(Climb the funky yellow corners on the right side of Upper Security Risk.) This route is amazing. Since it was retrobolted in 1994, it's a rare opportunity to climb a route that must have been damn scary to lead on trad gear. In fact even with bolts, the climbing is insecure and technical enough to get a little concerned, especially near the top as the pump kicks in and you have to step up onto a technical slab. Definitely harder than many of the newer 12a routes in the canyon, it has the quality of climbs such as The Ticket or Jolt Cola. Definitely a must-do route.
I agree with Peter on this one. Great route, tough throughout, solid for the grade. Also having never seen Peter Beal write so many sentences about a route, it must be a good one! (Just Kidding Peter)
This climb was much more impressive in its previous state as a "trad climb". To bad the climb has been taken down to a lower level where any 5.11 sport climber can dog from bolt to bolt. Bob D.
I think most 5.11 sport climbers would have a pretty hard time with this one. Does anyone know how Randy Leavitt did this one? I'm guessing it wasn't ground up.
I don't know how this route was worked originally, but I would say that it probably would not be climbed often if still a trad route. My understanding was the FA gave permission for the retro bolting. This must have been one hell of a lead on gear.......
Nate, way back in the day not every route was worked. Some people just took a rack of gear, look at a route and climbed it. With all the sport routes in and around the Front Range, I don't think this route had to be bolted just so the masses could or can climb it.Top-rope it! I think some routes (like Hot Flyer) should be left alone and stand not only to someone physical climbing prowness but also their mental prowness to do hard moves away from their last piece of protection. Bob.
The reason I asked how it was done is to find out if it was originally worked on TR, pro placed on TR, etc. There is a world of difference between true ground-up climbing and headpointing and plenty of so-called trad routes relied on these tactics without explicitly mentioning their use. In some ways I agree that the route should have been left unbolted but I doubt anyone would ever do it these days. In part this is because it isn't hard enough to attract the attention of most climbers who would want to take the risk. It would become a museum piece instead, looked at but rarely climbed. Again that could be a good thing but I have to say I prefer the hypocrisy of leading a once-scary route on bolts and admiring the skill of the FA to hassling over a TR setup for a single 12a pitch with a 30 minute uphill approach. Most people, myself included, wouldn't bother.
Peter, as I said before and this is only an opinion, the route should have been left the way the first ascent party climb the route. Randy was and still is a very talented climber.The guy climbs 5.13 trad and sport/ A5 and big walls. He is a well-rounded climber and was quite bold when he lived here in the early 80's. Take a look at "Limits of Power" 5.12b/c on Blob Rock. A first ascent he did in 1981. A extremely hard route done in excellent style at the time it was done. I don't know what you call hard but I think most climbers would call 5.11/5.12 moves a long way out from gear hard.I would hate to see a lot of the routes done in this style rebolted just so the masses can climb them. Bob
The problem with keeping a route like this in the original style is the FA party had a hammer and placed heads and a marginal pin or 2. So even though a very dangerous lead for the FA, the gear was adequate. But the climb only gets more dangerous for subsequent ascents over time as the fixed gear erodes.
A similar example is the style of the FA of Stratosphere and Air Voyage in the Black where Coyne and/or Leavitt placed marginal fixed gear (poor quarter inch bolts, heads, etc) with a hammer for the FA gear (and on rappel by the way). This is a style of FA that provides adequate pro for the FA team and really just sandbags future ascentionists.
Hot Flyer is a classic sport climb, and although I hate to see trad routes retrobolted, it seems to work in this instance.
I appreciate the value of a true hard trad climb, and hate to see these all retro bolted. I agree that marginal fixed gear (such as questionable pins and copperheads) makes for a daring lead for the FA, but is really silly and irresponsible for future climbers as this type of lead does not use soley clean gear. As such, adding bolts does not seem unreasonable. IF the FA had placed all gear on lead, without pins, then I would think differently. I know people are against seeing bolts added to old trad routes, but I hate nothing more than trying to lead a route that relies on pins, that were new and good 20 years ago, but are now crap. Fixed gear is fixed gear whether it is bolts or pitons.
Randy did pre-place two fixed copperheads on rappel and yes he did give the ok for the route to be bolted. He did not top-rope the climb before leading it and if you old timers remember cooperheads, they aren't the greatest for free-climbing protection. I think old hardware should be replace, I just don't think we need to add a substantial amount of new gear to make the route safe. Thanks for the imput on this route.
