Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Tuolumne Bolt Chopping
|
Taking hangers I can see on an easy route, but chopping/pulling bolts takes a bit of effort. How often do glue-ins get chopped? |
Definitely not inclusive. Its exclusive. It's gate kept too, and it will remain that way. |
Daniel H Bryantwrote: My experience is they get the sledge hammer |
Matt Nwrote: One of the things that bothers me most about that route is that they acknowledge the route had been done in the past by other climbers, both roped and unroped, yet still claim FA credit. I've submitted a change to correct it before but it gets changed back. Heaven forbid they lose credit for their proud retro-rap-bolted gift to the masses. |
Daniel H Bryantwrote: It's very very easy with a hammer. Hit it sideways back and forth and they'll snap right off. |
Matt Nwrote: There are so many loaded/rhetorical questions in there that it's exhausting to read. The statement you want to make, as I gather, is you don’t agree with the addition of Direct White Flake, which may or may not be because you think it’s rap bolted. I see you commented on the photo, “FA? With bolts already installed above?” If you simply label it something offensive (in your mind) “going by photo evidence / description”, I believe you are confusing the process of putting up a route drilling bolts and the actual first ascent (FA). Route developers can drill all the bolts ground up on lead, which sometimes involves taking turns and sometimes takes days, but the actual lead (FA/FFA) will take place on a separate go and, in some rare events, even by separate people. Similar argument is often used by bolt police/gatekeepers: “if we allow action A, we might as well allow action B, amiright?” In your case, action A being the addition of Direct White Flake, and action B being retro-bolting South Crack. The truth is no one (who did or agree with action A) is thinking/talking about/doing action B. If you honestly think a benign action A would lead to disastrous action B, I must admit the phrase “old men’s paranoia” comes to my mind. I don’t think you are old, so I suspect you don’t truly believe that would happen. You are just using that as a tactic – extrapolate and exaggerate – for argument’s sake. In this case, I don’t know what to say. It’s often used in politics and it’s tough to have a meaningful conversation when one makes outrageous statements like that. almostrad wrote: I believe you – that path probably has been traveled by people on top rope or solo because that section of the wall is so low angle and popular. But it’s very common that when people put in the work to drill bolts and establish a leadable line that was previous climbed, they are given the FA credit. I did my research before I spoke. I can see you tried twice to remove the FA credit, but I did not see any of the FA party, whom I don't know personally, made a Route Improvement suggestion to put their own names back. It’s possible that the admin simply followed the convention. I do not put FAs on pedestals. I was about to advocate for removing all FA public records because that could be an effective way of slowing down route development for the wrong reasons and eliminating the age-old debate of "who owns a route". I’ll be the first one to admit seeing my own name credited strokes my ego, but I have no problem letting that go for the greater good. However, the idea was immediately shut down by my partner who loves reading climbing history including the FA section of guidebooks. Oh well. I do not put “ground up bolting on lead” on pedestals either. There are numerous inherent disadvantages/limitations associated with that strict method for putting up routes of quality. It gives the FAs a sense of adventure, which is commendable, but that's about it. I’m suckered into typing all this simply because I recognize misinformation (at least void of evidence) being created due to lack of understanding and then spread. That, and I'm in a good mood. :-) |
|
Question: were these glue-ins that were chopped with a sledge hammer? The type of bolt is important because it would range from a petty act of theft (ie just stealing the hangers from a threaded bolt) to a criminal act of vandalism and defacement of the rock if a hammer was used to destroy the bolt leaving a scar and stud in the rock. I assure you, defacing the rock by climbers in some petty bolt war is the number one way to get bolting banned in the park and that would include future replacing of existing anchors by the ASCA. Effectively the end of climbing as we know it in Yosemite in time. |
If the route was put up ground up, the bolts only go in during the FA (and FFA would be the "actual lead" you describe. The scenario where the bolts are there and someone can claim an FA is indeed when something is rap bolted. RE your other reply - That all seems plausible, and I don't need to dismiss the work that goes into development (even rap bolting is work). However to use the term "FA" is just simply false. Being informed the route has previously been climbed definitively means you weren't the first, even if you were the first recorded* |
almostradwrote: FKA is not used as frequently as it should be IMO |
almostradwrote: No, FFA means First Free Ascent. |
Marc801 Cwrote: Yes. |
|
Direct White Flake and the Kamps-Couch route: |
