Has Anyone Used these New Style Rawl Bolts?

These are 1/2" dia by 3 1/2" long Powers Rawl bolts bought on Tuesday.

What a surprise when I opened the box this evening! They are a little awkward to assemble. I wonder about the plastic end.

I like the looks of the blue cap on the end. Simple anti-spinning technology.

I've used them without a problem in Devils Head granite and Shelf Road limestone. They do seem to grab and tighten down quickly.

The blue cap on the end is to keep dust and grit out of the threads as you're placing the bolt.

Benjamin Chapman wrote:The blue cap on the end is to keep dust and grit out of the threads as you're placing the bolt.

Those aren't the same blue caps as you're probably used to. Rather than just filling in the space in the end of the wedge piece (to keep dust out...), the caps on these are a plastic nut, open at the end and larger than the wedge. I'm sure an engineer-type could explain it better than me how it works better than the old design.

I have placed a handful of them. Not sure about keeping the washer on the bolt. When you leave the washer on it is hard to keep the plastic cap on the end, because you only get about 1 thread holding it in place before tightening it. But if you are careful, it works just fine.

They are way easier to start hammering. The cone is smaller, so you can push it in about 1/4 before you start hammering. Allows you to work with one hand, because the bolt will stay in place without falling out. Then you can start hammering. Works really well on steep rock which you can barely keep yourself close enough to the rock. With the old ones I needed both hands to get the bolt started.

The bolt is a larger head. You need a 5/8 socket. I was not happy when I pulled out the 9/16 socket and realized it did not fit.

My understanding is they are better for standing up to earthquakes in construction use. The bolt is a higher grade. The specs show it as stronger than the old ones.

You need a 5/8 socket. I was not happy when I pulled out the 9/16 socket and realized it did not fit. /quote>

+1

I also liked how you tossed the washer. :)

These new bolts are a vast improvement over the older design. They drive much easier and I have yet to have problems with one tightening down. The new design seems to do a much better job of keeping dust and grit out of the threads. ClimbTech is a great source for these anchors.

I have placed about 10 of these new style Rawls now. I find I can get about 2 1/2 threads on the plastic and still get into a 1/2" dia. hole. I kept the washer on. Yep, 5/8 wrench. Good thing I checked before humping the load out to the crag.

Killis,

You gotta call Fasco in Vegas and see. When I got these late July the Fasco sales rep said Powers Rawl was undergoing re-organization. I installed in pristine granite at Courtright.

mountainproject.com/v/10832…

Ian Caldwell wrote:I have placed a handful of them. Not sure about keeping the washer on the bolt. When you leave the washer on it is hard to keep the plastic cap on the end, because you only get about 1 thread holding it in place before tightening it.

Are you using a 1/2" hanger (assuming a 1/2" bolt)? If not, switch, it will improve the situation as the hanger wont take up thread space.

Never had any trouble placing the older style 1/2 inch powers bolts. When I've removed them, the old style sleeves came out pretty easily.

Will the new design be harder to remove when they need to be replaced someday?
Anybody tried taking these out???

Will the plastic sleeve in the center of the hole be a problem? After removing the initial steel sleeve and the plastic sleeve, will it be a pain to remove the expansion sleeve (buried near the bottom of the hole)?

That isn´t a Wave Bolt, it´s one of mine (Bolt Products). It hasn´t failed, this picture is at a load of 5660lbs (ca 25kN) which is the requirement. The tester failed to extract or break the bolt.
We do not recommend sinking the bolt eye and it makes no difference to the strength, as you can see clearly the rock has failed first and at this load this occurs with all bolt types.

What about countersinking to reduce the visual impact and the chance of the biner unclipping its self? Obviously over countersinking would be bad, making it harder to clip, and perhaps making the biner not set correctly and making it torque.

I would think slightly countersinking your bolts would help reduce the twisting action on the bolt, which with the thinner stock and shape might have an effect over time.

M Sprague wrote:What about countersinking to reduce the visual impact and the chance of the biner unclipping its self? Obviously over countersinking would be bad, making it harder to clip, and perhaps making the biner not set correctly and making it torque. I would think slightly countersinking your bolts would help reduce the twisting action on the bolt, which with the thinner stock and shape might have an effect over time.

The Glue Ins are MUCH lower impact visually than any hanger-based bolt. Countersinking would do very little to further reduce the visual impact. I don't counter-sink Bühler-Style bolts and they are damn hard to spot from the ground and even on route. I think some of this has to do with them not having flat surfaces to act as a reflective surface.

