OPEN DISCUSSION: Establishing a National Fixed Anchor Source

"minimum lifetime of 50 years"
does get my attention.

My guess is that minimum 60% of the routes being bolted now will not be climbed at all in 25 years. So why some national bolt source ought to be subsidizing the installation of hardware at higher price level for some remote alpine route or half-pitch squeeze job that's going to be climbed no more than twenty times in the next fivee years, and then not at all, does not make sense.

We have no idea what style of routes that anybody in 2067 will want to climb. Or what style of protection they will be using. Or if anybody will be climbing outdoors at all in 2067.

The expansion of indoor gym climbing is now only beginning.
The wide introduction of seriously interesting Virtual Reality body-movement games is only beginning.

The replacement of human bone by carbon-fiber rods for athletes looking for superior performance - (and then human skin by some active nano cloth?) is just gettting started.
Athletic climbers in 2067 might view our current 5.12 routes as a joke.

Maybe "protection" on multi-pitch routes in fifty years will be a jet-pack that activates automatically when you fall. Or maybe the only reason anybody in 2067 climbs outdoors is to experience real risk of death, so No protection then, only solo.

I'm not getting why someone developing a new route now ought to feel "morally obligated" to consider the needs of (non-existent?) climbers in 2067 who might not have the slightest interest in ever climbing my new route.

Ken

kenr wrote:"minimum lifetime of 50 years" does get my attention. My guess is that minimum 60% of the routes being bolted now will not be climbed at all in 25 years. So why some national bolt source ought to be subsidizing the installation of hardware at higher price level for some remote alpine route or half-pitch squeeze job that's going to be climbed no more than twenty times in the next fivee years, and then not at all, does not make sense. We have no idea what style of routes that anybody in 2067 will want to climb. Or what style of protection they will be using. Or if anybody will be climbing outdoors at all in 2067. The expansion of indoor gym climbing is now only beginning. The wide introduction of seriously interesting Virtual Reality body-movement games is only beginning. The replacement of human bone by carbon-fiber rods for athletes looking for superior performance - (and then human skin by some active nano cloth?) is just gettting started. Athletic climbers in 2067 might view our current 5.12 routes as a joke. Maybe "protection" on multi-pitch routes in fifty years will be a jet-pack that activates automatically when you fall. Or maybe the only reason anybody in 2067 climbs outdoors is to experience real risk of death, so No protection then, only solo. I'm not getting why someone developing a new route now ought to feel "morally obligated" to consider the needs of (non-existent?) climbers in 2067 who might not have the slightest interest in ever climbing my new route. Ken

So your argument is that because we dont know what the future holds, there is no reason why we should use quality, sustainable hardware today? That 50-year value came from EU structural engineering applications where structures are built to last a minimum of 50 years. Consider the bridges built in the early to mid 1900s. Many of them are still in use today. If the designers figured that by 2016 we would all be driving flying cars and thus the bridges would be useless, we would be paying for it today.

Back on track, we are already seeing hardware failures and a desperate need for replacement. Pretty much any carbon steel bolt placed in the 70s and 80s is in need of replacement at this point. Even stuff placed in the 90s and early 00s is in need of replacement in some areas. In some applications, we are not even getting a 10-year lifespan let alone 50. Consider the RRG. It's probably the largest sport climbing area in North America, but it's also only been as popular as it is for the last 10 years or so. None the less, a huge portion of the carbon steel bolts there are in need of replacement. One of the largest bolt replacement efforts in the USA is occurring at the RRG, with several thousand carbon steel bolts getting replaced. If the developers just used more carbon steel garbage, we'd be replacing them again in 10 years.

I dont know where you get the figure that a minimum of 60% of routes in existence wont be climbable in 25 years. The Nose is probably the most popular bigwall route in the world, it's been an established route for nearly 70 years and it's very much still climbable (less the gumbie trains) as are millions of other climbs well over 25 years old.

20 kN wrote:we are already seeing hardware failures and a desperate need for replacement.

Replacement of bolts on popular routes of proven long-term value is a great idea. My points were about current bolting of new sport routes of unproven value.

