Balancing Equity with Personal Vision

Hey Lovely Folks,

Wanted to get your take on things - namely, how to balance equity when developing with personal vision. This past season, I was developing some new crags - one of which is predominantly slabs. I had bolted a ~5.8 line that's 100' and 6 bolts to the anchors. It was runout enough to be exciting for leaders of most skill levels but still safe the entire way and the bolts are all at the ideal stances - I'm 6' and would mark spots I could reach with my elbow to make sure they could be clipped by most climbers from that same stance.

However, just left of this slab, I bolted a ~5.10/+ slab - 100', 9 bolts to the anchors. This was starting to get closer to my limit so personally I wanted it to be a bit tighter in its spacing. I realized though, that I'm sure a 5.8 climber would really like the 5.8 line to have closer bolting as well - and I remember when I was learning to climb I was frustrated by the apparent lack of tightly bolted moderates sometimes. 

Now - I'm not going to go back and add bolts to the original 5.8 line - both because it's an approach pitch to a significantly harder, scarier line, and also because I do believe it's nice to have some more exciting lines. People often say "if you want it to be exciting, then skip bolts" - but the whole part about exciting lines is that they're designed to be exciting. The runouts are well thought out - that may not be the same case if you're just skipping bolts. But I certainly am planning on going back and adding more tightly spaced moderate lines, and having them close enough to the existing moderate line that it would be extremely reasonable to set up a top rope from one if someone so desires. This way, the crag will have lines of various difficulty and commitment levels for a variety of users.

What's your take? Do you think I'm being unreasonable by not adding more bolts to the existing line? Or in the opposite direction, do you think I'm being unreasonable by wanting to make more tightly bolted climbs? What are some other ways we can increase equity in the development space in a way that meshes well with personal vision for a line?

Tell me where this is and I’ll give you my opinion ;)

Tal Mwrote:

Hey Lovely Folks,

Wanted to get your take on things - namely, how to balance equity when developing with personal vision. This past season, I was developing some new crags - one of which is predominantly slabs. I had bolted a ~5.8 line that's 100' and 6 bolts to the anchors. It was runout enough to be exciting for leaders of most skill levels but still safe the entire way and the bolts are all at the ideal stances - I'm 6' and would mark spots I could reach with my elbow to make sure they could be clipped by most climbers from that same stance.

However, just left of this slab, I bolted a ~5.10/+ slab - 100', 9 bolts to the anchors. This was starting to get closer to my limit so personally I wanted it to be a bit tighter in its spacing. I realized though, that I'm sure a 5.8 climber would really like the 5.8 line to have closer bolting as well - and I remember when I was learning to climb I was frustrated by the apparent lack of tightly bolted moderates sometimes. 

Now - I'm not going to go back and add bolts to the original 5.8 line - both because it's an approach pitch to a significantly harder, scarier line, and also because I do believe it's nice to have some more exciting lines. People often say "if you want it to be exciting, then skip bolts" - but the whole part about exciting lines is that they're designed to be exciting. The runouts are well thought out - that may not be the same case if you're just skipping bolts. But I certainly am planning on going back and adding more tightly spaced moderate lines, and having them close enough to the existing moderate line that it would be extremely reasonable to set up a top rope from one if someone so desires. This way, the crag will have lines of various difficulty and commitment levels for a variety of users.

What's your take? Do you think I'm being unreasonable by not adding more bolts to the existing line? Or in the opposite direction, do you think I'm being unreasonable by wanting to make more tightly bolted climbs? What are some other ways we can increase equity in the development space in a way that meshes well with personal vision for a line?

If it's a rap bolted sport line it shouldn't be run-out at all. 

If not, the climbing itself will determine bolt position where it makes "sense".

Tradibanwrote:

If it's a rap bolted sport line it shouldn't be run-out at all. 

If not, the climbing itself will determine bolt position where it makes "sense".

