The Bolting End-Game

Morgan Patterson wrote:304/316 vs 304L/316L.. Sorry if this was covered already. L varient has less carbon and thus less corrosion potential?

No, the lower carbon content makes it easier to weld without the weld becoming a starting point for corrosion.

Morgan Patterson wrote:UIAA report indicates that 316L should be standard for any outdoor application... what's the likely hood they come back and find even this isn't appropriate? Is the next step a 317L?

The UIAA specifies "316(L)" indicating that the L is optional. Most mechanical bolts do not have any welding on them but glue-ins often do. The next step would be 904(L).

Morgan Patterson wrote:Also hoping to get some clarification on the magnesium parts of this... We actively are bolting within 10mi of the sea and are doing so in basalt which is very high in iron and magnesium and most bolts are exposed to rain. I believe the point was the magnesium chloride but I'd like to know if something like a basalt is also on the 'be very concerned' list.

I agree with Jeff. However, I've heard that 20kN has some data about basalt that is not near the coast. I'll PM him and point him here.

Morgan Patterson wrote:304/316 vs 304L/316L.. Sorry if this was covered already. L varient has less carbon and thus less corrosion potential? UIAA report indicates that 316L should be standard for any outdoor application... what's the likely hood they come back and find even this isn't appropriate? Is the next step a 317L? Also hoping to get some clarification on the magnesium parts of this... We actively are bolting within 10mi of the sea and are doing so in basalt which is very high in iron and magnesium and most bolts are exposed to rain. I believe the point was the magnesium chloride but I'd like to know if something like a basalt is also on the 'be very concerned' list.

We have basalt in Hawaii (big surprise), and we have experienced several cases of SCC, pitting and crevice corrosion. However, these incidents have only occurred on coastal cliffs. The two cliffs where they occurred with greatest frequency are less than 2000' from the ocean. One is only about 400' from the ocean.

We have a few inland basalt cliffs, but dont have much data on SCC on them because they are relatively new and thus we used titanium from the start. I can think of two inland cliffs that do not have titanium. We used 1/2" 304 Power Bolts with 316 hangers, and at those two cliffs the bolts are perfectly fine even after five years. That said, the exact same setup (1/2" Power bolt, 316 hanger) also has worked for us at the coastal cliffs as well (at least with a limited lifespan of 10 years).

I couldn't tell you if it will work or not. I would say if it's high in iron it might not be a bad idea to use titanium. The problem with iron is when it falls on stainless steel, it can compromise the passive layer on the SS and generate localized corrosion. This is easily visible if you take a chunk of rusted carbon steel, set it on top of stainless steel, and put both items outside for a few weeks. Eventually the rusted carbon steel will start attacking the stainless steel.

But then again, the rock in the RRG has a lot of iron in it in sections (as does the New I believe) and they used carbon steel there for the longest time. The only way to know for sure is to try. Place a few 304 bolts here and there in less-critical areas and see how it works out.

Morgan Patterson wrote: UIAA report indicates that 316L should be standard for any outdoor application... what's the likely hood they come back and find even this isn't appropriate? Is the next step a 317L?

317 offers better general corrosion resistance than 316, but I think its resistance to SCC is similar. After that there is 2205 or 904 as John mentioned. Then above that there are high MO versions of 2205, which can have 6%Mo, and above that there are a number of other exotic HCR metals, but they are all far more expensive than titanium.

Morgan Patterson wrote:304/316 vs 304L/316L.. Sorry if this was covered already. L varient has less carbon and thus less corrosion potential? UIAA report indicates that 316L should be standard for any outdoor application... what's the likely hood they come back and find even this isn't appropriate? Is the next step a 317L? Also hoping to get some clarification on the magnesium parts of this... We actively are bolting within 10mi of the sea and are doing so in basalt which is very high in iron and magnesium and most bolts are exposed to rain. I believe the point was the magnesium chloride but I'd like to know if something like a basalt is also on the 'be very concerned' list.

The L is relevant to welding applications but otherwise doesn´t make a huge difference, it is slightly more corrosion resistant however. There are two different standard numbers. 316 and 316L or for us Euros 1.4401 and 1.4404 but since the requirements for 1.4404 (316L) also covers 1.4401 it generally comes dual certified, all mine does.

Thank you all very much for the information...

So I guess my next question would come down to if we cant afford Ti... would a gluein 1/2" hot dipped galvanized eyebolt (very beefy) be better than a 3/8" 5 piece 306 bolt since there's minimal contact with the rock? Or is the Wave bolt the way to go because it's 316, even though it has many contact points with the rock?

Morgan Patterson wrote:Thank you all very much for the information... So I guess my next question would come down to if we cant afford Ti... would a gluein 1/2" hot dipped galvanized eyebolt (very beefy) be better than a 3/8" 5 piece 306 bolt since there's minimal contact with the rock? Or is the Wave bolt the way to go because it's 316, even though it has many contact points with the rock?

