Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
AZ Flyways tree is gone.
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 2.  1  2   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By 1Eric Rhicard
Dec 1, 2009
It is a good sized roof. Photo: Jimbo

David Merin and I climbed this today without the tree start. We stayed a little left of the big chalked up jug. It actually adds another bit of good 5.10 climbing to the route. Might add a bolt or two at the bottom. What do you think?


FLAG
By Joe Kreidel
From Tucson, AZ
Dec 2, 2009

I think it is probably a good idea. It's been a while since I was on the route, but that puts the first bolt at around 15 feet? And without the tree to get you to the jugs, a fall would be possible. The landing zone isn't as bad as other Windy Point climbs, but I would hate to see people avoid this stellar route because of a little spicy climbing at the beginning of an otherwise well bolted route.


FLAG
By Boodge Nomchompski
Dec 2, 2009
Ancient wall art

I'm in favor of another bolt now that the tree is gone. I've only ever led this route (never top-roped it) and the only part that bothers me has always been getting to the first bolt. I've always considered bringing a stick-clip for it, but couldn't convince myself carry through with it.

Out of curiosity - what happened to the tree?


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Dec 3, 2009
Toofast

Eric Rhicard wrote:
David Merin and I climbed this today without the tree start. We stayed a little left of the big chalked up jug. It actually adds another bit of good 5.10 climbing to the route. Might add a bolt or two at the bottom. What do you think?


a variant start to add some more good climbing to the route? sounds fine to me! :)


FLAG
By RyanJohnson
From Tucson, Arizona
Dec 3, 2009

My guess would be that the manzanita tree finally broke.

Since you were part of the FA party, couldn't you just consult SA and MHd? Is this not what you suggest doing in your guidebook?

Either way, thanks for letting the community know about changing condition on this route.


FLAG
By "Canada" Eric Ruljancich
From Tucson, AZ / Vancouver, BC
Dec 5, 2009
Mt Gimli, Valhallas, BC, Canada

DO IT!!!!!


FLAG
By Christian
From Casa do Cacete
Dec 6, 2009

Add 'em.


FLAG
By Jon Ruland
From Tucson, AZ
Dec 6, 2009
sending Hard Day at the Orifice

yes prz


FLAG
By eMurdock
From Tucson, Arizona
Dec 6, 2009

I think it should be left as is. The stick clip option is always there for folks who get scared.


FLAG
By Boodge Nomchompski
Dec 6, 2009
Ancient wall art

I don't think it's an issue of being "scared." There's a difference between real "fear" and doing something safely. The fact that the FA asked about adding bolts means that if the tree hadn't been there when he put it up originally, he probably would have put another bolt down low. To me, that's enough reason to add one now that it has changed.


FLAG
By 1Eric Rhicard
Dec 6, 2009
It is a good sized roof. Photo: Jimbo

The FA party was me. SA belayed part of it and MHd belayed the rest of it and the Redpoint. I plan to add a bolt and mybe two as the rock is a little funky getting to the first bolt and it is a sport climb after all. The tree died. And I pulled it out the other day so the landing would be better. Don't hold your breath on the bolts as I am still trying to catch a beaver.


FLAG
By Jon Ruland
From Tucson, AZ
Dec 6, 2009
sending Hard Day at the Orifice

Eric Rhicard wrote:
The FA party was me. SA belayed part of it and MHd belayed the rest of it and the Redpoint. I plan to add a bolt and mybe two as the rock is a little funky getting to the first bolt and it is a sport climb after all. The tree died. And I pulled it out the other day so the landing would be better. Don't hold your breath on the bolts as I am still trying to catch a beaver.


hehe. that's innuendo.