What defines "runout" though? That's kind of my point to this post - it's based on personal risk assessment. I've heard people refer to permadrawed routes on overhangs with draws every 4-5 feet as "runout" when it's absolutely not and I've heard people go 20+ feet between pieces of pro and consider it safe.

I'm not a fan of "excitingly" bolted slab climbing myself, since those falls tend to hurt a bit. Heh, really I'm not a fan of "exciting" climbing in general, I like to have pro everywhere. But, it's your route, so you get do do what you want, I can't make an objective argument one way or the other. Good on you for thinking about other climbers though!

Tal Mwrote:

What defines "runout" though? That's kind of my point to this post - it's based on personal risk assessment. I've heard people refer to permadrawed routes on overhangs with draws every 5-6 feet as "runout" when it's absolutely not and I've heard people go 20+ feet between pieces of pro and consider it safe.

Will you get hurt (as in, more than tiny cuts/scrapes) if you fall between the bolts, or blow the clip on the next one? Then it's runout. OK, that's not super objective, but I feel like it's not that personal either.

Nathan Sullivanwrote:

Will you get hurt (as in, more than tiny cuts/scrapes) if you fall between the bolts, or blow the clip on the next one? Then it's runout. OK, that's not super objective, but I feel like it's not that personal either.

I don't think that's how "runout" is used colloquially though - if you climbed an overhang that was super tightly bolted for the first 70 feet and then no bolts for the next 40 - most people would consider that "runout" even though the fall would be completely safe. Conversely, I've seen people sprain their ACL on a fall 6 inches above the bolt because they landed awkwardly and/or had a hard catch. 

I agree that it's not super objective, and may have some degree of "personal" (I mean, look at outer space in Eldo. A lot of people call it PG-13. A lot of people call it G). So - knowing that there's not some magic formula for "runout" - what can developers do to be more equitable in their bolt spacing such that they're accommodating a range of risk tolerances without going as far as to grid bolt the rock?

So for the examples given in the OP - both routes have their first bolt somewhere around 10ft up. 2nd bolts is typically ~6ft above that, and then the bolt spacing continually grows as you go higher (and the angle eases off so the climbing gets easier), with both routes having their final runs to the chains close to 20ft on ~5.5 slab. At no point on either climb would you be looking at a ground fall unless you fell clipping the second bolt and had a monumentally shitty belay. There are no features to hit on the way down, and as someone who has fallen on these routes, you're really not looking at anything more than a scare unless you get the rope caught behind your leg. Should these be considered runout? Or is the combination of progressive bolt spacing and easing terrain enough to consider them not?

Tal Mwrote:

What defines "runout" though? That's kind of my point to this post - it's based on personal risk assessment. I've heard people refer to permadrawed routes on overhangs with draws every 4-5 feet as "runout" when it's absolutely not and I've heard people go 20+ feet between pieces of pro and consider it safe.

No matter how tightly or loosely it's bolted someone won't be happy.

The climbing itself will determine where the bolts go.

Are we talking sport climbing? Or gear routes with some bolts in sections that can’t be protected naturally? My answer would be different in those cases.

I firmly believe that bolters who want exciting SPORT climbing should bolt exciting routes at THEIR limit. Something that they would actually fall on. No headpointing the route by rehearsing it in TR.  

If that is your jam, if you are willing to take exciting runout falls on a project you are going to work for multiple tries on lead, until you send it—by all means, do that. And you have my permission to wear your “Climbing should be exciting” badge proudly sewn to your climbing pants.

But if you are not willing to do that on routes at YOUR limit, while doing it on beginner sport routes that are not hard for you, then you are just an asshole. Not a proud bearer of old-school climbing torch. 

Yeah, I should have added not falling through space forever as an example too, you're right. I've also heard a similar story second hand of a person taking a tiny ~1ft practice sport fall, and spraining an ankle.

Will falling during the 20ft runout to the anchors on this ~5.5 slab hurt? Sounds like it must be either featured or low angle to me, unless I'm missing something. I'm really curious to know where these routes are now, so I can go judge for myself!

