Bolts are convenient.

Five Fingers tree...is it at the top of Five Fingers, but, to the east and down from Fat Man's Misery? Down climb to it? I don't think I saw it from the top of Fat Man's.

hey gentleman,

I like the idea of mentoring...I am especially open to it since I want to do my best to establish/re-establish safe, fun, acceptable lines. This matters to me as I have made the decision to move past the 'idea' phase and into the 'manifest' phase (i.e. after months, I finally decided to put hammer to drill up in green adj. gully).

I am also starting to feel a sense of 'ownership' (at least in the sense that I too will clean/replace old manky webbing, and will eventually take up the swing to make sure that the hardware that is in place is safe and acceptable--in no way do I feel that certain pieces are mine!). I guess this is better stated as 'active stewardship'. This sense has developed since I started spending 'excessive' time in the canyons and now, that I enjoy the 'development/maintenance aspect' of climbing (in addition to actually getting out there and just climbing).

I have made tentative plans to get out with the Smoots and help/absorb some wisdom from them...I'd like to get out with you TC (oh my gosh!)...and anyone else who doesn't mind an extra arm...I am on the society wheel of existence and thus have an erratic schedule, but if you remember and would like, call me:
glen 733-0065

As for my take on convenience bolts/anchors...I think it comes down to the following variables (in situational order):
a) history: of route and area
b) vision: of FA
c) evolution: routes change and climbing changes
d) safety
e) impact: both environmentally, visually, and to resource management
f) traffic

cya

Brian said:

"Five Fingers tree...is it at the top of Five Fingers, but, to the east and down from Fat Man's Misery? Down climb to it? I don't think I saw it from the top of Fat Man's."

Yes, but the tree is back a ways. It's so thick, we used to just rap off of one of the branches, it is 75 feet.

In regards to your Yosemite drivel, your bolting with a really dull drill bit man, don't have time to shoot you airplane full of holes right now!

Glen said:

"I have made tentative plans to get out with the Smoots"

That's questionable company.

bsmoot wrote:Glen said: "I have made tentative plans to get out with the Smoots" That's questionable company.

yeah, definitely...maybe 'mentor' isn't the best word...

how about 'between the two of these guys, I'll have at least 1/2 of a good example!'

:)

remember to call me Brian/Jonathan

besides the weather (which is pretty awesome right now--) I've had plenty of time and energy...all I need is some direction!

PS I will be out this evening...we might go over there to S.Slabs...check out the sunset...

Brian in SLC wrote: Probably give you Nutcracker (only one I could think of thats a popular moderate that hasn't changed). After Six? New rap anchors, but, yeah, not so much different. Grack? See the guidebook, new rap anchors. Snake Dike? After the FA, the FA party wanted folks to enjoy the route, and of course, Roper went up there and added a ton of bolts to it. Royal Arches? Old tree is gone. New rap anchors up there (not a ton, though).

Steve Roper did fix some shitty bolts on snake dike on the second ascent with the blessing of the FA party. The anchors are relatively bomber and the total of six bolts on 7 pitches doesn't really constitute a ton of bolts added does it?

Alan Searcy wrote: Steve Roper did fix some shitty bolts on snake dike on the second ascent with the blessing of the FA party. The anchors are relatively bomber and the total of six bolts on 7 pitches doesn't really constitute a ton of bolts added does it?

You're right. Given the time, when it was expressly verboten to add bolts to someone else's climb, and that adding the bolts totally changed the character of that route, its more like TEN TONS of bolts.

And, non of the original Roper bolts are there any more anyhow (replaced and augmented with even more, methinks).

Point being, that holding Yosemite up as some pillar of unchanged traditional climbing, where folks are still whacking in iron pins to build belay anchors...

Geez, Brian, go back and re-read Coonyard Mouths Off (Ascent '72). Instead of rappelling from 18 foot diameter pine trees (which Harding scoffed at in Downward Bound, no less), folks have been adding convenience bolts and anchors since George Anderson climbed Half Dome.

I'll take climbing history for 100 Alex...

Drivel? Arrrgh. You're just tossin' for being weak.

Ha ha.

Swap on Saturday?

Brian in SLC wrote: You're right. Given the time, when it was expressly verboten to add bolts to someone else's climb, and that adding the bolts totally changed the character of that route, its more like TEN TONS of bolts.