There are issues with Plated bolts. Jim has pictures posted on here somewhere of the Plating washing down the rock and causing awful stains (actually the metal runoff kills the algae etc and white washes the stone). It looks terrible.

I've concluded, based on costs, longevity etc that I use either a Hitli KB3 in 316 or a 316 Glue In. Once you start looking at SS Powers or Legacy bolts you may as well go Ti Glue In as the costs are damn close. Obviously SCC pushes you to Ti as well. On a case by case basis using a SS Powers or Legacy could be the best choice if there's a large probability of wear/tear on the bolt (crux bolt, hauling on walls etc). In cases where physical abuse will cause failure before corrosion, an easily replaceable option should be considered. The more permanent wedge and glue ins are perfectly fine, in my opinion, for low use bolts (slabs, non-sport bolts etc).

Morgan Patterson wrote:Thank you all very much for the information... So I guess my next question would come down to if we cant afford Ti... would a gluein 1/2" hot dipped galvanized eyebolt (very beefy) be better than a 3/8" 5 piece 306 bolt since there's minimal contact with the rock? Or is the Wave bolt the way to go because it's 316, even though it has many contact points with the rock?

As Mattm said, putting in Ti costs about the same as fancy stainless bolts, and afterwards you can be certain it was done right.

John Byrnes wrote: As Mattm said, putting in Ti costs about the same as fancy stainless bolts...

Not really... Ti is more than twice as expensive:

1/2" Eye Blot ~ $2.90 (Industrial Supply)
304 Powers + Hanger ~ $6.25 (Fixe Sale Page)
316 Wave ~ $7.65 (CTech)
Ti Bolt ~ $15.20 (Titan Climbing)

Glueys above inlcude $1.40 per bolt for glue (given 1 Tube is $14 =~ 10 bolts).

Powers + Hangers are significantly easier replace than any gluey. And waves while comparable price wise don't make sense if as in our area they might be subject to choppers and hammer smashing.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Not really... Ti is more than twice as expensive: 1/2" Eye Blot ~ $2.90 (Industrial Supply) 304 Powers + Hanger ~ $6.25 (Fixe Sale Page) 316 Wave ~ $7.65 (CTech) Ti Bolt ~ $15.20 (Titan Climbing) Glueys above inlcude $1.40 per bolt for glue (given 1 Tube is $14 =~ 10 bolts). Powers + Hangers are significantly easier replace than any gluey. And waves while comparable price wise don't make sense if as in our area they might be subject to choppers and hammer smashing.

The titanium U bolts are $10 - 12 depending on length.

titanclimbing.com/Titan%20C…

I wouldent use eye bolts for hangers. That should not even be an option unless they are being used as rap hangers for the anchor.

20 kN wrote: The titanium U bolts are $10 - 12 depending on length. titanclimbing.com/Titan%20C… I wouldent use eye bolts for hangers. That should not even be an option unless they are being used as rap hangers for the anchor.

Still about 40% more expensive than SS... and then you're doing twice as much alteration to the rock per bolt so I'm not a fan of that approach.

And what's wrong with the eye bolt? They've been used successfully without any incident at Rumney for decades. Countersunk properly they are the most bomber thing you see on most cliffs IMO. Sprague prob has the most experience with them...

I don't think it's 100% apples to apples to compare a 304SS 3/8" x2.25" or 3.5" 5 piece to a 12mm x 80mm Ti Buhler bolt and say one is 40% more. The places where such a short and thin 5 piece are appropriate are much more limited than the Ti bolt. You need hard rock and low usage (no hauling or crux lobs) for the shorty. Many rebolting crews are only using 1/2" 5 pieces because of known issues with the 3/8" being finicky etc

Comparing a 1/2" SS 5 piece plus hanger to the equivalent Ti bolt is much more reasonable (even though we're still limited to 304). There the cost difference is much less and not unlike how Apple prices its products, one is very tempted to just get the next model up (Ti) and be done with it.

The 3/8 SS 5 piece still has its uses (hand drill replacement etc) but for me it's a specialty item. While some hate the idea of wedges I still think 316SS KB3 are the best low cost option ( I think Squamish Access Society thinks so as well). Then Jims 316 option at $3 is awesome. 1/2 5 Pieces where needed then Ti when the SCC rears its head. It's a valid argument that 5 pieces are less work than glue ins which I understand but when Jims bolt is $3 and the similar but 304 5 piece is $10 I'll opt for Jims most of the time

Morgan Patterson wrote: Countersunk properly they are the most bomber thing you see on most cliffs IMO. Sprague prob has the most experience with them...

