Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2006 - 07:29pm PT
|
Tom! We need a breakthrough in rubber technology! Bring on the Secret Weapon!
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2006 - 07:37pm PT
|
Gecko Rubber
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2006 - 07:38pm PT
|
If you could get those micro-hairs to work.....
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 02:12pm PT
|
There were some guys at MIT, Purdue, or similar, that were using nanohairs to produce the Gecko Effect. I think they said it would take a rather large surface area to support a person, though.
A more immediate solution might be just that: a solution, as in glue your self to the wall and use a solvent to unstick and move. 39 days to the top sounds about right.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 05:42pm PT
|
Pete, I said it before, I'll say it again, with the standing record at 39 days you could bag yerself a speed record here. Sharpen them hooks!
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 06:25pm PT
|
Dr. Johnson to Dr. Piton:
"That's not wall climbing, that's wall camping!"
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 06:36pm PT
|
Damn straight it's camping. I refuse to climb any other way!
OK, so what has kept people from repeating this thang? Something about crumbly hook placements, only some of which hold body weight? Some don't?
What do you do if the edge that held those guys twenty years ago won't hold you today? Enhance it? Use a cheat stick?
Haven't some people tried the first few pitches and found them to be very hard?
The Reid guide shows two starts. What's the deal with that? Are those x's all rivets, or hooks, or enhanced hooks? Looking at the topo it looks reasonable - one A5 pitch and not too many A4. After 13 pitches you're on Aquarian.
Why did it take them so long? I mean, if *I* of all people am asking this question.....
If Tom and I go for the second ascent, will anyone help us schlepp loads? Will you think we're doin' somethin' bitchin', or doing something worthless?
And I've got the book on order, and it was shipped to Randy yesterday.
I'll confess I *am* curious.....
....my posts
... are starting ...
... to look like Ricardo's....
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Same place as you, man...... (WB)
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 07:14pm PT
|
Pete sez: What do you do if the edge that held those guys twenty years ago won't hold you today? Enhance it? Use a cheat stick?
Therein lies the problem. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Bring a jewlers loupe and hope for the best.
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 07:19pm PT
|
Pete, if it goes bad... suicide!
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 07:21pm PT
|
Well, I've got one ace-in-the-hole - they say they can't find the original topo, so nobody knows what the hole count is!
"tink tink tink"
I've never enhanced a hook placement, but oh man, have I ever wanted to a few times!
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Same place as you, man...... (WB)
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 07:28pm PT
|
Hey Pete:
here is what I wrote in part one.... so you don't have to part the Granite Sea to find it:
WosS FAist writes: Our "enhancements" didn't create a hole or go diagonally into the cliff. There are many enhanced hook placements on Wings of Steel, but, unlike the Sea, when you do the climb you won’t be able to tell which flakes were enhanced and which ones weren’t. **
This is the fatal flaw with the "method". If I can't tell which flakes have been ENHANCED, then am I allowed to ENHANCE my hook placements in order to do the route? How do I know I am even doing the correct route? Do I need to spend full days out on lead with a lupe just to get a legitimate ascent? Here is where it is total bullsh#t. I have been hosed by missing bat hook holes on a route and ended up bailing, only to come back to finish the route with a new topo showing the holes. It appears the same will happen to any fool who tries to do a second of WofS, and a good style ascent just may be impossible. Definining the degree of ENHANCEMENT is a silly game. The difference between we only cleaned a little with the drill, and drilling a hole is minimal in my book. I think I actually would prefer a hole with something in it. **
Then JIMB'o called me pussy and asked I would like every hook placement circled with a magic marker or something to that effect. hahahahaha!
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 07:45pm PT
|
ok f*#kers... keep jackin off with all this bullsh#t.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006 - 10:07pm PT
|
I'm with Russ on this one. Enhancing hooks just a bit is like being just a bit pregnant. Either you drill, or you don't. You don't "clean with a drill"!
I find it hard to believe you couldn't tell what flakes had been doctored and which ones haven't, then again, it's been 20 years.
Of course, there's only one way to find out. It all sounds so silly, I really am quite curious now.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006 - 02:46am PT
|
NostraThomas predicts that if someone doesn't go up there, on hooks, the Flatlanders will bondo holds all over the wall (paid for by ESPN) and then we'll have to deal with THAT.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006 - 04:52pm PT
|
Wellll... even without the original topo, we do know the hole count. As it says in the back of the book, there were 165 holes to do the route, including both starts AND the bat hook holes on the 13th pitch across to Aquarian.
