Trad gear needed on bolted routes

Drill baby drill..
m.youtube.com/watch?v=XFK4T…

Michael Spiesbach wrote:I'm not talking mixed ... I'm talking fully bolted area... one piece of gear.. at the crux on a fully bolted line... I think the only person who made a logical argument was that bolts cost money..

i agree with you that this one particular route at one particular area might have been done in a stupid way. there are plenty of poorly bolted routes at otherwise good areas for all sorts of reasons (too many bolts / not enough / what about 1 bolt next to a perfect crack on an otherwise all-trad line, stuff like that).

but your premise of using THIS ONE CLIMB as a strawman for debating the ethics of all mixed lines is seriously confusing the issue. what is your objective here? to complain about one specific route (go to the local forum) or to discuss the ethics of a wide variety of climbs and fall back on this one example so you can tell everyone they're wrong?

Barrett Pauer wrote:Placing a bolt next to a bomber crack is just plain lazy, I can not think of a single instance where this should be acceptable

Naw, I feel its the other way. It's being cheap and lazy to NOT place a bolt when its the only piece of gear needed on a otherwise sport route (for sure in a sport climbing area)

It comes down to the ethic of the area as well as the opinion of the person bolting. As someone who has bolted their fair share of sport and mixed lines in NY and VT I can tell you that I'll never bolt something that can be protected with trad gear.

Take this for example:
mountainproject.com/v/the-s…

Trust me, I really wanted to add another bolt. The entire line is bolted except for the first piece which is an absolute bomber, textbook .75 placement. I just couldn't bring myself to add a bolt to a feature that could be protected naturally. If all you have are draws, sucks for you but I didn't put up the climb for you. I put it up in a way that protects well using readily accessible modern climbing gear, end of story.

As for asking to hurt someone? That is taking it way too far. It's never on the FA party if you get in over your head.

The best piece of gear on any climber's rack is their judgement and it's not my fault you didn't use it.

eli poss wrote:By climbing that route, you are reaping the fruit of the FA's time, effort, money spent equipping and possibly cleaning the route. Are you really in a position to be complaining because they didn't create a route that meets your satisfactions?

+1.

I've spent thousands of dollars on bolting gear and countless hours scrubbing lichen, dirt, and moss until my fingers bleed. Don't like that a bolted climb takes a cam? I'll sleep just fine.

SteveMarshall wrote: i agree with you that this one particular route at one particular area might have been done in a stupid way. there are plenty of poorly bolted routes at otherwise good areas for all sorts of reasons (too many bolts / not enough / what about 1 bolt next to a perfect crack on an otherwise all-trad line, stuff like that). but your premise of using THIS ONE CLIMB as a strawman for debating the ethics of all mixed lines is seriously confusing the issue. what is your objective here? to complain about one specific route (go to the local forum) or to discuss the ethics of a wide variety of climbs and fall back on this one example so you can tell everyone they're wrong?

+1

Micah Klesick wrote: Naw, I feel its the other way. It's being cheap and lazy to NOT place a bolt when its the only piece of gear needed on a otherwise sport route (for sure in a sport climbing area)

I've agonized over not placing bolts when for $5 and 10 minutes I could have slammed in just one more. But slamming in a bolt would be cheap and lazy: I would be taking the easy way out, disrespecting the resource, dumbing down my own climb, encouraging further bolting of cracks at the crag, contributing to monoculture, etc. Call me elitist, stubborn, inconvenient, obtuse, getting old, whatever - but maybe not cheap and lazy? :)

Chase Bowman wrote: I mean bolts are generally only used when gear is unavailable. Excluding limestone sport climbing areas where the gear is few and far between but also tricky regardless. But when a FA party leaves a pin fixed.. It usually gets replaced with a shiny bolt once it becomes oxidized. Don't really see the point of replacing a pin with another pin..

Apparently you've never been to the gunks..

Chase Bowman wrote:Drill baby drill.. m.youtube.com/watch?v=XFK4T…

That bolt should be chopped.

Barrett Pauer wrote:Placing a bolt next to a bomber crack is just plain lazy, I can not think of a single instance where this should be acceptable

When an entire area has been developed as a sport climbing area and almost all the routes are sport routes.

When the rock type is such that the few cracks really don't protect at all well with trad gear. Quartzite and especially limestone fall into this category.