For one, they are not stainless, which goes against the entire purpose of this thread. Galvanized will last longer than carbon steel in most environments, but they can leave streaks on the rock and once the galvanized layer wears off, then they are just plain old carbon steel eyes. But more to the point, clipping a carabiner to a fat eye bolt and taking a whip on said biner/ draw can compromise the strength of the biner. Biners are designed to be loaded as close to the spine as possible, which is easily obtained when clipping a 3mm-wide piece of metal (e.g. hanger). However, when you're clipping an eye bolt that is made from 5/8" or 1/2" stock, the load is going to be placed much further from the spine, especially so with micro biners that have a very aggressive taper at the bottom of the biner.

Good point about the wide stock of an Eye Bolt loading carabiners weird. The waves and Titt bolt truly have the best shapes for draws IMO. Might as well go with SS if you are going to go to the trouble of placing glue-ins.

20 kN wrote: For one, they are not stainless, which goes against the entire purpose of this thread. Galvanized will last longer than carbon steel in most environments, but they can leave streaks on the rock and once the galvanized layer wears off, then they are just plain old carbon steel eyes. But more to the point, clipping a carabiner to a fat eye bolt and taking a whip on said biner/ draw can compromise the strength of the biner. Biners are designed to be loaded as close to the spine as possible, which is easily obtained when clipping a 3mm-wide piece of metal (e.g. hanger). However, when you're clipping an eye bolt that is made from 5/8" or 1/2" stock, the load is going to be placed much further from the spine, especially so with micro biners that have a very aggressive taper at the bottom of the biner.

No I get the whole point on the SS, sorta playing devil's advocate here. And you def bring up an interesting concept however I'm inclined to believe this isn't really an issue, in theory maybe but not in reality. I say this because these fat bolts have been around for decades at Rumney and if this was even a remote problem there would be significant incidents of damaged/broken carabiners, which to my knowledge they're aren't and Rumney is one of the most popular climbing areas on the East Coast.

I don't think the 1/2" heavy galvanized eyebolts are a problem shape-wise, though maybe it would be if you are using some sort of micro biner (which is in my view a problem of the biner) We used these bolts originally when there wasn't a reasonably priced SS glue-in readily available that we liked. So far we haven't had a problem that I know of besides an anchor that was put in in unseasonably dry weather that turned out to be in a very wet spot that is encased in ice most of the winter that got heavily corroded. All the others worked very well to my knowledge and haven't rusted or created streaks on the rock (schist) in 15 years. It remains to be seen how they continue to hold up. We have gone over to using the Wave bolts primarily now at Rumney and I have been thinking to start using them more even in NH granite, where I currently tend to use 1/2" SS 5 pc bolts, though I am still not 100% completely sold on them. For one thing, the selling point of being under tension and having some holding power even without the epoxy makes me wonder what the tension does to effect the ultimate corrosion resistance. The fact that they look like coat hangers, especially after being used to the countersunk 1/2" ones, makes me wonder how flexing will effect the epoxy over time too.

If not hand drilling, I would move up to 1/2" if using the SS 5 pc. The just seem to be a lot less finicky and have less tendency to loosen. I wish they made them in higher grade SS.

M Sprague wrote: The fact that they look like coat hangers makes me wonder how flexing will effect the epoxy over time too.

Jim addresses this on his site in the cyclic testing section.

Jim Testing

I think he also discusses using the larger 8mm bolt in certain areas where tons of flexing might be an issue.

kennoyce wrote: Seriously, I've been thinking of doing the same thing. Basically becoming the distributor without making any profit on it.

If someone did that, it would be amazing. I'm curious if a climbing store would consider it... I know most of the developers I know are considering moving to SS glue in bolts now, so I think the demand for Jim's bolts would go up sharply if they were available more locally.

Micah Klesick wrote: If someone did that, it would be amazing. I'm curious if a climbing store would consider it... I know most of the developers I know are considering moving to SS glue in bolts now, so I think the demand for Jim's bolts would go up sharply if they were available more locally.

I wonder if a "group buy" test run would garner interest. I'd be willing to help organize. PM me if interested.

John Byrnes wrote: Yes, yes, yes. You've stated the problem perfectly. The goal is to create a non-profit organization, perhaps modeled after the ASCA, that can provide 316 expansion bolts to route developers at the same cost as plated-steel. (The ASCA only provides bolts to people replacing old corroding bolts.)

Maybe glue ins too for those that are into them?

bus driver wrote: Maybe glue ins too for those that are into them?

Maybe. Right now only Ti glue-ins would be provided for high-corrosion areas such as coastal California, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are being considered.

mattm wrote: I wonder if a "group buy" test run would garner interest. I'd be willing to help organize. PM me if interested.

It might not result in quite as low a cost but a group buy company like massdrop could also be an option and not require one individual to take on the organization and upfront cost.

I created a poll ( dro.ps/v/gBrjMiE). If enough people show interest by voting, they will normal contact the manufacture and set up the sale.