Retro bolt Snake Dike

Spopepro O.wrote:

The term many of you are looking for is “Risk Compensation”—the phenomenon where people increase their exposure in response to safety measures. Be careful invoking it: there’s weak evidence both for and against it and no consensus. People really love the idea, but if it does exist, the effects aren’t universal or strong—you shouldn’t assume they would (or would not) apply here.
 

As for more bolts, I wonder what people see is the difference between it and say southern belle, which also had top level climbers saying it probably needs a few more bolts  

One is a trade route done by thousands of people without injuries over 50+ years and one is a fairly unknown super hard fright-fest close by?

Plus, as we have all seen recently, if you want to do it but aren't really anywhere close to ready to lead it just haul up enough rope to drop in and TR that fucker.

Never been up SD, partly because I’m too chicken for giant runouts. I have a question for those that have climbed it multiple times, however. Has friction on the route changed significantly over time? I’ve seen many very popular routes get noticeably slicker over time from all the traffic (often sloppy footwork thrown in, too).

There’s a route called Party in the Desert in J Tree with a ridiculously slippery opening move (not the crux), that only seems to get worse over time. I’ve never helped the situation by slipping off the move 4-5 times before getting past it. I was wondering if SD friction might suffer similar wear and tear from decades of traffic.

People solo Snake Hike in the moonlight whilst tripping.

How hard can it be?

I see no reason why climbers can’t clock the hours on low angle slab to feel comfortable on it as is. Climbers have made mistakes and paid dearly for them across the difficulty spectrum over the years. It’s the down side of the game.

The other reason to leave it alone, is that there are already lines at the base. Why dumb it down and cause more people to hike up there and get turned away?

S Saunderswrote:

Never been up SD, partly because I’m too chicken for giant runouts. I have a question for those that have climbed it multiple times, however. Has friction on the route changed significantly over time? I’ve seen many very popular routes get noticeably slicker over time from all the traffic (often sloppy footwork thrown in, too).

There’s a route called Party in the Desert in J Tree with a ridiculously slippery opening move (not the crux), that only seems to get worse over time. I’ve never helped the situation by slipping off the move 4-5 times before getting past it. I was wondering if SD friction might suffer similar wear and tear from decades of traffic.

Nope.  I climbed it nearly 33 years apart and it didn’t seep to get any slicker.  It’s a jug haul on the dike and the traverse into the dike is high friction rock.   

Tradibanwrote:

By adding them the climber is forced to choose their fate thus destroying the real challenge of the route.

I need some clarification. Are we not already choosing our fade every time we tie in? I genuinely don’t understand the point you make. We already decide when and where to place gear, what features to climb, etc. Many times I choose my fate by veering slightly off easy 5.7 terrain on to hard (5.8) terrain. Or by skipping a placement because I know it will cause drag. In what way is skipping a retro-bolt different?

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

I need some clarification. Are we not already choosing our fade every time we tie in? I genuinely don’t understand the point you make. We already decide when and where to place gear, what features to climb, etc. Many times I choose my fate by veering slightly off easy 5.7 terrain on to hard (5.8) terrain. Or by skipping a placement because I know it will cause drag. In what way is skipping a retro-bolt different?

Like I told James, I haven’t found the best way to articulate this in a way a sport climber would understand. Thus, I will try once again.

Everytime one is faced with a bolt they don’t agree with ethically they are forced to either break their code and clip or recklessly skip available pro. Ergo, it changes the experience and challenge of the route entirely.

When I did snake dike this last may, we only saw one other party, that ended up simuling through. While it is in an extraordinarily popular national park for climbing especially in may, to have the whole area to ourselves and briefly one other party, was a complete treat.
This route would no doubt be different in character and be more accessible with the addition of 5 more bolts. As climbing is becoming more popular (thanks obama), I think anything we can do to keep the integrity of the climb for historical purposes should outweigh making it “debatably safer” and more accessible. If this where a junk route on a lesser known formation than I would think otherwise. As it stands, this route will beckon climbers of every generation to attempt it, but should only be climbed by those with experience on run out slab friction. Everyone knows some 5.13 sport climbers that should stay away from this route. To open this climb up to more people, will only degrade it. If you want climbing to be safer, go put up some safely bolted first ascents, but let’s not change the character of a classic. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

I've come up with a practical solution I think we all can agree with. No retrobolting. Just pre-place 100-foot stick clips on every runout pitch of SD for the faint of heart. I'm sure Medusa would help build them.

You could just rapp in and hang XXXXLong "pre placed" draws on the anchors and bolts that have multiple clip in points. Clean as you climb. Lol. I hope someone does this just to prove a point. 

Pinjowrote:
This route would no doubt be different in character and be more accessible with the addition of 5 more bolts.

Different in character? Maybe. But does anyone seriously think that traffic will increase with the addition of 5 bolts in 800’ of predominantly 5.4 climbing? 

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

I need some clarification. Are we not already choosing our fade every time we tie in? I genuinely don’t understand the point you make. We already decide when and where to place gear, what features to climb, etc. Many times I choose my fate by veering slightly off easy 5.7 terrain on to hard (5.8) terrain. Or by skipping a placement because I know it will cause drag. In what way is skipping a retro-bolt different?

This is so obvious I don't even understand how anyone could not understand it... there is a huge difference between having a backup and deciding not using it vs not having a backup. Imagine someone demonstrating their ability to grab a venomous snake with or without antivenom nearby. The difference is commitment - you are only fully committed in one of those scenarios. Same deal with soloists and film crews dangling nearby

phylp phylpwrote:

Honestly when I read things like this it makes literally nauseous and glad that I'll be dead sooner than I will be climbing in a world with your vision of climbing.

burn

Marc801 Cwrote:

But does anyone seriously think that traffic will increase with the addition of 5 bolts in 800’ of predominantly 5.4 climbing? 