FLAG
By eMurdock
From Tucson, Arizona
Dec 6, 2009

I am not sure why the first ascentionist asked people what they thought about adding bolts. Eric was probably going to do whatever he wanted from the beginning and has every right to do so. But since he asked online I gave my opinion online. I don't need to be convinced otherwise by some weak rationalization based on the difference between fear and safety (not sure what that means anyway) and original intent. There was probably more danger in being stabbed in the ass by the tree than breaking a hold and hitting the ground from 10 feet. The issue is access. Eric and David climbed it safely as is. There are many more people who could do the same. Many other people will be too scared without a stick, and therefore the bolts will be added because Eric wants the route to be more accessible (w/o stick) due to its quality. Fear and safety are perceptions, but bolts are added to routes for accessibility (related to, but certainly not defined by, fear, safety, ease of approach, etc..). Either end result is fine by me.


FLAG
By Boodge Nomchompski
Dec 6, 2009
Ancient wall art

eMurdock wrote:
I am not sure why the first ascentionist asked people what they thought about adding bolts. Eric was probably going to do whatever he wanted from the beginning and has every right to do so. But since he asked online I gave my opinion online. I don't need to be convinced otherwise by some weak rationalization based on the difference between fear and safety (not sure what that means anyway) and original intent. There was probably more danger in being stabbed in the ass by the tree than breaking a hold and hitting the ground from 10 feet. The issue is access. Eric and David climbed it safely as is. There are many more people who could do the same. Many other people will be too scared without a stick, and therefore the bolts will be added because Eric wants the route to be more accessible (w/o stick) due to its quality. Fear and safety are perceptions, but bolts are added to routes for accessibility (related to, but certainly not defined by, fear, safety, ease of approach, etc..). Either end result is fine by me.


What it means is that just because someone uses a stick-clip it doesn't mean they get scared. I rarely use a stick clip, but when I do it's not because I'm scared - it's because my job requires that I don't have broken ankles or bones caused by an accident while pursuing a recreational activity. And I know there's always a risk, but I try to mitigate it when possible.
I am rarely truly scared while climbing, but that's because I'm familiar with what real fear is (you know, people shooting at you, bombs exploding, other things one has no control over, unlike climbing, which I can always immediately stop doing if I were to get "scared"). Perceived fear versus real fear. That's what it meant.


FLAG
By eMurdock
From Tucson, Arizona
Dec 6, 2009

Hey man, didn't mean to strike a nerve. Read what I am saying about access. that's the point, not that you never get scared while climbing (I don't even know you or how scared you rarely get). i am speaking about the grand idea of accessibility. You may choose to use a stick because you are scared to break your ankle and miss work (a reasonable decision) or you may not because you rarely get scared while climbing, but that doesn't matter to any one but you. Just because you cannot afford to sprain an ankle because you need your ankles for work, and you don't want to use a stick, does not necessarily mean there should be new bolts. But I can understand your standpoint. Good thing there will be new bolts.

I am indifferent about the actual new bolt or what you perceive as real fear (I think fear is always perceived but 'risk' is either real or not), but I have some opinions on access. I don't believe access should always be so hand-fed because it speeds up the whole system, and sometimes limits highest level experiences, and I am not always into that. It's just climbing but I like it enough to try to direct its future in a direction that I think is good. I say plant a new Tree!


FLAG
By Boodge Nomchompski
Dec 6, 2009
Ancient wall art

Accessibility is always going to be an issue. I understand your view, and agree with it in general. However, for this specific sport route, 1 bolt, which likely would have been put up by the FA had the tree not been there when it went up, isn't going to negatively affect the climbing community or its ethics one iota.

The bit about my being scared or not was simply a response your statement equating stick-clips to scared climbers. I took issue with the generalization.


FLAG
By Eric D
From Gnarnia
Dec 8, 2009
Born again on the last move of the Red Dihedral, high Sierras.

I also vote to plant a new tree to replace the old one. No bolt, but okay for a new tree.


FLAG
By Andy Bennett
From Tucson, AZ
Dec 9, 2009

It's really not that far to the ground from the first bolt. And it's relatively flat. That is, safe. I tried out the new start. It's kinda more fun now the way it is, actually. Bouldery. I too vote to plant a new tree before adding more bolts.


FLAG
By Aleix
Dec 9, 2009
I was riding shotgun <br />in the devil's cadillac... <br />we were heading for the crossroads <br />with a monkey on my back...

