Why not put bolts vs pitons in Gunks?

Steven Amter wrote:

Very well said.  Though I disagree that the argument necessarily stems from a sense of entitlement. 

SethG:  I reread your fantastic account of your mini-epic on Moonlight  on your Climb and Punishment blog site when your were a beginning leader, as well as a follow up ascent when he was a much stronger and more experienced leader.  I think it touches on a lot of the topics being discussed here, including how you were unprepared and in over your head, how you were unable to adequately protect it the first time, and how the climb left you both "both humbled and emboldened."  A  formative experience indeed..  

Thank you! 

rgold wrote:

I'm pretty sure the original pin has been replaced, although the current one could be pretty old.  The original pin was an angle piton placed incorrectly (with the crack walls compressing the angle).  Gary was understandably in an extremely precarious position, and this was the best he could manage.  The way the pin was placed made it impossible to clip the eye, so you had to thread a sling though the eye and clip that.  Reaching out and fiddling a sling through the eye was memorable, even if it was not as desperate as placing the pin.

If the current pin is a lost arrow, then it isn't Gary's pin.  

My guess is the replacer did not duplicate Gary's feat.

I could listen to rgold’s stories all day. 

Adrienne DiRosario wrote:

I could listen to rgold’s stories all day. 

I have an rgold story (second hand, so I apologize for mistakes in transmission):

This happened about 5 years ago. A friend of mine was working on a boulder problem right on the carriage road not far down from the Uberfall. They were engaged in the usual bouldering antics: pads, chalk, and yelling beta. An older gentleman comes up, and asks my friend, "What are you guys doing?" My friend kindly explains what bouldering is, and takes a few runs on the problem to demonstrate. Then the older gentleman says, "Mind if I try?" My friend was a bit concerned, saying later, "I was worried this guy was gonna fall and break his hip or something." But the older gentleman gets on the route in tennis shoes and cruises the route, much to the astonishment of the group of boulderers who had been working the route for about an hour. The older gentleman was, of course, Richard Goldstone, the first ascentionist of the boulder problem.

So that's the story of when my friend explained bouldering to Richard Goldstone while standing in front of the Goldstone Traverse.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I have an rgold story (second hand, so I apologize for mistakes in transmission):

This happened about 5 years ago. A friend of mine was working on a boulder problem right on the carriage road not far down from the Uberfall. They were engaged in the usual bouldering antics: pads, chalk, and yelling beta. An older gentleman comes up, and asks my friend, "What are you guys doing?" My friend kindly explains what bouldering is, and takes a few runs on the problem to demonstrate. Then the older gentleman says, "Mind if I try?" My friend was a bit concerned, saying later, "I was worried this guy was gonna fall and break his hip or something." But the older gentleman gets on the route in tennis shoes and cruises the route, much to the astonishment of the group of boulderers who had been working the route for about an hour. The older gentleman was, of course, Richard Goldstone, the first ascentionist of the boulder problem (the Goldstone Traverse).

So that's the story of when my friend explained bouldering to rgold in front of one of his well-known boulder problems.

This is 100% rgold gold!  Thank you for sharing.

rgold wrote: The arguments about replacing pitons with bolts are arguments of entitlement.  A 5.6 climber with only modest protections skills is entitled to good protection on Moonlight because at some point in the past other climbers (or a more competent version of a current climber) had that protection.  A climber on a formerly well-pitoned climb is entitled to the level of protection available to ascenders in the past.  Besides the intrinsic selfishness of such arguments, there is absolutely no end to the range of entitlements that are easily justified by exactly the same types of claims.  Moreover, arguments about past “advantages” are weakened by the fact that modern climbers have far better gear in every respect.  The idea that it is somehow “not fair” that earlier climbers had this or that fixed pro doesn’t ever seem to be coupled with the enormous advantages the modern climber gets to deploy.

I think it's often more a case of genuine confusion than a feeling of entitlement by less experienced climbers.. certainly in my case. Pitons are mentioned frequently in the route descriptions and I think it's natural to wonder why they are so commonly clipped - and sometimes recommended to clip if they are possibly junk (v. hard to tell).. and as the area is so popular.. if they are featured in the route description as anything other than ancient route markers to show the way.. why not replace them with more modern and reliable alternatives. So far the main answer seems to be that a lot of people just don't want fixed pro at all in the Gunks (though I know a lot are thrilled there is a bolted anchor initiative - myself included). I know there are other answers as well.. my point is it's natural to wonder without necessarily feeling entitled. I think a lot of areas would be ok with just replacing crappy fixed pro. In the Gunks there is massive resistance to that.. yet it remains as a sort of on-route semi-functional antique. It's interesting for sure.. and it's natural to wonder about it as a new or newish leader.