Don't we already have a USA national effort for replacement?

20 kN wrote:That 50-year value came from EU structural engineering applications where structures are built to last a minimum of 50 years. Consider the bridges built in the early to mid 1900s. Many of them are still in use today.

But here on MP we're talking about the rather interesting but unnecessary activity of outdoor rock climbing. Not about buildings and bridges which are fundamental shared structures of mainstream living and socially-productive working.

Outdoor climbing is fundamentally risky. Eliminating virtually all the risk in one component of that (protective hardware specifications) is not going to much change the assessment of overall risk.

Ken

50 years from now we will be running from gorillas riding horses.

From Greg Barnes: “A reasonable estimate for a good 1/2" bolt and hanger even at massive bulk discount is still closing in on $10/bolt (especially if you factor in a belay station for every 10 bolts or so), how much do FA folks using plated pay? How much are you willing to pay? “

My first new route was in The Domelands, Southern Sierra about 1977. In 1996 I moved to Las Vegas. It didn't take long to realize the new route potential of this place. I'm bolting in mostly a dry climate and I have anchors around locally which are 15 years old and they are still tight. The couple I've pulled for curiosity were not badly corroded. My working lifetime was 20 years. Now people want to spec 50 years....

Speaking to only compression sleeve bolts....

Nowadays I'll buy from Kevin Daniels at FixeUSA in quantities of 200 items or more; 200 hangers and 200 anchors to get his quantity discount. Sometimes these are shared out to friends who came in on the deal. At times private individuals have donated and I used the money to buy hardware.

Depending on what I'm doing I can go through maybe a hundred anchors in a season. That doesn't count anchor replacement.

Kevin asks roughly $2.00 for a plated hanger and $3.00 for stainless hanger. I'm far from being a “spooner” but 133 hangers instead of 200 hangers...well I could see doing that.

The big differential in cost are the stainless bolts which are approximately double what plated costs. Then if I convert to stainless do I add in the cost of stainless links and chains or use a stainless pigtail or stay with plated extensions.

As a group we should address how low can we get that cost and maintain standards while at the same time addressing the cost concerns of Jim Titt and other hardware distributors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like John Byrnes idea: “to establish a Nation-wide, non-profit source for fixed anchors where any climber can buy bolts, chains, quick-links, etc. at the lowest price possible, and the bolts will be matched to the environment in which they will be used.”

I'd pay a membership or a buy in to a co-op to realize cost benefits.

Greg Barnes idea: “done quietly through local climbing organizations may be better than a national clearing house” raises the idea in my mind of a vetting system (which could be good cause we know there are individuals out there with power drills who shouldn't be operating them) with“route approval” and perhaps favoritism. In my mind, it is along the lines of free speech. I may not like your POS “sandwich line” but I defend your right in establish it. It's kind of a knotty issue.

Greg's Barnes proposal: “If something like this got going, the very first thing it should do is an exchange program - FA folks send in their plated bolts and hangers, and get good stainless. The plated hangers get recycled (or sold to climbing gyms if any would take second hand hangers), the plated bolts recycled or sold to construction companies. We need to eliminate the temptation to use the old junk! “ is stellar. Could local climbing organizations commit to doing this or do we need a deep pockets sponsor?

As Kenr mention this is a rather frivolous activity in the big scheme, but having clipped into some really manky belay anchors and had to rap off them, I try to do the best piece of work I can do and afford.

kenr wrote: My points were about current bolting of new sport routes of unproven value.

Which is easy. If it's not worth bolting correctly, just dont bolt it. If it's of questionable value and you're not willing to put the money and work into doing it right, why do it at all? There is no shortage of routes around the USA in most areas, and so adding another route of questionable value with questionable material does not move us forward.

Don't we already have a USA national effort for replacement?

