Guidbook authors: if you give detailed gear info, put it in BD sizes pls ; )

Rocrateswrote:

Knowing you, it’s probably about 5. 

I know your trying to clown on me, but I don't see how one lead bolt and 4 anchor bolts is poor form. 

I use the inches or possibly fingers and hands description. The only time i use specific pieces is  if there is only a few placements on the climb or  one specific placement that is key. I also may write " light rack to .75 Green Camelot.  so no i am not consistent. suck it up and deal ;) 

As a fellow BD-size-sympathizer, I get you. Nothing like having your copacetic rack with no question as to its logic and order. I dread rolling up to the crag to find out that my partner wants to use their franken-rack full of TCU’s, mastercams, Totems and Aliens.

It’s the same reason why you wouldn’t tell the manufacturer to start making BD sizes. The reason they are still in business is likely because they found a method of protection that works when nothing else does, and that’s sometimes why one piece of gear is recommended over another.

It then depends upon us to decide how we want to protect ourselves, and if we want to expand our knowledge as it pertains to gear climbing. BD and similar brands have definitely entrenched themselves as the status quo, but knowing other sizes could come in handy and keep you safer. Could be a fun challenge to try to lead some easy stuff on cams you’re unfamiliar with, and get mileage with the other sid(z)es.

Best wishes to you finding the best piece!

a more realistic challenge is any rack, any time any place... 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I know your trying to clown on me, but I don't see how one lead bolt and 4 anchor bolts is poor form. 

Because a 25 foot “route” is a boulder. I don’t care if the landing is the Thank God Ledge. 

Patrick Wilderwrote:

well think of it this way- a number one is about 1 in. a number 2 is about... 2 in. and a 3? you guessed it- about 2.5 in

But it's not at all lol a 1" piece is between a 0.5/0.75 in BD sizing. A #1 is about 1.5".

And this is the problem, there are books that convert the size directly to inches, specifically seen this in both valley and Indian creek books.

I would rather authors just say its hand, finger or fist sized and I can make judgment from there.  That at least gets you in the ballpark.  

i think they should list the suggested rack in terms of first generation rock empire cams.  then everybody would be f'd equally.

Patrick Wilderwrote:

well think of it this way- a number one is about 1 in. a number 2 is about... 2 in. and a 3? you guessed it- about 2.5 in

This really doesn’t work for most of BD’s sizes. The 2 and 3 are the only sizes that correspond with their size in inches

slimwrote:

i think they should list the suggested rack in terms of first generation rock empire cams.  then everybody would be f'd equally.

Didn’t those mirror the sizes of the older, pre- double axle Friends?  And, aren’t most older guide books in Friend sizes?

Frank Steinwrote:

Didn’t those mirror the sizes of the older, pre- double axle Friends?  And, aren’t most older guide books in Friend sizes?

Even the original Friend sizes didn't completely reflect the inch size.  The number 1 above is 1" but the 1.5 is only 1&1/4".

Its kind of part of the climbers job to know what size gear on their rack fits what size crack. it should no be the authors responsibility to  do all the conversions for you...  gear from small fingers to hands is pleanty of info unless there is some quirky weird piece. 

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

I would rather authors just say its hand, finger or fist sized and I can make judgment from there.  That at least gets you in the ballpark.  

Yes, it's in the ballpark of useable information because then I can guess that if the author is a male with average size hands, I can then convert that he means certain inches and then I can make the estimate that it's probably wide hands, ring locks and off-width for me, and I can then rack the BD c4, BD ultralight, Metolius, Friend or Alien that is needed for that size.   

Maybe the guidebook info should be given with the rack info used by the first ascent party?  For example, Barry Bates did first ascents of both Five and Dime and Lunatic Fringe in 1971.  And we can convert from the hexes etc that were the standard of the day, to the BD sizes that are allegedly "the standard" of today!

Looks like the OP should write a guidebook to show us 

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

I would rather authors just say its hand, finger or fist sized and I can make judgment from there.  That at least gets you in the ballpark.  

I can handjam 1-4, I have seen "fingers" from .3-.75

Unless you are using link cams, sometimes the ballpark doesn't cut it.

phylp phylpwrote:

Even the original Friend sizes didn't completely reflect the inch size.  The number 1 above is 1" but the 1.5 is only 1&1/4".

If we're going for historical accuracy, the "original Friend sizes" did not include the half sizes. The original Friends were #'s 1, 2, & 3.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Its kind of part of the climbers job to know what size gear on their rack fits what size crack. it should no be the authors responsibility to  do all the conversions for you...  gear from small fingers to hands is pleanty of info unless there is some quirky weird piece. 

That's fine, but it would be nice for the author to not fuck up the conversion if they are going to recommend a rack. I am fine with inches as long as it is actually the correct size, too many times it is converted from the BD # directly to inches, #1 -> 1" instead of 1.5", in which case people end up on hand cracks with finger sized gear.

This is also very dependant on location of route. I've been to the creek where my partner and I were recommended a rack of 2s, but it turned out to be almost entirely 3s. I mean we used our eyes and didn't get sandbagged too hard but if we hadn't brought 3s from the car you can see why that would be annoying.

Marc, that is fine for an alpine guidebook, but I don't understand what the butthurt is in this thread about gear reccomendations for guidebooks. I am not sure what old guidebooks have to do with future guidebooks, in most things people try to improve over time.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

I've been to the creek where my partner and I were recommended a rack of 2s, but it turned out to be almost entirely 3s.

Who recommended the 2's? The guidebook or some rando at the campground?

I think a lot of y'all would be shocked at what was considered a guidebook description BITD. A route description in the old Roper Yosemite (or High Sierra?) guide had this gem (paraphrasing): 

"Wander upwards following indistinct cracks for 500' trending left, aiming for a tree on a prominent ledge."

Marc801 Cwrote:

I think a lot of y'all would be shocked at what was considered a guidebook description BITD. A route description in the old Roper Yosemite (or High Sierra?) guide had this gem (paraphrasing): 

"Wander upwards following indistinct cracks for 500' trending left, aiming for a tree on a prominent ledge."

Way BITD some friends followed a mountaineering version of that description in the Canadian Rockies and summitted the wrong mountain.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Who recommended the 2's? The guidebook or some rando at the campground?

I think a lot of y'all would be shocked at what was considered a guidebook description BITD. A route description in the old Roper Yosemite (or High Sierra?) guide had this gem (paraphrasing): 

"Wander upwards following indistinct cracks for 500' trending left, aiming for a tree on a prominent ledge."

There are dudes that don't remember what they used on a climb by the time they get to the anchors.