For what it's worth.. I don't think Moonlight needs fixed pro.

What happens to these stories after the pins are removed?

Thanks all for sharing...the best part of this thread.

(There is some desert story telling on the AZ/NM forum related to the Tucson Mountains in a recent thread. Also pretty cool.)

On Moonlight, three data points and three questions:

1) Todd Swain writes that a bolt was chopped near the crux shortly after the first ascent.  2) Dick Williams notes the bolt as well.

3) @firstpersonbeta posted a video of the second pitch on youtube in Sept. 2017: Moonlight @firstpersonbeta  @firstpersonbeta slings a small shrub tree (1:49) for first protection, clips the Pin at 5:05 and sort janks a nut at 5:40.  He passes the crux and then places gear at 9:17.   Having watched many of firstpersonbeta videos, I can guess that he might have been able to place a #4 at 0:24 but did not because it would be too low protect any but an immediate fall and might have passed a placement at 3:30 due to rock being loose or because he had just slung the tree.  As @firstpersonbeta climbed it, I would think he is totally dependent on the nut and Gary's Pin before the crux to keep him of the ledge if he fell because that tree is not going to hold under a grown man's weight and may not be high enough to keep him off the ledge anyway.  

If the Pin is no longer considered safe, than how is this climb still PG as stated by Swain and implied by the Gunks App which is silent (my understanding is no pro rating explicitly stated in Gunks App means G or PG) on the protection rating?  

Two more questions:
Who chopped the bolt and why?

Is there more gear available than @firstpersonbeta used?
 

It isn't Gary's pin; you are conflating the discussions of Moonlight and Fat City, but no one can really tell for sure how good any fixed pin is.

FPB could have placed more pro besides that one nut, which however looks excellent to the extent you can tell such things from the video.  There are also opportunities for gear before the pin and after the shrub if one doesn't want to be totally dependent on the nearby placements at the crux.  

The PG rating represents what is possible to arrange, not what any one person chooses to place.  Climbers who are confident continually make do with less gear than required to realize the protection rating.

FPB appears to make a serious error in clipping the pin: the carabiner on the pin looks as if it is going to be loaded over the edge below the pin.  A sling should have been threaded through the eye in this situation, if the reality agrees with what seems to be true in the image here.

FPB also has climbed 5.10 in his videos, and I've seen some claims by other people in comments that he climbs 5.11. So the amount of gear that he is comfortable with on this 5.5/5.6 is probably going to be a lot less than someone climbing at the grade (I certainly was not "comfortable" with the amount of gear I got).

rgold wrote: It isn't Gary's pin; you are conflating the discussions of Moonlight and Fat City, but no one can really tell for sure how good any fixed pin is.

Corrected.  Thank you.

David Kerkeslager wrote: FPB also has climbed 5.10 in his videos, and I've seen some claims by other people in comments that he climbs 5.11. So the amount of gear that he is comfortable with on this 5.5/5.6 is probably going to be a lot less than someone climbing at the grade (I certainly was not "comfortable" with the amount of gear I got).

Agreed.   FPB can hold things I get nothing from and can hang with a cool head for longer than I can.   I asked if there is more gear because in past videos on easy ground FPB will move quickly and I suspect concentrate less on finding all placements and ensuring all the placements he uses are quality, thus his gear is not indicative of maximum.    

On Moonlight, the camera crosses a lot of rock which does not look obviously able to take gear.

As I understand PG, it means one must have the right gear, find the available placements and know how to make the placements so that the climb can be protected without risk of serious injury, where serious, means worse than a sprained or simply fractured appendage.

To clarify, is Moonlight PG without the Pin?

Live Perched wrote: To clarify, is Moonlight PG without the Pin?

In my opinion, it's PG13, with or without the pin. If the FA had modern gear, I doubt he would have placed the pin: there are at least one small cam and one tricam placement in the vicinity of the pin. So the pin doesn't really matter.

It's PG13 because this pin and good gear is significantly before the crux. I fiddled with some gear placements nearer the crux, but didn't find anything I'd be willing to fall on. I placed a micro nut (ideal placement, but smaller than I wanted).

Just climbed moonlight last week and this thread came to mind. I actually never noticed the chopped bolt till then.
I trust some pitons, mostly the tacos where you can see the sides of them clearly. I would never trust one of these, it could be 1mm left in the rock or 10, who the hell knows.

pin

chopped bolt location, no that's not a protect-able crack above it.

clearly a spinner, and pretty small
there are opportunities right past the pin, this is slightly downclimbing/traversing in this area

another pin further down I never noticed, it's also completely rust free. Is this one of the chromoly or a stainless pin or something? Not sure I ever noticed a pin of this color before. too bad you can't use it. I mean it's THERE, it's just unusable. I assume it was hammered in on purpose? Not sure how else it would get like that.

