only reason to start using bolts where slings once were. Slings are unsightly, pile up over the years, can be hard to gauge strength of, tend to rely on a single point (failing roots, hollow trunk, etc) and, honestly, if it's a threat to your ego to be forced to rap from a bomber, stainless rap anchor maybe it's time to reevaluate your reasons for climbing.

Sounds like, in this case, a nice coat of paint would have done the trick.

Daryl, That was the most intelligent response I have seen. What could possibly be gained by removing in situ bolts, other than making yourself feel important? As to other tree rappells? Might be a good time to have the conversation. I can say for certain though, in New England, where I am from, I have seen large trees killed by using them as rap anchors. The roots get trampled and loosened by all the traffic. Thanks to all for your thoughts, I am home again now, so it is your can of worms to sort out.

Bolted rap anchors save trees and good rap anchors save people. But you know, there are other asshole agendas.

Rob Fielding wrote: Josh, I completely agree the anchors should have been replaced on AP, I was talking about the two retrobolts on the last wide pitch which could easily be protected w/ two #6's. But my main point is if we replace a bomber tree anchor on LOB descent, should all descents w/ trees be replaced w/ retrobolted anchors? I know plenty of descents that require raps from trees... the south gully from mescalito and the descent off of cactus flower tower (if not rapping the warrior.) Should that be the new standard? I just think it opens up a can of bigger worms when we think about all the descents in RR that do have natural anchors set for rappel.

Hey Rob.
Yes I agree about the Retro- protection bolts on AP. I thought this discussion, in general, was refering to anchors. Which is entirely different. I'm not a fan of retro- protection bolts. Those "retro" bolts on AP were a mistake, not an intentional retro...but thats a whole other discussion!

Personally I'm for replacing natural anchors with bolts. If someone wants to haul bolts and a drill out there to do it, great. I don't think there should be some big campaign to replace them all, but if it gets done over time it's a good thing. Obviously there are plenty of descents, that don't get done to often, that won't be replaced anytime soon. Nor should they really, Mescalito being a good example. I can't imaging that thing gets descended often. The couple of times I've climbed to The summit of Mesc. I descended CITH. I didn't do any rappels of CFT?
The bigger issue is descents like LOB wall. That thing gets descended hundreds of times(thousands?) a year. I'd rather see the trees live as long as possible and not have piles of slings hanging from them.
2 well placed rap bolts is lower impact and better all around.

josh

J. Thompson wrote: Hey Rob. Yes I agree about the Retro- protection bolts on AP. I thought this discussion, in general, was refering to anchors. Which is entirely different. I'm not a fan of retro- protection bolts. Those "retro" bolts on AP were a mistake, not an intentional retro...but thats a whole other discussion! Personally I'm for replacing natural anchors with bolts. If someone wants to haul bolts and a drill out there to do it, great. I don't think there should be some big campaign to replace them all, but if it gets done over time it's a good thing. Obviously there are plenty of descents, that don't get done to often, that won't be replaced anytime soon. Nor should they really, Mescalito being a good example. I can't imaging that thing gets descended often. The couple of times I've climbed to The summit of Mesc. I descended CITH. I didn't do any rappels of CFT? The bigger issue is descents like LOB wall. That thing gets descended hundreds of times(thousands?) a year. I'd rather see the trees live as long as possible and not have piles of slings hanging from them. 2 well placed rap bolts is lower impact and better all around. josh

Yeah, I can see LOB being a bigger issue with the amount of rappels that area receives, it's all apple and oranges to me. Anyways, drop me a line when you come out here, lets climb one of these days.

Rob Fielding wrote: Anyways, drop me a line when you come out here, lets climb one of these days.

Will do. But only if we keep our shirts on!

josh

Stich wrote:Bolted rap anchors save trees and good rap anchors save people. But you know, there are other asshole agendas.

This. +1

J. Thompson wrote: Obviously there are plenty of descents, that don't get done to often, that won't be replaced anytime soon. Nor should they really, Mescalito being a good example. I can't imaging that thing gets descended often. The couple of times I've climbed to The summit of Mesc. I descended CITH. I didn't do any rappels of CFT?

I find it interesting that the CITH descent is most people's defacto choice. The North Fork descent is straight forward and involves two rappels that pull clean, and you'll never find anyone climbing through you as you rap (unlike CITH). I just did it yesterday and would choose to do it again in a heart beat. A painless less than 1 hour descent back to the base of dark shadows, after topping out via dark shadows. YMMV I suppose.

The first rappel is off of two skinny trees "equalized together," with one of those trees being 15 feet behind the first tree. A fixed station there, where no one could ever see it but someone descending, actually makes a bit of sense. Especially if more people choose this descent option in the future.

My $0.02

Whoa, whoa, whoa...now it's getting interesting for me. Tom Caldwell, the Fighting Gamecock from South Carolina says, "Commercial Bolting in the Red Rock is a problem." Then a commercial climber seemingly condones a "fixed station" to descend a gully in the North Fork of Pine Creek because the equalized A4 trees, although easy to see, may live longer or be happier or something, something...which "actually makes a bit of sense."

It only makes sense if you are a Tree, Andrew. The Rock is in favor of slings & rings on any and all trees (A0-A5) and the Tree will always vote in favor of drilling a bolt. If I join the CLC can I vote on this?

The anchors have been replaced as of 3.5 hours ago. This time they have been camoflouged to Red Rock spec.

There's a new "sheriff" in town.