What is a runout?

Hey -- just curious to see people's thought process  when thinking about this.

Let's say you're cleaning/bolting a mixed route. Let's assume the basic checks out, so it's consistent with the crag's ethos and general route style. The fall is safe/clean you're not going to hit anything, you're high up a full length single pitch route so ground fall is not a issue, and there's no ledge or funky rock topography (traverses etc.) to consider. You've put a few bolts down the bottom because it wasn't protected, then second half is trad so you don't need anymore....

... except that alas, you realise there is actually quite some distance between the last good placement your can reasonably expect climbers to rely on and the belay. Ash.... okay.... so...

At what point would you consider that to be runout, if the main/only factor you need to consider is spacing? 12 feet? 15 feet? 20 feet? 8 feet? Does the grade factor in your thinking? At what point does the length of a fall, even if clean, crosses into a safety concerns? Or does it ever, so long as the ground is not in play?

Lead the route from the ground up with a bolt kit. When you get to the potential runout, place a bolt if if think you need it.  If you don't think you need a bolt, then don't place a bolt.

I've been in this exact same situation several times. I try to keep the route within a consistent character. If the rest of the route is 6-10ft between protection pieces, I'll add hardware to keep this runout section in a similar character (or if the protection pieces aren't super bomber and the potential fall is enormous and/or consequential as a result). If no hardware is needed to do so, no hardware gets added.

Obviously this isn't an exact math, easier climbing relative to the grade of the rest of the route can (and should IMO, as terrain allows) have further distance between spacing - moreso going for a consistent physical and mental rhythm for the route.

bob steed wrote:

Lead the route from the ground up with a bolt kit. When you get to the potential runout, place a bolt if if think you need it.  If you don't think you need a bolt, then don't place a bolt.

Well, my plan is to lead it and take the fall, so I get your thinking.

However, discussing this with others, the point came that up is along the lines "well, yeah, but are putting up a line for yourself or for the crag/community". I have a good lead head. I've cleaned that route, I know every holds and variations, so... feels reasonable to me. But I might be alone in my camp. I like the aesthetic of having a first half full sport / second half full trad, with some commitment at the end. But then maybe others evaluate/see that differently. (EDIT: since adding one more bolt is always possible, I would just lead with on gear w/o the extra... can be added if I end up chickening the fall).

Hence the question.

The older I get the more conservatively I protect my climbs now.  If there is a "significant" distance between gear placements I personally throw a bolt in.  I want people to have fun climbing my routes.  If its a more moderately graded route and the runout is easy I am even more prone to protect it because  moderately graded route is going to attract moderate skilled climbers and I don't want them scared out of there socks.  I have recently gone back and repeated some of the routes I put up in the 80's and 90's and scared the crap out of myself.  On a few of those routes I went back and placed a few more bolts so I can still enjoy them into my old age.  I however have no issue if some developer wants to manufacture a runout into their routes.  Nobody is forcing me to climb it.

i can't really define it, but i can definitely let you know when i feel it.

Tal M wrote:

I've been in this exact same situation several times. I try to keep the route within a consistent character. If the rest of the route is 6-10ft between protection pieces, I'll add hardware to keep this runout section in a similar character (or if the protection pieces aren't super bomber and the potential fall is enormous and/or consequential as a result). If no hardware is needed to do so, no hardware gets added.

Obviously this isn't an exact math, easier climbing relative to the grade of the rest of the route can (and should IMO, as terrain allows) have further distance between spacing - moreso going for a consistent physical and mental rhythm for the route.

This is pretty right on. I'm always telling my younger partners to just suck it up and add one more bolt to a route that already has bolts/gear at normal intervals. Just because you could contrive a situation where someone could risk a 50 foot fall (or whatever) and live, why should someone be forced to do that just because the FA party wanted to leave behind a scary route? I say this only for routes that have been established on rappel, top down. It's pretty lame to leave behind a scarefest route you worked and developed on toprope but then expect other people to onsight.  But if you faced up to and succeeded on that runout on a groundup FA, sure, leave it runout, you are simply asking other people to accept the risks you yourself took. Ambitious climbers need scarefests to test themselves on and will be grateful for it.

IMHO the difficulty should be considered. A 30' 5.5 runout on a 5.11 is no big deal. 30' of unprotected 5.8 on a 10a route is unreasonable. Personally I'd be fine with the former; the latter would bother me - always has. (With the exception of friction slab routes. Oh, they still scare the piss out of me but that's part of slab climbing. At least BITD. Now in my 70's I have this whole self-preservation thing going on!)

36 ft.

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

The older I get the more conservatively I protect my climbs now.  If there is a "significant" distance between gear placements I personally throw a bolt in.  I want people to have fun climbing my routes.  If its a more moderately graded route and the runout is easy I am even more prone to protect it because  moderately graded route is going to attract moderate skilled climbers and I don't want them scared out of there socks.  I have recently gone back and repeated some of the routes I put up in the 80's and 90's and scared the crap out of myself.  On a few of those routes I went back and placed a few more bolts so I can still enjoy them into my old age.  I however have no issue if some developer wants to manufacture a runout into their routes.  Nobody is forcing me to climb it.