Hmmmm, guess times have changed when I wasn't watching. I thought some things would never change from the old school in the Valley to the "newer sport climbers". Adding even (1) bolt where it didn't exist previously on a route that aint yours is still expressly verboten in my world. I guess if you're either 8 or 80 it makes sense to safen up and convenientize whatever route you're shitting yourself on. Unless putting up something new, who bangs steel anymore in the Valley? It would be amusing to watch the "discussion" between Bridwell and some dumbass adding bolts to snake dike or any other of his routes. Replacing is another thing entirely, it doesn't change the character of the route and it's somewhat less deadly to take a 150 footer on a shiny ARI bolt versus a star drive and a homemade hanger.

How's Mr. Bachar recovering?

Don't touch my monkey junk.

See you in the desert, bitch.

Guys:

Don't think the bolts on Snake Dike constitute convenience bolts, there more like, I-don't-want-to-die-bolts. But yes, now that you jolt my memory, they're not all original.

Brian, we're talking moderate classics, and you mention Sea of Dreams? You're swingin on hollow ice! Yeah, I'll be at the swap meet selling cold chisels...just kidding. Oh yeah, I do have some old cams. Got them when they first came out, but I won't trade them yet cause I still use them! They're only 27 years old.

Glen, been real busy lately but we'll hook up. Yeah, still trying to get some history going.

Tony Calderone wrote:Perhaps earth-tone colored chain on trees?

It would seem to me that hanging chains on a tree is a poor solution. The chains will dig into the bark in the same exact fixed position for years, and be much more harmful then webbing ever would. (Not that webbing is a great idea for the tree either.) My thought is that if you are going to go through the effort and expense of putting hardware on a route then drill some holes and leave the tree alone. The chain won't be much more visible if it drilled near the base of the tree, than if it is hung around the tree.

Tony Calderone wrote:Chains or webbing (even naturally colored) around a tree are actually more damaging to the environment AND greater visual impact that rock-colored, bolted rappel rings near the base of the tree. It could also be argued that they do not significantly change the original character of the route because there was a fixed anchor there before. It was just a different type. Any more thoughts?

Sure- every anchor is a time-bomb of sorts- and the questions are:
How long the bomb ticks for before it goes off?
How easy is it to "read" the clock?
How easy is it to "reset" the clock?

Most climbers on a multi=-pitch route will carry some webbing, cord/rope or something they can back up or replace a trad anchor with if needed. They will travel with this because it is expected, and easy to do. Inspecting gear or slings is pretty easy, and they are almost always redundant. Most people will rap off of 1 good sling and one OK sling without feeling in danger or anxiety.
The bomb does not tick long,
But it is easy to read and easy to reset.
Almost anyone can do either.

Bolts tick a lot longer. But there are bad bolts that look good and good bolts that look bad. Few climbers carry a drill and few have the skill to use one.
The bomb ticks for a long time
Many people can not read the clock on it
Fewer still can reset the clock.

Further more, bolts build a dependence on bolts. People take less equipment on a route where they have an expectation of their presence and to some degree now "rely" on having them.

Presently there is, in almost any community, a small and select group of people who are dedicated to maintaining the equipment. I.E. the ASCA, and individual people local to Boulder such as Bruce Hildenbrand who are obsessed with replacing bad bolts (for better or for worse, I am just making an observation & he's agreed with it).

As the number of bolts ticking in place, the number of people running about hitting the snooze button must also, or else...
And that's when climbing gets banned.

So choose wisely when you decide to place bolts. When trad anchors will do, perhaps they should.

Tony Calderone wrote:Scientific data suggests we have over 100 years in an environment such as Utah granite before these may need to be replaced. This point about modern bolts does not invalidate some of Mr. Bubb's points at all. But I think it reduces the significance of some other points.

100 years? Don't forget about "single rogue events" I.E.:
-Rockfall smashes a hanger.
-The section of rock it is in degrades (common in sandstone)
-Someone removes the bolt (common in J-tree, the Southeast, the South Platte, and wherever retrobolting occurs)...

And then there's the fact that if there are chains, that bozo's will TR through them and wear the F'ers out and while your bolts are good, your chains are trashed. So you use maillions, but after a few years they are seized up anyway, so you still can't swap them.

The probability of a anchor going bad over time is not a simple slope, it is a slope plus offset. One can not say when a bolt might become bad or disappear. This intensifies the importance of ease of replacement and decreases the mitigating circumstance of quality hardware.

