Polished Rock

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

I know that everytime I take the time to brush all the holds, the rock feels like real rock, and not polished, chalk caked rock. Every time. There are certain crags with smooth stone, like Left Flank and Military. Climbers didn't polish those climbs, the rock on those walls are just low friction. Brush at 95% of the crags in the Red and you will find a well protected piece of rock that is fun to climb on and is still full of friction.

I'd argue rubber is a more difficult thing to get out with a brush, and likely the cause of most polish. I'd need some science to back up the claim that climbers chalk could contribute to the damage more than it protects the surfaces it's coating.

You are talking about the RRG sandstone, which doesn’t get polished, the way limestone does. Sandstone gets ground down, while retaining the “sandy” texture. 

Lena chitawrote:

You are talking about the RRG sandstone, which doesn’t get polished, the way limestone does. Sandstone gets ground down, while retaining the “sandy” texture. 

Indeed.

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

Indeed.

But even at the Red the chalk is not “protective”, and holds get ground down over time. Loompa has a bunch of big open incut sidepull handholds that nobody steps on, because it’s a sdepull. And yet those sidepulls are a lot less textured now than they were when the routes first went up. The little ridges are smoothed out.

Less quickly that the feet, but it still happens. It just doesn’t affect the grade as much, because it is still a giant sidepull, and you aren’t going to grind it into non existence. 

Lena chitawrote:

But even at the Red the chalk is not “protective”, and holds get ground down over time. Loompa has a bunch of big open incut sidepull handholds that nobody steps on, because it’s a sdepull. And yet those sidepulls are a lot less textured now than they were when the routes first went up. The little ridges are smoothed out.

Less quickly that the feet, but it still happens. 

I still would need some proof. I don't think chalk contributes to the destruction of a significantly stronger surface. Our fingers will do some work, but unless someone has some actual data from tests, I will forever be convinced that chalk protects both the skin and the rock it acts as a buffer between. Everyone claiming that chalk accelerates the loss of surface texture is just assuming it does, just like I'm assuming it certainly doesn't. 

Lena chitawrote:

You are talking about the RRG sandstone, which doesn’t get polished, the way limestone does. Sandstone gets ground down, while retaining the “sandy” texture. 

Lol this is not true for all sandstone. You could travel just to the east of the Red to the New to see this. Nuttall sandstone is somewhere between 93-98% quartz. Quartz doesn’t get ground down to a “sandy” texture. It polishes. 

It'd be interesting to see what a scrubdown with diluted vinegar (or a commercial version like Elephant Snot graffiti remover) would do to a particularly greasy crag - at most spots, I suspect that it'd remove a good portion of what climbers think of as polish - there's a distinct difference between a caked-on mixture of chalk and skin-oil and a polished hold with all its underlying texture removed. Those glassy footholds are clearly in the latter category, unfortunately, but that classic resting jug that looks like it's coated in plaster probably has some remaining texture underneath. Think about what happens after the climbing gym washes their holds.

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

I know that everytime I take the time to brush all the holds, the rock feels like real rock, and not polished, chalk caked rock. Every time. There are certain crags with smooth stone, like Left Flank and Military. Climbers didn't polish those climbs, the rock on those walls are just low friction. Brush at 95% of the crags in the Red and you will find a well protected piece of rock that is fun to climb on and is still full of friction.

I'd argue rubber is a more difficult thing to get out with a brush, and likely the cause of most polish. I'd need some science to back up the claim that climbers chalk could contribute to the damage more than it protects the surfaces it's coating.

Matthew, do you use chalk to decrease friction of the holds? My guess is not. You are aware that the largest factor for weathering and erosion is friction right? This is a large reason as to why foot holds tend to become more smooth (read: slippery) over time when compared to hand holds. Rubber provides more friction than chalk.  You do not need empirical data to understand this phenomenon. Ask anyone who climbed Great White Behemeth six or seven years ago and they will attest to just how rapidly chalk and shoe rubber can turn great holds into glass ones. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Lol this is not true for all sandstone. You could travel just to the east of the Red to the New to see this. Nuttall sandstone is somewhere between 93-98% quartz. Quartz doesn’t get ground down to a “sandy” texture. It polishes. 