I have no problem with retrobolting if the 1st ascentionist gave his permission, although the bolt at the crux seems poorly positioned, but I heard a slightly different story. I heard that Randy wasn't asked but that when told it had been bolted he didn't want to make an issue of it. It's true that if it hadn't been retrobolted it wouldn't get as many ascents but so what? The people who would do the route, and there are those people around, would have a different experience than just ticking another .12a, they would probably feel the quality more intensely. Why should those who value that quality be deprived? If you want to toprope it it can be accessed via PLAN B, so that's not an absurd idea. I know somebody who doesn't know any better will trot out that old line about how you don't have to clip the bolts.....at the very least my experience has been that it's like seeing a movie and somebody who's seen it already is describing the plot out loud behind me. The annoyance factor spoils the show. Having a running monologue in your ear about the bolts and 'whether to clip it' and 'can you skip it' just isn't conducive to focussing on the climbing. There is a large number of routes around here that would have been excellent with a few bolts but are quite forgettable at their over-bolted lower standard.
This is the best route at the crag, but could have been better. **
My understanding of this situation is thus: Randy was asked if some bolts could be added to the climb to make it safer, and was agreeable in the matter. When later hearing just how many bolts were added he was/is somewhat dismayed.
Perhaps with a few less bolts it would still have a degree of commitment but still be safe, as opposed to yet another mindless clip-up of which there are plenty around.
AC - Your not the only one who feels that way. You should get your hands on a copy of "Me and the truth of Bolted Canyon," by M. Roly Poly, esq. A good read and history of route development in Boulder Canyon
Removing the bolts from this line is a terrible disservice to the climbing community. Hot Flyer was certainly a bold ascent by Randy, and re-equiping the line was a good contribution by Mark. The bolts are well placed.
The self righteous should be constructive, not destructive. Focus your energy on putting up new bold lines. You can write them up and then everyone will still know how hard core you are.
I just want to clarify that I do not favor bolting existing trad routes. I might even bust out the crowbar if I saw bolts on Arm's Bizarre. However, I agree with AC that the circumstances with Hot Flyer are different, and these bolts are not so disturbing. If Randy were to pull the bolts, I would be bummed, but that would be his right, and no one else's. I understand the debate and the fear of setting a precedant by not condoning this. However, pulling the bolts on this route is disservice to the entire climbing community. Peace.
So Willie if don't favor bolting trad-routes, why do you say that the retro- bolting of Hot Flyer was a great service to the climbing community? I am a little confused with your statement. Thanks, Bob D.
Willie, just to let you know where I am coming From: I tried to lead Hot Flyer back in 1982 with Pete O'Donovan and Alec Sharp and took a long fall onto a fixed copperhead. The route scare the shit out of me and I went away with my tail between my legs and a great respect for Randy ascent of this climb. Later that year I led Arm Bazaar with Chris Piesker following the route and with very little fanfare. Hot Flyer demanded more than I could give or was willing to put out. Arm Bazaar was a breeze compare to Hot Flyer! It is a shame that Hot Flyer was retro-bolted and has been bought down to it's current level. There a number of good bolted routes in the same area as Hot Flyer, that route should have been left in the state that Randy led it. The route can be easily top-roped. Thanks, Bob D.
After thinking about this overnight, I came to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter that much to me (personally), because I've already done it many times, and this is just another case of climber against climber over relatively trivial issues.
If Randy returned Hot Flyer to its pre-bolted state, I'd have a new objective to try. Although I doubt I'd ever have the mind to do it on lead, Steve's suggestion to top-rope the route is fair enough and something I could accept.
If someone else removes the bolts, I question their authority. If the person is not the first ascentionist, then they have no right to remove bolts unless they represent the greater intrests of the climbing community. To often, self-righteous individuals disregard the intrests of their community and destroy something valuable that many enjoyed. Bolt wars, the ice flows, .... etc. These acts are selfish and ego driven.
If the Boulder climbing community supported the pre-bolt Hot Flyer, I'd be OK with returning it to its original state. However, it is my opinion that this is not the case with Hot Flyer, and only a very few outspoken individuals are making this an issue and will do a disservice to the community by removing the bolts.
So when you say that only the FA-ist can remove bolts, you give permission for anyone else to place them, in effect... you see, if I go place them, they get to stay until the FA party returns under your rule.So when Fred Becky dies, can someone rebolt everything he ever did? Some day Chinard, Robbins, Ament, Erikson, etc... they will all be gone. Under this system of 'only the FA party can remove a bolt' you have to start with only the FA party can place one, or eventually anything can be bolted and never stripped.
Sometimes it is not about ideals, or even right and wrong, sometimes it is about gaging the probable end result. In this case, 'only the FA party can remove' is not acceptable.
I agree that the bolt protecting the crux at the lip of the roof is not in the best place.The bolt is placed such that the carabiner on the rope end of a short quickdraw rests against the lip of the roof. There's pretty big whipper potential here, especially once you commit to the insecure moves on the slab, and big falls could cross load the biner, open the gate, etc... if you use a short draw. Use a long (more than 6 inch) quickdraw here.
This route's kind of a sandbag at 11+, compared to similarly graded routes in the Canyon.
Upper Security Risk
RSS Feed