When the climbing is on private land and the landowner will only allow climbing if people don't place their own gear.

When the feature, usually a flake, forming the crack might detach or shatter if gear were placed behind it. This is why there are some bolts next to the Butterballs flake on the Cookie Cliff in Yosemite. There's also an infamous photo on the net with a climber drilling a bolt next to a large flake. It's often used to provoke outrage in just this sort of discussion.

So there are at least 4 reasons.

Don Morris wrote: East Quarry, Golden Cliffs, Golden. Colorado...People that have climbed his routes admire his inspiring lines.

Regardless of difficulty or FA style, it seems a stretch to call any route on North Table Mountain an "inspiring line".

Marc801 wrote: When an entire area has been developed as a sport climbing area and almost all the routes are sport routes. When the rock type is such that the few cracks really don't protect at all well with trad gear. Quartzite and especially limestone fall into this category. When the climbing is on private land and the landowner will only allow climbing if people don't place their own gear. When the feature, usually a flake, forming the crack might detach or shatter if gear were placed behind it. This is why there are some bolts next to the Butterballs flake on the Cookie Cliff in Yosemite. There's also an infamous photo on the net with a climber drilling a bolt next to a large flake. It's often used to provoke outrage in just this sort of discussion. So there are at least 4 reasons.

Please note how I say bomber crack. Quartzite, limestone and flakes don't fall into this category. As for sport climbing areas, I feel that routes should be protected by removable gear when ever possible even if it is at "sport" climbing area.
You got me with the access issue.

Barrett Pauer wrote: Please note how I say bomber crack. Quartzite, limestone and flakes don't fall into this category

A flake isn't a bomber crack?
Quartzite and limestone can both have what would be considered bomber cracks but pro is still difficult or tends to pull out in a fall.

And you're nitpicking one of my points - there are 3 others.

Barrett Pauer wrote: Please note how I say bomber crack. Quartzite, limestone and flakes don't fall into this category

quartzite is awesome, I learned on it in BCC UT

Marc801 wrote: A flake isn't a bomber crack? Quartzite and limestone can both have what would be considered bomber cracks but pro is still difficult or tends to pull out in a fall. And you're nitpicking one of my points - there are 3 others.

A bomber piece is one that would never pull, so by definition, flakes aren't bomber and limestone cracks aren't bomber. Therefore they are candidates for bolts.

Marc801 wrote: A flake isn't a bomber crack? Quartzite and limestone can both have what would be considered bomber cracks but pro is still difficult or tends to pull out in a fall. And you're nitpicking one of my points - there are 3 others.

I know.. GOD! Who constantly gets on MP and nitpicks?

T Roper wrote: quartzite is awesome, I learned on it in BCC UT

Indeed, quartzite can be bomber trad terrain.

And I'm afraid this topic will probably go in all sorts of nit picky directions. Mostly, I think the community should understand there are different ethics for development out there. Embrace it.

Barrett Pauer wrote: A bomber piece is one that would never pull, so by definition, flakes aren't bomber...

Your definition is a bit off.

The three major ones on The Nose take solid, bomber pro:
Texas Flake (OK, since you chimney the thing, technically it doesn't take pro unless you have a #18 cam)
Boot Flake
Pancake Flake

A lot of the climbing on the NWF Half Dome - I think the whole thing is mostly exfoliation flakes.

CCK in the Gunks

That's just off the top of my head.

Marc801 wrote: When the feature, usually a flake, forming the crack might detach or shatter if gear were placed behind it. This is why there are some bolts next to the Butterballs flake on the Cookie Cliff in Yosemite. There's also an infamous photo on the net with a climber drilling a bolt next to a large flake. It's often used to provoke outrage in just this sort of discussion.

I can think of a few reasons:

1. Money, bolts cost money and time to put in, if you can save one from a route that you can place a gear, why not.

2. People who FA the route wants to make the route harder by putting the gear(mental, physical or technical). It is a different way of testing a climber's skills. He/she may want to challenge himself in that why during the first FA. It could be completely opposite of "EGO". It is the same way in gym sport route will have a higher grade when compare to the same route on the top rope.

3. If it is really the crux move where the bolt is missing, there may not be a bolt or pro intended for that move. Maybe you should just take a giant wiper, or push it through..

4. After all, you can do whatever the heck you want when you FA. If you can do it, the expectation is other people can do it the same way.