I think they call this wisdom.

Here's the formula for rap-bolted routes:

Runout Score = fall consequence x fall distance x fall likelihood

Edit: Agreed with Dave's point below. Fall likelihood is not just a grade difference but should take into account dirtiness, pump, insecure moves, rock quality, etc.

As the fall severity increases, so too do belay challenges; the Italian Alpine Club did that research a decade or two ago. 

I'm not a fan of having only one bolt between me and the ground, so if the 30' runout is just past the 2nd bolt, I might be uncomfortable.

For me, runout is more complicated than just the number difficulty. There is lots of $climb-grade-N$ that would make me uncomfortable for 30'. I think there are several components: whether I can "easily" downclimb back to the last bolt/gear, whether there are good stances/decidedly positive holds where I can pause for a long time if things aren't working out, and rock quality/slipperiness/moss/wet issues. Did someone mention slab climbing?

yer gonna die!!!

In my lexicon, a runout is a space between good points of protection from which a fall would likely result in injury. This is clearly relative and context-dependent i.e. I'm likely to slam/swing into something with a poor belay but I'm safe with a pro.

Like others, I'm finding I'm growing more generous with bolting as I age. When I was newer, I liked the idea of putting up a bold route (ego), and I also assumed that everyone else would be at least as strong as me. These days, I really don't want to hear about someone getting hurt on a route I bolted, even if it was due to a bad belay. If I want guidance, I invite someone stronger and older than me to climb the route. 

17

A climber's definition of "safe" is remarkably sensitive to how badly they want the route, so it's all relative, but at some point, a runout stops being climbing and becomes a legally binding commitment. So, I think if you're bolting it from the top down, you should place adequate protection at very least in character with the rest of the route simply because you have the luxury to do so. Manufacturing danger for the specific purpose of "danger" is the lowest form of climbing. Even lower than bouldering ;-)  

Going from the ground up is different as you have other factors like time, energy and what the rock allows to contend with.  

If your goal is minimizing visual impact or attempting to maintain some level of LNT, then taking into consideration the other factors like difficulty, length, danger and what have you regarding the run out is an appropriate and warranted stance. But I wouldn't make the chili spicy simply to watch other people sweat. 

Salamanizer Ski wrote:

A climber's definition of "safe" is remarkably sensitive to how badly they want the route, so it's all relative, but at some point, a runout stops being climbing and becomes a legally binding commitment. So, I think if you're bolting it from the top down, you should place adequate protection at very least in character with the rest of the route simply because you have the luxury to do so. Manufacturing danger for the specific purpose of "danger" is the lowest form of climbing. Even lower than bouldering ;-)  

Going from the ground up is different as you have other factors like time, energy and what the rock allows to contend with.  

If your goal is minimizing visual impact or attempting to maintain some level of LNT, then taking into consideration the other factors like difficulty, length, danger and what have you regarding the run out is an appropriate and warranted stance. But I wouldn't make the chili spicy simply to watch other people sweat. 

This is an incredibly important distinction. It bonkers when I've climbed a route that is dangerous for no reason. What strange hubris to do something like that.
Another one that irks me is super high first bolts. There is very little good reason to have the first bolt be 20ft off the ground if your rap bolted.

I prefer TD routes because I can deliver a better climbing experience to those who tread after me and just in general... not that some ground up routes I have done weren't incredible for my own reasons, but some of those routes unfortunatly for the next person, they would be hard pressed to know where the fuck the next bolt is because there was just no place to hook or a stance for a very long time.

bryans wrote:

 why should someone be forced to do that 

Hang on 

How many well protected routes just like it are around? If there are stacks and yours seems unsafe to a leader at his/her limit it will never get climbed if it's not well protected for a leader at their limit.

Pretty sure there are more than enough runout routes that no one ever climbs. You are obviously welcome to test yourself ground up however you want. Just don't expect anyone else to care or climb the route. I get it that it is not some "X" rated death route but still, runout ie 5.8 climbing? Who gives a shit about that? No one cares that some might think it's "badass". It's pretty far down the list of notable climbing achievements these days.

Very, very few get into climbing these days as John Bachar wannabes. They can go put up their own routes. They aren't going to be picking some plums with a short approach so they can do their thing on some obscurity, what me worry?   

Just food for thought.

It depends on the route. If the climbing through the run-out is flowing,and it makes sense going stance to stance then sure. No one will give you a hard time if the run-out is 2-3 grades easier than the crux.  Where it becomes stupid and you will hear about it endlessly is if there is an obvious spot where most people (yourself included) would like to place gear( clip bolt), and you can’t because you wanted to make it run out.

yeah, i am definitely in the camp of "rap bolting a spicy route is all queso, no chili."