Not really, no. We have the ASCA, but they are only able to replace a minuscule percentage of bolts in need of replacement. Further, the ASCA is largely comprised of dedicated volunteers who go around fixing other people's work, not well-compensated employees. I assure you that busting their ass for little to no pay to fix someone else's work is not the highlight of their day. Further, the ASCA is a small organization ran largely by one person, not an international corporation with thousands of employees. The vast majority of bolting replacement work in the USA is done by an extremely limited number of generous local volunteers at local crags. The job involves an exceptional amount of work, it's risky and it's often extremely underappreciated. Many climbers just expect rebolting efforts to get done as if they are paying customers and the developers are paid employees. Choosing the correct material the first time around is far cheaper, easier and safer than replacing bolts over and over. No one is "responsible" for replacing bolts, just the same is no one is responsible for picking up trash along the freeway. It gets done because some people actually care and want to make the area a better place, not because it's someone's job. The main responsibility sits with the FA. S/he is responsible for doing it right the first time.

Outdoor climbing is fundamentally risky. Eliminating virtually all the risk in one component of that (protective hardware specifications) is not going to much change the assessment of overall risk.

Using the correct hardware isint entirely about eliminating risk. It's more about eliminating extra work in the future. Sure, we safely use carbon steel right next to the ocean if we wanted to replace the bolts every month, but who the hell wants to do that? As far as safety is concerned, using the correct material the first time around absolutely improves safety beyond the shadow of a doubt. There have been several hundred, if not thousands, of incidents of bolt failures. Dozens of those have resulted in death and hundreds have resulted in injury. While not every one of those was directly caused by improper material selection, some were.

jonathan knight wrote:Facilitating local, group buys might be a better approach if the manufacturer/distributors are willing to deal.

Seems like most areas have a local climbing organization which is involved in some aspect of anchor replacement/maintenance. Route developers hopefully are in contact with these folks and can take advantage of the area's best practices and potential group buys.

I think a national source is tough sledding. The anchor needs at Mickey's Beach is WAY different than the Gallatin Towers for example.

So, yeah JK, concur!

I've dismantled several hundred plated Rawl bolts in the last few years to swap cold shuts for commercial hangers, almost all of them were 20-30 years old and I have yet to see one that I had any concerns about whatsoever. In fact, quite a few of them looked like they just came out of the box. Now, these were all in Colorado, so less exposed to corrosion than many areas, but I would expect all of those same bolts to still be good 25 years from now. It would be interesting to see how stainless wedge bolts are working out as they cannot be torqued as much as carbon steel bolts, and the nuts would then loosen more easily. I'm sure our European counterparts have experience with this.

Brian in SLC wrote: Seems like most areas have a local climbing organization which is involved in some aspect of anchor replacement/maintenance. Route developers hopefully are in contact with these folks and can take advantage of the area's best practices and potential group buys.

True, but in order to get the best price from suppliers, you need to buy 10,000 units or more at a time. Most local groups and equippers are buying in the 100's, so the price is much higher.

But even more important is eliminating the cost of REBOLTING, which totally overshadows the original cost.

Brian in SLC wrote:I think a national source is tough sledding. The anchor needs at Mickey's Beach is WAY different than the Gallatin Towers for example.

The AF is considering creating an organization for this purpose. They would also match materials to the area being bolted. The idea is to get equippers to put in the right material the first time, so you subsidize their cost.

"Using the correct hardware isn't entirely about eliminating risk. It's more about eliminating extra work in the future."
---------------------------------
Anyone who has removed old hardware and retro bolted knows it's harder, more time consuming and never 100% successful to get the old part out and reuse the hole. Having had a career in construction, I understand it's best to "do it right" the first time.

What's the impediment to doing an installation at the current state of technology?
Simply put: lack of knowledge and money.

Why not look for a grant to fund a national source of hardware. A hedge fund could bankroll this in a heartbeat.

The other points I'm seeing on this thread no doubt have merit : public perception, land manger issues, wilderness issues, resource manager concerns (think NPS, BLM, Fish & Wildlife) yet those points shouldn't be offered as a rational for throttling the development of a national hardware resource.

Just like haters hate, people trespass, drivers speed/break traffic laws, mad "bolters" proliferate,and so forth; these behaviors continue regardless of whether state of the art hardware is installed or known short lifetime hardware is used.