I don't think pure sport routes should be bolted for "excitement" at all. It should be bolted based on what is reasonable and safe for the rock and movement you're envisioning.

"Exciting" is so arbitrary. A 5.8 climber at their absolute limit will find ANY 5.8 exciting no matter how close the bolts are. A 5.12 climber will find the 5.8 line easy no matter how far the bolts are placed. Intentionally placing "exciting bolt placements", especially on routes below your own limit, seems kind of dickish since it's easy for you and not a problem, but hard for others, especially those who are climbing at their limit. It seems like you're just screwing those people over.

For me personally, I don't climb sport for the "excitement" and would honestly be really annoyed if the 5.8 in the area was sparsely bolted. I like sport because I can huck my body at the rock and take wingers without praying my gear holds. If I wanted excitement on a 5.8, I'd go climb trad at JTree.

Tal Mwrote:

What defines "runout" though? 

Well, in your crag's example - the 5.8 is "runout" vs the 5.10 b/c it has 33% fewer bolts in roughly the same amount of climbing. 

Rap-bolted lines should not be runout. 

Tal Mwrote:

So for the examples given in the OP - both routes have their first bolt somewhere around 10ft up. 2nd bolts is typically ~6ft above that, and then the bolt spacing continually grows as you go higher (and the angle eases off so the climbing gets easier), with both routes having their final runs to the chains close to 20ft on ~5.5 slab. At no point on either climb would you be looking at a ground fall unless you fell clipping the second bolt and had a monumentally shitty belay. There are no features to hit on the way down, and as someone who has fallen on these routes, you're really not looking at anything more than a scare unless you get the rope caught behind your leg. Should these be considered runout? Or is the combination of progressive bolt spacing and easing terrain enough to consider them not?

If all of that is true then it doesn't make any sense that the 5.10 would have more bolts. 

If the 5.8 is only a means to an end (to get you to higher quality and significantly more difficult climbing above) then probably few people will care that the bolt spacing is dangerous (which it is, I'm not sure why you are trying to convince us/yourself that 6 bolts in 100 ft of slab climbing is perfectly safe). Although, I've been on several multi's where I wished the easier climbing was as well protected as the hard stuff so that I'd have something to lead when going out to climb something with stronger partners. 

If you wanted the 5.8 to stand on its own as a contribution to your community and you actually think people would want to climb it as a single pitch, then I think it was pretty lame to bolt it for the 5.10 leader (which you did since the 5.10 got so many more bolts). Hearing someone talk about 20'+ runouts on a sport bolted 5.8 as "exciting" makes my eyes want to roll out of my skull. Maybe we aren't getting the whole story though - did you bolt this thing with a hand drill on lead? In that case you would at least have some kind of excuse that holds water.

I don't see the connection between the difference in relative bolt spacing and equity. 

Instead of assuming the 5.8 leader is uncomfortable with 6-bolts, maybe its the 5.10 leader that's uncomfortable with the idea of 6-bolts on the 5.10?

To answer the OP, no you should not retrobolt your own routes in the name of equity. Which is not to say you shouldn't correct a bad placement - you should. But lacking some fundamental problem with the bolt-work you did, retrobolting a route you deemed safe, in the name of equity, strikes me as a fools errand.

There are so many variables that it's hard to say without giving actual examples. If the 2 routes are very similar in style, but further spacing just because it's easier, that usually sucks. If the pacing of the easier route actually called for fewer bolts that could be fine.

Spaced bolting where it's a hard move by a bolt, then easier climbing to the next bolt is fun. I'd much rather climb most routes with bolts every ~15' thoughtfully placed than every ~10' evenly placed. Don't make me do the crux way above a bolt just because the crux isn't hard for you.

Yes sport routes can be exciting, and for lots of people they're the most rewarding. If the route has a easier jug haul in the middle, or maybe a steep and pumpy finish high up, then running it out a bit makes it way more memorable. Just don't force it on a route where it doesn't flow or would be seriously dangerous.