Getting to the jugs is the tricky part and that's less than 10 feet. After that, it's the same as before (but with a good landing spot).
Since I'm asked, I say NO BOLT, although recognize it's EFR's prerogative as first ascent.

In a world where climate change is - indeed - a reality, and we climbers are nature oriented, I really like the idea of a NEW TREE. But not on the landing zone, perhaps a bit to the side (shade for the belayer).
Whoever takes care of this (eMurdock, Eric D, Andy, me?) please go native.


FLAG
By 1Eric Rhicard
Dec 9, 2009
It is a good sized roof. Photo: Jimbo

I didn't say anything about a vote. And you tree planters have been smoking to much of something. That or you have never nearly had your colon visited by a manzanita. Interesting how tough you guys are on 5.10 and no pro but add a couple of numbers and then you want a bolt (David excepted) every 6 feet. The route has bolts every six feet now why should the start be any different. Looking for thoughts here not votes. Do I sound like a politician?


FLAG
By Jon Ruland
From Tucson, AZ
Dec 9, 2009
sending Hard Day at the Orifice

Eric Rhicard wrote:
The route has bolts every six feet now why should the start be any different. Looking for thoughts here not votes. Do I sound like a politician?


eric, this was my thought exactly. a spicy start completely changes the character of the climb and makes it inconsistent. it's always been a super-safe sport route, so why should the start be any different now that the tree is gone? of course it isn't "necessary", but if eric doesn't mind doing it i see no reason not to add a bolt.

i think it's really cool that he's willing to add a bolt to make a route safer for other people when he doesn't need it at all. out of curiosity, why do you guys not want a bolt added? so far several people have said no without giving a reason.


FLAG
By eMurdock
From Tucson, Arizona
Dec 10, 2009

Listen Rush, I mean my good friend Eric, just because there are bolts every 6 feet on the rest of the route does not mean they should start 6 feet off the ground. Without a new bolt 1) you can use a stick if you want, 2) you can boulder it out, or 3) wait for a new tree to grow and use that in 5 years. The change has provided more options now! EFR and Ruland want the route more consistent. I turn the question around. Why do you need that? Why cater to the weak (me included) and the neophytes? Henry Rollins writes about lifting, "When the Iron doesn't want to come off the mat, it's the kindest thing it can do for you. If it flew up and went through the ceiling, it wouldn't teach you anything."


FLAG
By Forest Hill
From Denver, CO
Dec 10, 2009
Forest on the first ascent

That'll teach you to go soliciting input instead of just acting unilaterally. Sadly, I never climbed the route before leaving AZ, so I have no input.


FLAG
By Jon Ruland
From Tucson, AZ
Dec 10, 2009
sending Hard Day at the Orifice

i see your points guys. i guess i simply see sport climbing differently than you guys do. if a sport climb has bolts every 6 feet then sure, lots of people can "get up" it who don't necessarily climb at the grade. however, i would argue that getting up it is far, far different from sending it, and to me that's what sport climbing is all about: the actual movement of climbing; being conditioned enough to hang on for the send; and having the mental fortitude to do the moves in the most efficient way possible and keep going even if you feel like your fingers aren't going to obey you.

i simply would rather not have safety decisions factor in when i tie in for a sport climb. though i respect the fact that you guys like the adventurous aspect of a spicy start, and i'd be happy with the climb with or without another bolt. adding a bolt would simply be my preference.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Dec 10, 2009

Eric,

I liked Flyways when I did it long ago.

Not kissing your a**, but knowing the passion and how much effort these things take, thanks for even asking.

In my opinion, you don't need my take on whether to put a bolt in or not. Do what you think is right and I'll still enjoy the route.

Maybe more importantly, along the lines of sport or game, was it really a "tree" or just a "bush?" To me, being nearly an AZ native, anything taller than the knees of a jackrabbit is a tree, or at least I've used them as such. Anything for shade . . .

Fred


FLAG
By ryan dillon
From Tucson, AZ.
Dec 10, 2009
guardian of owl rock

Eric,
If the tree was not there when the climb was put up originally, would Scott, Mike, or you have placed a bolt there?


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 2.  1  2   Next>   Last>>