almostradwrote: Okay, fine. Let’s get into the nuances. FA vs. FFA: Commonly speaking, FFA is used explicitly for routes that were initially put up and sent with some aid shenanigans (because they are hard) – on the FA , and later a notable free climbing ascent happened – the FFA. But for routes that were put up as an indisputable free climb, FA and FFA are used interchangeably. As a matter of fact, guidebook authors appear to be stingy on letter count in their books and normally just use FA on these routes to indicate the FFA, although some high-grade free climbs would still get the FFA designation (more as an acknowledgement of the achievement). I’ll give you some examples from the 2nd Edition of the (excellent) Yosemite Free Climbing Guidebook.     See the inconsistency? All I can say is don't get too hung up on these things. More importantly, don't assume everyone use these words the exact same way as you understand them. Route development vs. FA: Warren Harding, et al spent 47 days to establish the Nose. In that case, as in many big wall climbs’ case, the “route development” is the same as FA – their FA happened on their very first time up the route. However, when we talk about small routes, single pitch, esp. free climbs, that’s usually not the case. Let’s focus on our average Joe free climbs (e.g. Direct White Flake) here. Where only hand drilling is allowed in areas such as Tuolumne, route development is a very tiring and time-consuming process. It’s not uncommon that a group of suckers get together, one person leads up, put in a bolt or two, and lowers off. The next person gets send up (often yoyo'ing on top rope) and then lead out to the next bolting stance. For how long they need to spend drilling, maybe even standing in aiders, they might be wearing their comfy approach shoes while carrying the heavy bolting tools, so they might resort to some aid skills to push the route higher, and then they hang on their protection while pounding away. None of that invalidate their “ground up” style. However, the moment that they have all the bolts in and reach the top is not when they claim/report on their FA. At least no ethical route developer that I know would do that. Instead, they’d put on their climbing shoes, leave their bolting kit behind, and lead the route how it’s intended to be (free) climbed. Only then, the FA is done! Since this is a free climb, FFA is implied. I, in my own note taking, have spelled out both FA and FFA for such an ascent, but that’s only because I’m Type A and most FAs don’t care to make the explicit FFA call out on their obvious free climbs. I’m pretty sure that’s what happened in that “controversial” photo. Let me give you another example. Two decades ago, a friend RB spotted one climb. He painstakingly drilled the bolts ground up. It probably took a while (and I recall he did it solo). By the time he fully equipped the route, he felt that he didn’t have what it took to climb it. He generously led me and my then partner to the climb. I did the first lead and my partner followed. In the published guidebook, RB is listed as IP (Initially Prepared), and my partner and I are listed as the FA party. (And yes, we did the FFA.) FA vs FKA: How can anyone know something that is unknown? The moment they know, it's no longe unknown. It's easy to prove a route/path has been climbed before, but we have no way to prove with 100% conviction that a route has NOT been climbed before. What if there has been a spiderman before our time? To be on the safe side, every FA should be called FKA. But then we know, guidebook authors are stingy with letter count. They put in the bolts, and they were the first people to clip those bolts. Most people would accept that they are the FA of that particular bolt line. Is it really that hard to let it go? |
Mei pronounced as Maywrote: The protection doesn't change the climbing; "the bolt line" isn't the route. Also there are loads of times where random "unknown" routes aren't that hard to access and aren't hard routes. I've climbed a lot of this stuff and if I decided to develop such a line (probably just putting in anchors and a littl cleaning) I wouldn't claim the FA-- I almost certainly did not climb it first. I would claim an FKA and give the FA to anyone who popped out of the woodwork to tell me they climbed it back in the 70s or whatever. |
|
What's the history of rap-bolted 5.5-5.7s in Tuolumne? [Excluding any retro-bolting issues] |
Matt Nwrote: What does it matter? More importantly, does the grade matter? |
Ricky Harlinewrote: With the "FKA" approach - how does that impact route management decisions if an older FA is later claimed? With the "first ascent principle" that many climbers believe in, the FA party has significant (final?) say in changes to the route. If you clean/bolt/FKA a nice moderate route and open it up the the masses, and then later someone comes out of the woodwork to say they climbed it 30 years as a licheny solo or runout trad route following the same line, do they now have the FA "ownership" and get the dictate how the modern bolted route is managed? As a more specific hypothetical: what happens if someone turns up and claims that they soloed up and down every inch of the Emigrant Wall 30 years ago, which they say gives them FA "ownership" of the wall. And they demand that all the bolts on the wall be removed (or they go remove all the bolts themself) since they are now retrobolts added the the previously-soloed routes. What do we do then? Do we accept the erasure of a popular resource for new climbers, just to satisfy the FA "property rights" of that one old guy? |
Marc801 Cwrote: Local history/tradition/ethics. I thought those still mattered. [Regardless of grade] |
|
Mei I stopped reading halfway through but wanted to share that you’re being insufferable
|
almostradwrote: Aren't you the one assuming a certain style of ascent (rap bolted) based on a convoluted semantic argument and one interpretation of the way the term "FA" is used. Mei is making a well-backed argument that the use of the terms FA vs FFA can be complicated and vary based on context. This pretty thoroughly refutes the assumption you are making that the route must have been rap-bolted. Do you find Mei's argument insufferable since it shows the flaws in your logic? |