Sorry I don't agree with you. Well, actually not. I should rather say that I am sorry it's so difficult to disagree with you.

While I do have a degree in mechanical engineering, have studied the science of materials and metalurgy, and am professionally employed as a Failure Analysis Engineer at a fortune 100 company, I do not have a PHD. But none of that is relivant since my opinions on replacing or removing links, bolts, chains, and all other manner of anchors have been formed by practical experience, not by my formal education. So you are certainly correct that a PHD is NOT required to replace old lings and chain, but frequently a wrench and WD-40 are and sometimes a hack-saw is.

If you just want to argue, go ahead. If you would like to have a real discussion, you should acknowledge that a different set of tools is required to replace webbing than to replace old worn links, and that MOST climbers have a pocket knife and some cord, and that fewer carry a drill, a wrench, or hacksaw. Furthermore, replacing on old bolt is not as simple as you are implying... again, unless you just happen to go trad multi-pitch with a crowbar to pull the old sleave and some spare bolts.

These ARE worthy considerations when selecting your type of anchor. That siad, I think chains on trees are amost implicity bad. Webbing is certainly a less-cruel option.

If you think I am anti-bolt or anti hardware, you're barking up the wrong tree. I am asking for consideration of the various circumstances and possibilities, not saying one is implicitly better than another. If you feel otehrwise, start with a little research. Read comments on:
mountainproject.com/v/color…
"Thanks to Tony Bubb for leading this climb. See the photo below of Kor's original belay bolt."

mountainproject.com/v/color…
"The hardware for this work was provided by the American Safe Climbing Association (www.safeclimbing.org). They appreciate your support. Also, thanks to Tony Bubb for leading Rogue's Arete to get us on top."

mountainproject.com/v/color…
"Tony Bubb and I replaced the two bolts (one 1/4" rawl split shaft, one 3/8" star dryvin) on this pitch with 3/8" stainless steel (SS) Rawl five piece bolts. And yes, the 1/4 rawl was especially manky!
The American Safe Climbing Association (www.safeclimbing.org) donated the materials used in this project."

Tony Calderone wrote:Planning ahead for a bolt to be removed that would otherwise last 100+ years seems like another discussion altogether because we really don't know what technology will exist in 100+ years. Some types of hardware may be easier to remove than others (stainless/titanium vs. carbon steel)...

It may be a silly point, but... stainless steel is not immune to corrosion. In fact, stainless steel is more susceptible to certain types of wearing than "carbon steel", ie, hydrogen induced cracking, fatigue, galvanic coupling corrosion, etc. All of which can, and do, take place in environments such as the wasatch.

The point is - there are a lot of factors in determining the life of a bolt and even stainless steel bolts probably only have a life span of 30 or so years depending on the factor of safety. Don't you wish climbers 30 years ago had had this discussion before placing 1/4" buttonheads, Tony? Obviously, stainless steel bolts are nearly the best we have today, but throwing out life spans of 100+ years is a little thoughtless.

Also, stainless steel is a carbon steel, steel is, by definition, an alloy of iron and carbon. Stainless steel just has more chromium and nickel.

tim f wrote: It may be a silly point, but... stainless steel is not immune to corrosion.

In my mind, one of the bigger issues with stainless bolts is SCC. Overtorquing a stainless bolt or stud might set stress corrosion into motion. Not being in a marine environment would probably limit the concern to nil once past proper installation, though.

Note that Powers lowered their installation torque for their power bolts in 3/8" to 10 to 12 foot pounds.

Powerbolts seem to be the better long term solution, as they can be pulled out (or drilled through) while a stud cannot. Note that the ASCA uses almost exclusively powerbolts for their rebolting efforts.

With properly placed stainless bolts/studs, I've not seen much, if any, corrosion concerns here in the interior of the west. Has anyone? No telling how long these things will last, but, my bet is WAY longer than plated grade 5 or similar non stainless bolts/studs.

As for webbing, its easily removed and/or replaced. Not so with fixed hardware like bolts and/or studs.

Chain around trees seems kinda thugish to me (and not so aesthetic). Tree above Callitwhatyouplease for instance, had a chain anchor around it for several years, but, is now dryed up and dead (probably not related to the chain, methinks, but, maybe damage from rock or snow/ice from above?). Now the anchor is two bolts, rapides, and chains. Low profile. Chain from that tree has been cut up and distributed to various and sundry routes hither and yon.