The Bühler Style (parallel leg) style bolts all have "Built In" resistance to torque. The Fixe/Petzl single leg ones are more of an issue. I'm sure Jim can comment on that more than I though!

Not sure about unclipping but I haven't seen any issues with unclipping. Certainly no more so than normal hangers.

M Sprague wrote:What about countersinking to reduce the visual impact and the chance of the biner unclipping its self? Obviously over countersinking would be bad, making it harder to clip, and perhaps making the biner not set correctly and making it torque. I would think slightly countersinking your bolts would help reduce the twisting action on the bolt, which with the thinner stock and shape might have an effect over time.

Countersink the bolt and the gate is more likely to rub on the rock and open.
You can twist the bolts further, they don´t mind (I could put another 360° twist in before they start to complain a bit!).
Countersinking has another downside, it makes it hard to cut them of and core drill them out if required and as I said, it doesn´t make the bolts any stronger, in fact in rock with a hard skin such as sandstone it is thought to make the placement weaker though personally I wouldn´t think it makes much difference at all either way.
For areas with really soft rock where cracking below the bolt is unsightly we make much bigger bolts up to 12mm single bar ones which pretty well eliminates the flexing you get with the thinner bolts.

David,

A ring bolt with a single round shaft doesn't have enough area keying into the glue. A rotational force on single shafted non countersunk bolt can break the glue bond. Jim Titts twisted rings key into the glue massively and you will twist up the ring and snap it before breaking the glue bond.

I recently spent 3 months travelling around the US. I can't believe more people don't spent the effort to put in glue-in bolts as they are pretty much set and forget. So many bolts that I clipped were way less than bomber.

David Quinn wrote:So Jim, you have found or do you feel that loads applied via a swinging fall, which would put a twisting torque on the bolt do not achieve any benefit from counter sinking either? that would be good to know. Do you think that this would apply to standard "no shoulder" eye bolts as well? We use mostly 1/2" x 4" no shoulder galvanized eye bolts which we have always counter sunk. Do you think it is better not to counter sink these types of bolts as well?

I´d countersink a standard eye bolt as normally there´s nothing really stopping them turning, `proper´single stem bolts are normally cut at 45° at the end to stop them turning so that would be the other way to go (there is a torque test for the UIAA Safety Label). The hassle with eye bolts with a round eye that aren´t sunk a bit is the rope tends to get jammed in the angle between the bolt eye and the rock, either when you want to go up or when you pull the rope down. The Fixe 10mm bolt has the same problem.

Back to the original topic... Here are a few pictures showing the differences between the new and old 3/8 powers bolt. Has anybody noticed that the actual bolt on the new style is much narrower than the old style? Also the expansion sleeve is much smaller on the new style, making these seem more like a wedge bolt than a full sleeve anchor.

According to the Powers (2013-2014) catalog, Part No: 6932SD (and all the PB+ bolts) are only available/offered carbon steel, not stainless steel. They should probably not be used for climbing purposes. (The "old style" Power-Bolt is available in carbon-steel and 304 Stainless.)

Kirk Miller wrote:Never had any trouble placing the older style 1/2 inch powers bolts. When I've removed them, the old style sleeves came out pretty easily. Will the new design be harder to remove when they need to be replaced someday? Anybody tried taking these out??? Will the plastic sleeve in the center of the hole be a problem? After removing the initial steel sleeve and the plastic sleeve, will it be a pain to remove the expansion sleeve (buried near the bottom of the hole)?

If someone is ever to encounter these in a replacement scenario...

I don't believe they'll be any harder unless they are maybe 4" or longer. I was accidentally shipped some of these from an online outdoor shop (read as, they advertise power bolt and ship the PB+; something I will follow-up with them on). I just wanted them for more practice removing 5-pieces with the c-clamp puller I built following Greg German's design.

Back on topic...since I'm on-call for my job this weekend I have time to kill. I placed one of these (3" length) in the test boulder on my porch and was able to remove all the components with a hook tool. The cone and plastic nut on the end actually came out by hand after I re-threaded the threaded bolt into them.

I doubt they'll be this easy to remove if you encounter them after any significant use or if they are corroded, but I think Gary Ballard's method of removal that has been improved upon by Greg German and ACE will still work. Longer models that would put the sleeve deeper than the depth your tap could reach may pose a problem.

One thing to note, the internal bolt is now 1/4" (still UNC threaded) instead of 5/16". So that's what the cone and stopper nut would take. You may also have to use a different size tap for the sleeve and spacer. I didn't try but a 3/8" tap might leave too little material to use the puller with.