I agree. I was responding specifically to Jaggers, who asserts that chalk doesn’t contribute to polishing, and is citing RRG examples. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Matthew, do you use chalk to decrease friction of the holds? My guess is not. You are aware that the largest factor for weathering and erosion is friction right? This is a large reason as to why foot holds tend to become more smooth (read: slippery) over time when compared to hand holds. Rubber provides more friction than chalk.  You do not need empirical data to understand this phenomenon. Ask anyone who climbed Great White Behemeth six or seven years ago and they will attest to just how rapidly chalk and shoe rubber can turn great holds into glass ones. 

That's not data, it's just your assumption that chalk is playing a role, when it very likely is not. And added friction because my hands go from sweaty to dry is not the same as if I added sand paper gloves to my rack. 

I agree with @MattH. Some, if not most of the "polish" people think of is likely just grease and grime. Clean it and start fresh, and then judge it. Again, talking southern sandstone, and my experience with highly textured granite would be even less likely for chalk to impact it at all. Never climbed on limestone. 

MattHwrote:

It'd be interesting to see what a scrubdown with diluted vinegar (or a commercial version like Elephant Snot graffiti remover) would do to a particularly greasy crag - at most spots, I suspect that it'd remove a good portion of what climbers think of as polish - there's a distinct difference between a caked-on mixture of chalk and skin-oil and a polished hold with all its underlying texture removed. Those glassy footholds are clearly in the latter category, unfortunately, but that classic resting jug that looks like it's coated in plaster probably has some remaining texture underneath. Think about what happens after the climbing gym washes their holds.

I agree with most of what you said, but I wouldn’t compare rock to plastic. You clearly haven’t climbed at any old school gyms in the south or any old holds in general lol some of them make the holds in the Red on an August day feel like griptape

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

I agree with most of what you said, but I wouldn’t compare rock to plastic. You clearly haven’t climbed at any old school gyms in the south or any old holds in general lol some of them make the holds in the Red on an August day feel like griptape

I'm no stranger to textureless plastic, having gotten my start at an old school warehouse bouldering gym. Obviously gym holds lose their texture over time by the same polishing mechanism as real rock, though those old holds tended to be less grippy to start with - compare a new polyurethane to an old-style resin hold and the difference is night and day in terms of day 1 friction). However, a good power washing can clean caked-on gunk and spring new life into old holds >10x before that happens.

I thought climbers were chock full of engineers...

Anyways, for people who want to speculate with some real numbers. Quartz has a Moh's hardness of 7 while Calcium/Magnesium Carbonate is around 3. The Moh's scale is known to not be that linear, so we cant say a quartz matrix in rock is twice as hard or "scratchable" as whatever chalk we use. Even if it was though, chalk physically cant wear down most rock types. Granite, sandstone, etc all have much higher hardness, while Limestone is very low. Of course, considering that these rock types are actually complex matrixes of materials, you'd need a geological study to confirm the exact hardness scale or gradient on a particular rock type.

The numbers support what most people can see, which is that limestone becomes actual glass over time. If you've climbed warmp up routes in Euro crags or even hiked to one you can see that the rock physically changes. All the other comments about their local choss crag being super weird are pure speculation. Unless you've taken a non abrasive cleaner to your crag to see if there's a difference, you have no proof...of anything. Magnesium carbonate also doesnt dissolve in water, so you have a real issue where its impossible to discern whether holds simply have a layer of chalk/oil on them or if the actual texture has changed.

Just want to end this with being tired of seeing every dude on this forum spray "well you havent been to --insert forgettable crag here --". 

There are literally hundred studies though that provide “data” with the same exact mechanisms.

Name one lol

I'd love to see a study were scientists or engineers took two badly controlled compounds and surfaces, then extrapolated that data to cover outside edge cases. Probably made it all the way to Nature (print edition) 

Yuri Rodeawrote:

I thought climbers were chalk full of engineers...

Anyways, for people who want to speculate with some real numbers. Quartz has a Moh's hardness of 7 while Calcium/Magnesium Carbonate is around 3. The Moh's scale is known to not be that linear, so we cant say a quartz matrix in rock is twice as hard or "scratchable" as whatever chalk we use. Even if it was though, chalk physically cant wear down most rock types. Granite, sandstone, etc all have much higher hardness, while Limestone is very low. Of course, considering that these rock types are actually complex matrixes of materials, you'd need a geological study to confirm the exact hardness scale or gradient on a particular rock type.