Although I don't use it anymore (prefer the traverse off lower to the left), the chain around the tree below the top out for the routes on the Dead Snag doesn't seem that obtrusive. Although it seems if folks are going to rap from that formation, they do it from the chained anchor at the top of that crag, rather than the walk off/down climb.

I almost always carry dark colored "bail" webbing when I climb.

Tony Bubb wrote:
If you feel otherwise, start with a little research.
Tony Caldarone wrote:
I'm sorry. But research on this subject just doesn't sound like much fun after completing my Mechanical Engineering thesis on "The Fatigue Life of 1/4" Bolts in Climbing Applications". But thanks for informing the public.

Don't be a jerk. You totally took that out of context along with most of the rest of the stuff you poked fun at. And that's called "twist and shout." Why delete the line before it that said:
"If you think I am anti-bolt or anti hardware, you're barking up the wrong tree. "

Add for the record, I do not think fixed trad gear or bolts are implicitly better/worse. But I do think that webbing on a tree is implicitly better than chain.

If you want to be a wise-guy, you should get wiser. "Thanks for informing the public", as you put it.

I didn't do my thesis on 1/4 inch bolts, but I did one on social psychology and motivation as well as research in impression formation. But I don't need that to tell you that you're making a poor one on me by deleting context and reordering my points. "ha ha?"

Perhaps I started it, but I did not delete any text to misquote you and then attack what you did not say, nor re-order your arguments. Maybe you're rubbing me the wrong way and maybe we're both just porcupines.

Tony Calderone wrote:Perhaps your education on this subject, along with your keen website insight have allowed you to see deep into my psyche and reveal the incredible "jerk" I truly am.

None moreso than this last post.

Tony Calderone wrote:Mr. Bubb, Other than the list of references at the very end I included every word you said in the order you said it.

Which is what I take exception and offense to.

Tony Calderone wrote:I'm sincerely sorry for anything I said that you took as a personal attack on you. I'm sincerely sorry for anything I said that offended you. I obviously misunderstood you. I don't think you are a jerk. I have nothing against you.

Then why the sarchasm?

Whatever, I've been in my share of arguments and I've been pretty rude to a few select people so my poop stinks too, Maybe it’s in the name Tony, which is another thing we share. People who have somethign against one or the other of us are going to use this as another example of how unreasoanble we both are. Like I said before, maybe we are both just porcupines. Nothing you said offended me directly, but the way it was constructed was bothering me. IT probably bothers me and not you because it's not how I would have handled it (and vice-versa) I don't chop context out of peoples arguments, and I don't mix apologies with slams. I'm far more likely to say something like:

"Tony, After reading a lot of other stuff you have posted on this site, it appears that god has indeed kissed you full on the lips. I am glad he loves you, because the list of the rest of us is shrinking."

And just leave it at that, because that's what kind of jerk I am. I don't CARE if people like me, I just don't like to have shit I am not liable for foisted upon me and then criticized. I have enough fault of my own that I don't need people putting words in my mouth to invent more. Crucify me for what I have done and I'll suffer it, but don't even wag a finger at me for things I haven't, because I won't put up with it quietly.

Save the apology, I wasn't asking for one or offering one, and I never wanted that wreath of barbs. I could have a beer with you tomorrow if I lived there and think nothing more of it, just don't misquote me and don't mock me if there is a chance you don't understand.

Tony C: You wrote that I wrote: (and put it in quotes):

"I ask because it seems reasonable to say that a 1/4" new bolt was probably bomber in its day, but 30 years on, it's not."

Then you responded to what you SAID I wrote:
"Ummm... Did you say you were a Mechanical Engineer?"

Hey, howabout you tell me where I said that? Point it out to me? Because I don't see that under my posts in this discussion. Or are you going to admit not only to taking things I said out of context, but furtermore, to DIRECTLY MANUFACTURING a FALSE "quote" by me, and then making fun of it?

>>>"Brian also has a wealth of engineering knowledge and climbing history... even if he puts his foot in his mouth sometimes.">>>

he he he.... classic.

Jesus Guys, Give it a rest. Im trying to remember Guideline #1, but its hard when you keep this bullshit up for damn near 2 to 3 plus months now. I keep checking if there is any good things to read about and all I see is the same old shit. Please for the rest of us that are sick of seeing this, get new topics. If you feel like you still have to discuss this issue, exchange phone numbers and go to town.