I do - though increased traffic is not the totality of  my thinking on the subject of this thread.

Pugnacious Slabwrote:

This is so obvious I don't even understand how anyone could not understand it... there is a huge difference between having a backup and deciding not using it vs not having a backup. Imagine someone demonstrating their ability to grab a venomous snake with or without antivenom nearby. The difference is commitment - you are only fully committed in one of those scenarios. Same deal with soloists and film crews dangling nearby

Theres no need to get bothered. I just don’t understand the arbitrary line you want to draw in the sand. There are many examples of people climbing past bolts they deem unnecessary for their experience. Free solers do it. As well as legends who took previously sport routes and climbed them on gear. If a climbers head space xant handle skipping the bolts that shouldnt be an issue for folks who stand by the FAs and want to add the opportunity to add some safety margin.

This idea that retrobolts have some magical quality that will spoil the fun, is fabricated and arbitrary from where I’m sitting. We all already choose how to keep ourselves safe on the stone. 4 new bolts wont change that. No one is forcing you to use them. No one is telling you they’ll see your ascent any different if you skip them or clip them. This is a construct in your head. Not in reality.

Every splitter crack can be sewn up or ran out. Every sport climb can be sewn up or ran out. Climbing, thankfully, will always be a choose your own adventure activity.

The fact that you think “this is so obvious” is evidence that you have not really actually tried to see the opposing POV. Its not obvious. Its super nuanced and individual. Some folks are happy to climb past bolts. Some folks, who maybe are parents want to do all they can to stay safe on the stone, would love to avoid 100’ run outs. Especially when the FA wants that too. 

Andy, your advocacy of looking at many POVs is in conflict with your POV: that adding bolts changes nothing for those who do not want them - admittedly my interpretation of your words.

In that sterile POV, someone can choose to skip a bolt they think unnecessary just as parents can stay safe and still have fun by skipping routes judged not within their capability. The sterile POV misses that a discussion of various POVs is needed first.

Someone (or another) will make a judgement call about adding bolts, hopefully after weighing the various POVs.

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

Theres no need to get bothered. I just don’t understand the arbitrary line you want to draw in the sand. There are many examples of people climbing past bolts they deem unnecessary for their experience. Free solers do it. As well as legends who took previously sport routes and climbed them on gear. If a climbers head space xant handle skipping the bolts that shouldnt be an issue for folks who stand by the FAs and want to add the opportunity to add some safety margin.

This idea that retrobolts have some magical quality that will spoil the fun, is fabricated and arbitrary from where I’m sitting. We all already choose how to keep ourselves safe on the stone. 4 new bolts wont change that. No one is forcing you to use them. No one is telling you they’ll see your ascent any different if you skip them or clip them. This is a construct in your head. Not in reality.

Every splitter crack can be sewn up or ran out. Every sport climb can be sewn up or ran out. Climbing, thankfully, will always be a choose your own adventure activity.

The fact that you think “this is so obvious” is evidence that you have not really actually tried to see the opposing POV. Its not obvious. Its super nuanced and individual. Some folks are happy to climb past bolts. Some folks, who maybe are parents want to do all they can to stay safe on the stone, would love to avoid 100’ run outs. Especially when the FA wants that too. 

Did you read what I wrote?

Part of “real” climbing is the mental challenge inherent to the climb. You can’t recreate that experience by skipping bolts, that’s just recklessness.

“Real” climbing. Discuss.

Bill Lawrywrote:

Andy, your advocacy of looking at many POVs is in conflict with your POV: that adding bolts changes nothing for those who do not want them - admittedly my interpretation of your words.

In that sterile POV, someone can choose to skip a bolt they think unnecessary just as parents can stay safe and still have fun by skipping routes judged not within their capability. The sterile POV misses that a discussion of various POVs is needed first.

Someone (or another) will make a judgement call about adding bolts, hopefully after weighing the various POVs.

Thats fair. I’m not arguing that it wont change the experience at all. Only that its all arbitrary line drawing. And that drawing the line that the FAs want is reasonable and worth considering. I dont think this “sterile” POV disregards other perspectives. I think it maintains the tradition of trad climbers choosing freely how they want to climb. We already make these decisions every time we climb.

I’m imaging being in camp no more bolts and being on route. I get to a bolt that I dont need because its 5.4 slab and I decide its not needed for me to proceed with the margin of safety I want. So I climb on by and leave the draw on my loops.

I dont see whats far fetched. I see the arguement for leaving classics as classics. I see the arguement for more bolts could lead to more traffic. Though I think those are also either arbitrary lines or speculation. But I do not see the argument that added pro will water anything down. If you’re a hardman and want the hardman experience then climb it on 1/4” button heads 60’ apart. We all already do this arbitrary “i need this, I dont need that” process every time we climb. Our sport has never had a static tradition that must be upheld.  We have been evolving from the get go.

Tradibanwrote:

Everytime one is faced with a bolt they don’t agree with ethically they are forced to either break their code and clip or recklessly skip available pro. Ergo, it changes the experience and challenge of the route entirely.

I think there’s a case to be made that the current state of the route IS recklessly skipping available pro. 

Snake Dike is a great climb because of the runout nature of the climbing.   Let’s face it, that’s why it’s such a popular climb.  Subconsciously or consciously that’s why so many people line up to do it.   The climbing is just ok but ad the manageable risk and the fact it’s on the side of the most recognizable rock in the world and you got a great climb.   Ad bolts and people will still line up to do it but it won’t be for the same reasons.  

Conversations post bolts will be: “ yep I’ve done Snake Dike”.  Pre or post bolts?  Post bolts.   Hangs head in shame and walks away. 

Great work people! I think we're getting close to a consensus here.