My friend and I recently had a discussion about the crux(last) pitch of the third flatiron. The run out from the anvil-sling bothered him as the twenty or so feet afterward are the hardest moves on the climb. He suggested that it would be a good place to put a bolt, as there are many beginner climbers moving through the area, and it isn't a totally pristine location. I of course was shocked and dismayed at the idea. Put a NEW bolt on the third flatiron? That wouldn't honor the first ascensionist at all, there is no way the flatiron council would approve it, and WHY!? Its 5.4 at the most. Of course, a slip in that location would likely hurt a LOT, if not seriously injure the climber. The argument then goes that the climber should not be there in the first place. I know I'm just rambling, but what are your thoughts? Is there any way that this could, should, or would happen? Would you be up there the next day wielding a hack saw?

I agree with you Phil. No way it should have a bolt (regardless of the rating of the route). It's not really fair to say the bolt should not be there because it's "only" 5.4. Some people find those moves to be challenging and uncomfortable without the presence of pro. It's up to the individual to weigh the difficulty and available protection of a given route and make a decision about climbing it. The fact is it's an east facing flatirons route and the nature of these climbs is that they are runout. No doubt a fall here would be painful, perhaps dangerous.

In my opinion it would alter the character of the route which is a classic, historic, iconic one. Also, I don't think it would fly with the council, but it's certainly within anyone's rights to make the suggestion.

Thats true. I guess the point I was trying to make with the 5.4 comment was that if you are not comfortable on 5.4 you should weigh the risks before climbing a run-out flabby slatiron.

Bill (the man)Wright will explain the 3rd. So will his followers.I am one of them. HOLY COW!

It is a little funky, try the 1st in tennis shoes with no chalk, drunk and etc. etc.. Just bring your climbing shoes and you'll be fine

A Bolt appeared on the First Flatiron's Direct East Face a few years ago. Nobody hacked it out right away. It was removed by official processes, if I correctly recall.

I'd have no problem with a few more bolts on the standard route. On the first pitch is what springs to my mind. I don't remember anything horrible about the last pitch, but it has been a while. Most anyone who would care solos the route anyways, what do they really care?

Anything should/would have to go through the approval process...good luck with that one.

I was under the impression the 3rd was "trade" free solo since the beginning of the previous century.

Save a bolt get some balls!

guess I just like my ankles. the bolts on the first pitch are too high for my taste. I'll probably climb this again, but I wouldn't cry over one or two more bolts on the first pitch. so many more things to get worked up about besides bolts. oh god I said it.

but what is the point of this thread?...it isn't going to happen.

so, just to get this straight, if an ambitious/naive newcomer, or a "casual mountaineer" with little technical experience decides to climb this route on a visit to the nexus (boulder) of a climbing Mecca (CO), and slips on the runout (a real possibility for said climber due to nerves), injures themselves badly... it's their fault?

I know.... first it's a 5.4 classic, next they'll be grid bolting the diamond for people who want something morethan the keyhole. Right. I have a hard time buying into the "slippery slope" argument given y'all have a committee overseeing where you can put a bolt. On the other hand, i guess the occasional bad press ("Iowan rock climber near death after raking 50 feet down 3rd flatiron") keeps the ethics intact and crowds at bay. Maybe.

I think that the route already has bolts on it, and one more wouldn't ruin the appearence. Who are you all kidding, the third has "CU" painted on it, really folks? I realize that it can be done in fused wheeled roller skates, tennis shoes, and drunk, but keep in mind this is not a secluded environment where one can go and escape civilization. This is not a refuge from the common place so that one can experience nature at its finest. This is a place where guys get high at the first belay, drink and toss there beer bottles, and families walk their dogs.

I am not saying that this route needs to be turned into a sport route but let's face it, if it was supposed to be hardcore and only free soled, it would not have all the belay rings on it. I'm just playing out that arguement that if your going to have any bolts on the route, they might as well be in the dangerous spot.

By the way, J. Thompson, this route is not free soloed more than it is climbed.

....what have I created?

The existing six bolts need to be upgraded-they need to be bigger!

The First and Third Flatirons are already over-bolted. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but, honestly, there is no need for additional bolts on ANY pitch of the First and Third Flatirons.

I agree that the last pitch of the Third Flatiron is sparsely protected. When I led that pitch for the first time(1998-1999), I found it challenging and spicey. Yet, it was part of the learning process and growth - a bit of runout climbing makes one mentally stronger. A bolt on that pitch would ruin it for everyone else and take the excitement away.

Let the pitch remain as it is. Take a deep breath, place good gear, run-it-out, and revel in your victory.

Thats a good point shane...sometimes I like to intentionally not clip in pro just for the RUSH. Its also fun to smash your cams till they are cracked...Feel the adreneline as you wonder if they will hold or not!

If that pitch was a dangerous as you suppose we'd see a lot of accidents up there. I don't think there have been many, if any.

Mal

Again, feeding the fire, a significant portion of the deaths on the flatirons don't reveal the location of the fall. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they could have occured at where most people would call the crux.

The Makers is just now hitting the Mark...

IT should be a cultural/social pattern of rock climbers that anyone who ever sue's anyone/anything because they fell while climbing, be the sued person a guidebook author, the Park Service, any other park service, or the guy who recomended the climb, gets his/her ass kicked everytime they appear at any crag.
This sport is dangerous. Thats why its a thrill. Thats why you get more from a redpoint than a free-throw. Its dangerous. Some of it is less so than other bits, but it should be in our culture to protect the fact that.
Complaining that you hurt yourself (or died) after falling off a rock climb is like an NBA player complaining to the floor manufacturer after twisting his ankle. That risk is an inherit part of the game.

If your equipment fails under loads far less than it claims, ie your cam comes apart at body weight and not 15 kn as its advertised, you have a right to throw a fit in the courts. However, if you went out and did a climb and it didn't have the protection you needed, thats your fault.

BTW, i just spent 5 months trying to recover from a spring accident. I didn't, and then had surgery to fid what happened in the accident. I'm in pain as i speak... should I really sue Ron Olevsky, Metolius, Wild Country, and the BLM cus I fell on a wingate tower?
NO.

I'm not reading this thing back to myself... I'll just see what happens.

Lightning,
I agree with you entirely about lawsuits, however, I don't think the issue is sueing people. I'm pretty sure the flatirons are not personal property and therefore not liable for an accidents. The question (in my mind) is if a bolt protecting a dangerous segment disrupts the appearence of the route. I just don't personally think i'd be all that upset by one considering how many are already on the climb and that it is an unprotectable 30'. Consider a fall from there would likely result in you dangling in the gorge between the far left false summit and the true summit slope. I understand preserving the route, but I just see it doing more good than harm.

John... saw some mention of lawsuit so I went that way. I'll try and address what you are saying here.

My feeling is that the first ascentionist has a right to claim how a route should be... he/she has that little bit of ownership. He/she may take a look at a route after 20 years and say"You know, that was stupid to have put that up like that... I'll let someone change it if they want", but it his the first ascentionists right. I like the fact that we are tied to our forefathers that way and that we are tied to our descendents in this sport that way.
My opinion... you can change it cus the first ascentionist says "I would hav placed a bolt there if I had one", but if he felt that the boldness of that day was what was captured in the safety level of the route, then we have to live with it.
The Bachar Yerian may be the most fun, technical climbing int he world, but I'll never knwo cus the first ascentionists set it with a certain degree of risk... my loss, but I live with it.

Again, makers mark and Cowboys/Giants... so I may be off the mark... no pun intended.