You make some valid points, however your understanding of mineralogy and geology is a little off base. For example, just because something is not as hard doesn’t mean it “can’t” wear down rocks. One way of looking at this is thinking about how a pencil eraser can create grooves and smooth things much much “harder” than itself. You could also think of the grooves in rock formed by the repetition of the rope sliding against it from lowering. It also need to be pointed out that Moh’s hardness only applies to minerals and not rocks. Rocks are (typically) composed of many minerals of varying hardness. For example, Wingate sandstone is going to weather, wear and be scratched for more than Nuttall Sandstone due the varying mineral content amongst the two. So trying to use Moh‘s hardness scale to try to quantify a property, like durability, of a rock gets a little murky and isn’t really a fair to comparison especially when referring to rocks as broadly as all sandstone v. all limestone v. all granite. It should also be noted that chalk likely not the main culprit, but a factor nonetheless...albeit a very minute one. Climbing shoe rubber is likely a a larger culprit and would certainly score lower than a 7 on the Moh’s scale…

The numbers support what most people can see, which is that limestone becomes actual glass over time.

He’s never climbed on limestone…which may explain why he is so adamant against rock texture actually degrading over time due to climbers

Yuri Rodeawrote:

I thought climbers were chock full of engineers...

Anyways, for people who want to speculate with some real numbers. Quartz has a Moh's hardness of 7 while Calcium/Magnesium Carbonate is around 3. The Moh's scale is known to not be that linear, so we cant say a quartz matrix in rock is twice as hard or "scratchable" as whatever chalk we use. Even if it was though, chalk physically cant wear down most rock types. Granite, sandstone, etc all have much higher hardness, while Limestone is very low. Of course, considering that these rock types are actually complex matrixes of materials, you'd need a geological study to confirm the exact hardness scale or gradient on a particular rock type.

The numbers support what most people can see, which is that limestone becomes actual glass over time. If you've climbed warmp up routes in Euro crags or even hiked to one you can see that the rock physically changes. All the other comments about their local choss crag being super weird are pure speculation. Unless you've taken a non abrasive cleaner to your crag to see if there's a difference, you have no proof...of anything. Magnesium carbonate also doesnt dissolve in water, so you have a real issue where its impossible to discern whether holds simply have a layer of chalk/oil on them or if the actual texture has changed.

Just want to end this with being tired of seeing every dude on this forum spray "well you havent been to --insert forgettable crag here --". 

However! Magnesite (the mineral form of magnesium carbonate) is used commercially as a polishing material for granite.

I climbed in Europe ( primarily limestone for the purposes of this discussion) and North Wales ( volcanic rocks) long before chalk was being used there ( and very little here back then) and there was much incredibly polished rock even then ( late ‘60s). The prime ‘culprit’ had been decades of climbing in nailed boots, but in some of those locales, even back then, it was the result of too many climbers.

As others have mentioned, the most polished holds that I’ve encountered have been ones only or primarily used as footholds, so I don’t think that chalk had anything to do with those outcomes.

Jim Tittwrote:

However! Magnesite (the mineral form of magnesium carbonate) is used commercially as a polishing material for granite.

Jim, how is a super misleading statement about a rock hard stone helping in conversation about a soft, air like powder? Magnesite and climbing chalk are about as similar as bullet granite and deadly quicksand. Just goes to show how people will thumbs up anything they want to be true. 

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

Jim, how is a super misleading statement about a rock hard stone helping in conversation about a soft, air like powder? Magnesite and climbing chalk are about as similar as bullet granite and deadly quicksand. Just goes to show how people will thumbs up anything they want to be true. 

He was pointing out that a softer mineral can be used to polish a harder material to negate your opinion that chalk has no effect. 

Marc801 Cwrote:

He was pointing out that a softer mineral can be used to polish a harder material to negate your opinion that chalk has no effect. 

Throw climbing calk at any climbable rock for 1 million years and get back to me about how much affect it has. I thought we were talking about our time scale, not the cosmic time scale of a billion years plus another billion years. 

J T wrote:

Do you not understand the post regarding Magnesite polishing granite or what? His point is also showing how much you don’t need your precious data in this particular circumstance to understand the point people are trying to demonstrate for you. By this same logic climbing shoe rubber shouldn’t polish rock and ropes can’t create grooves either since they significantly softer than sandstone and granite too, right? 

Lol