It's still a totally safe climb. However it would be a little heady for your average new climber placing gear at your feet in the crux.

How about Keep on Struttin? Nobody's talking about the neighbor and it's bolt?
No F'n way I would have climbed that without the bolt. Pretty bold move if you had no protection and there's nothing you can do to protect that section without it. Now it's an absolutely amazing climb that mortals can get on.
But holy smokes have you ever looked at the remains of the old bolt? It's like a 1/4" piece of threaded rod. Total trash. The new glue-in is stellar and basically invisible till you're at it.

JSH wrote: Someone left a new comment on Ribs today:  "The piton blew yesterday. Be careful about checking for rust on pitons and really try to look in the crack and at the surfaces against the rock. I didn't even whip, I just weighted it and it broke in half. "

Ribs is 5.4.  It’s a fun route for new trad leaders, which gets unfortunate rappelling traffic (and accompanying pebbles).  Why not give the noobs a break and replace the piton with a bolt?  I can’t imagine there is a grizzled veteran waking up today and saying: ‘great now I can test my resolve on Ribs.”

Live Perched wrote:

Ribs is 5.4.  It’s a fun route for new trad leaders, which gets unfortunate rappelling traffic (and accompanying pebbles).  Why not give the noobs a break and replace the piton with a bolt?  I can’t imagine there is a grizzled veteran waking up today and saying: ‘great now I can test my resolve on Ribs.”

Perhaps because there isn’t/wasn’t a single pin on that route that didn’t have modern gear placements in the immediate vicinity?

Gunks Apps wrote: There is a process in place for adding new bolted anchors but not for adding new protection bolts.

I think the rationale is this for rusted and dangerous pitons...

1. The piton gets replaced with a piton
2. The piton doesn’t get replaced because now a cam placement is available
3. The piton snaps near the eye and cannot be removed or replaced the route is now rated R or X

My personal feeling is that this works well. For example a bolt on Thin Slabs direct would certainly make it safer but it would completely change the character of the route for the worse. There are plenty of well protected routes in the same grade.

As mentioned above, the best way to get involved and have your opinions heard is to attend the GCC meetings. 

Isn’t a snapped/super old/pounded in piton pushing a rating into R/X territory changing the integrity of the climb?

If you use chalk, you’re damaging the rock.

J Magness wrote:

Isn’t a snapped/super old/pounded in piton pushing a rating into R/X territory changing the integrity of the climb?

Yes, it's closer to the condition it was prior to the FA.

I know Thin Slabs has come up in this thread frequently. I just climbed it yesterday and it can be made G AF. There are 3 pins, 1st looks good, second so-so, third very sketchy. From 1/2 way out to the end there are multiple opportunities for blue and green aliens at the same level as the pitons.  They are strenuous to place because they are above the hand rail so it requires pulling up to see them.

Live Perched wrote:

Ribs is 5.4.  It’s a fun route for new trad leaders, which gets unfortunate rappelling traffic (and accompanying pebbles).  Why not give the noobs a break and replace the piton with a bolt?  I can’t imagine there is a grizzled veteran waking up today and saying: ‘great now I can test my resolve on Ribs.”

First of all, precisely because it was made into a rappel route, it is now a terrible route for new leaders or any leader for that matter.

Second of all, there is nothing in the trad climbing genre that includes "drilling to give noobs a break."  Noobs and everyone else gets "breaks" by continually evaluating their abilities, the difficulty, and the available protection and making careful judgements, which could include retreating and ought to include retreating in some cases.  That's how trad climbing works.

Since it keeps coming up, and people apparently don’t get it, it bears repeating that historical pitons are not necessarily the only gear available. We have much better gear options now than they did when these pitons were placed. Ribs does not “need” any fixed gear. It is fine for leaders new and old, with or without a piton.

I climbed Keep on Struttin’ two weekends ago. I think it is the best 5.9 in the Gunks. It has one of the bolts that was grandfathered in. This bolt protects the hardest technical move on the route. And without it, the route would be dangerous. If this bolt were to deteriorate and not be replaced, the route would become unpopular.

But I think we’d survive without Keep on Struttin’ in its present form. And I’d rather do that than continue with the current compromise, which inevitably leads to people thinking it is perfectly reasonable to propose adding bolts to climbs like Ribs and Layback.