The simple solution: somebody just chop 3 bolts from the neighboring 5.10

Did you bolt these routes on lead?

There's room in this world for all kinds of routes. In the age of MP and guidebooks, people can generally get enough beta to understand their risk. I've done runout sport routes and seriously enjoyed them. We used to subject ourselves to this all the time at the Grid Wall in AF. The bolt spacing was the character of the wall. The wall could have twice as many bolts and be about half as exciting. I can think of countless others. And I appreciate a no stress clipping cruise too.

I have a vision in my head of a long, slightly overhung route, where the bolts are placed exponentially farther apart the higher you go. The idea being, no matter where you fall on the route, you land in the exact same place, x-feet above the ground. A route like that would be subject to belay error and likely dangerous, and yet the idea still intrigues me. It's like, if you step up to this route, you know exactly what you'll get: increasingly big whippers the higher you go ...

LL2wrote:

There's room in this world for all kinds of routes. In the age of MP and guidebooks, people can generally get enough beta to understand their risk. I've done runout sport routes and seriously enjoyed them. We used to subject ourselves to this all the time at the Grid Wall in AF. The bolt spacing was the character of the wall. The wall could have twice as many bolts and be about half as exciting. I can think of countless others. And I appreciate a no stress clipping cruise too.

I have a vision in my head of a long, slightly overhung route, where the bolts are placed exponentially farther apart the higher you go. The idea being, no matter where you fall on the route, you land in the exact same place, x-feet above the ground. A route like that would be subject to belay error and likely dangerous, and yet the idea still intrigues me. It's like, if you step up to this route, you know exactly what you'll get: increasingly big whippers the higher you go ...

Manufacturing a runout on a sport route goes against the very essence of sport climbing.

Tradiban: That is one view I can certainly understand. Unless one wants to engineer such a route for the sheer fun of it. And there are people out there who might find such a route to be exactly what they want to subject themselves to, again for fun and laughs at the ensuing whippers. Me and some climbing partners used to take the last day of a climbing trip, when we were spent and tired, and do the no-take challenge: you had to go until you whipped. We would generally do this on a relatively runout cliff just to make it all the more entertaining. A lot of heckling and good times resulted. I view the two the same way: going into something knowing full well that you're going to take a big fall.

All that said, I doubt I will ever create such a route. It is mostly an idea me and some friends have laughed about around a campfire. But I won't get dragged into a discussion of manufacturing a runout on a sport route until someone can give me a definitive answer of exactly what "runout" is. Hell, let's debate Ceuse! Some would argue that the Grid Wall is "runout". I would say that the Grid Wall was bolted perfectly for its length and angle. I'm on this forum for fun, not drama. Cheers, Tradiban!

LL2wrote:

Tradiban: That is one view I can certainly understand. Unless one wants to engineer such a route for the sheer fun of it. And there are people out there who might find such a route to be exactly what they want to subject themselves to, again for fun and laughs at the ensuing whippers. Me and some climbing partners used to take the last day of a climbing trip, when we were spent and tired, and do the no-take challenge: you had to go until you whipped. We would generally do this on a relatively runout cliff just to make it all the more entertaining. A lot of heckling and good times resulted. I view the two the same way: going into something knowing full well that you're going to take a big fall.

All that said, I doubt I will ever create such a route. It is mostly an idea me and some friends have laughed about around a campfire. But I won't get dragged into a discussion of manufacturing a runout on a sport route until someone can give me a definitive answer of exactly what "runout" is. Hell, let's debate Ceuse! Some would argue that the Grid Wall is "runout". I would say that the Grid Wall was bolted perfectly for its length and angle. I'm on this forum for fun, not drama. Cheers, Tradiban!

It's all fun and games until a noob breaks a leg.

You can always skip a bolt for big whips, if that's your bag.