"The deal" with the two starts is pretty simple. We originally did a much harder start to the route, choosing that rather than the second start (what we called "bogus" start) because we wanted to see from the ground up if the route would have enough hookable flakes to be viable (all this is explained in the book, btw). We found that the route was viable, but then that start was chopped. At that point we went up the much easier "bogus" start to reach our second anchor again, finished the route, and then ascended the "bogus" start again to rap-replace the original pitches as they were before the chopping.
I must say that I enjoy the irony of the fact that now some of the same people who originally complained that the route was a "bolt ladder" are now complaining that BECAUSE we didn't enhance the hooks ENOUGH, they won't know if they are still on route!
However, in fact, there are certainly enough rivets and bolts to keep you on route. Just use the best flakes you can find, climbing in more or less straight up fashion between the rivets and bolts.
Perhaps the problem here is that because the tendency on the FA of the famous "hooking" routes is to drill full-on holes anywhere in the vicinity of a flake or bulge, and then call that a "hook" placement, the fact that our FEW enhancements are not circled with magic marker makes our route not a climb-by-the-numbers route. There are a lot of flakes up there, so you can choose the ones that seem best to you! It seems now more like people are asking us to point out to them WHICH flakes actually held us, so that they can avoid the untested ones!
I might add that Slater seemed to have no trouble "finding his way" up to the fifth anchor. So, this whole debate about our "enhancements" seems to be a tempest in a teapot. If you want to count our "enhancements" as "holes," well fine. If you can find them, go ahead and count them. There are a few, and I mean a FEW, so if that ups the "hole count" enough to invalidate the route in your mind, well ok.
The flakes are there, and it's up to the climbers to decide upon which ones they want to use. If all the flakes pull off in a some sections, then new holes will have to be added. So be it. But, there should be at least one tasty fall for each new hole. Right?
As I've said, the debate about whether or not this route is "repeatable" in "good style" is quite ironic, because it appears that the critics now have the OPPOSITE thing to complain about than they did before. I mean, after all, a "bolt ladder" is eminently "repeatable."
It seems that some people will think that the route is invalid for SOME reason, no matter what, even if the current reason is the opposite of whatever their original reason might be. Oh well.
As far as the ethical discussion Fet and I had just started, I will post again later today. I've gotta run right now, and that discussion is worthy of more attention.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006 - 06:38pm PT
|
Now to an ethical discussion....
I agree, Fet, that in some sense repeatable seems to be more valuable. The problem is that there is an extreme tension between conflicting values. On the one hand, as I noted in my last post, the most repeatable route is a bolt ladder; yet such a "route" has effectively NO value as a "climbing" route. One might as well just lean a giant wooden ladder against the rock, because one is not really climbing the rock at all. Such "climbing" seems more like "hiking." (This point is related to the idea that difficulty and risk are also associated with value in climbing.)
On the other hand, the most difficult routes (all other things being equal, the more respectable and valuable routes) just are those that use incipient, marginal features of the rock. Such features break down, peel off, are beaten out over time, and thus generally quickly change. Thus, holes are added, and the character of the route changes.
This tendency has been observed on every hard big wall, from P.O. Wall on (and I'm sure from before P.O.).
So, I wonder what the connection actually is between value and repeatability. "Value" is a very slippery concept anyway, since it relies upon subjective perceptions of the "Good," which is an even more slippery concept. But that's speaking as though we're after some objectively valid definition, when really we're just after consensus.
Maybe the idea here is that a route has to be repeatable by at least a few qualified parties, in style closely-approximating that of the FA party, before the route breaks down enough to force stylistic changes.
Of course, then the problem becomes: what counts as enough parties, and what counts as qualified? Since WoS seems to be less "repeatable" than many routes, it acts as a good example of this problem. Obviously, no matter how otherwise qualified a person is, if he weighs 200+ pounds, he is going to change the character of the route, simply because he weighs too much to hook most of those flakes without peeling them off. So, must a route be "repeatable" to an 800 pound person in order to count as repeatable?
Ahh... the "average" climber. I say again, a 200 pound person should stay off of WoS. Probably a 180 pound person should too. Someone weighing 120 pounds is going to have a much easier time of it! But now we're talking about characteristics of PEOPLE rather than of routes, it seems to me. And it's simply not the case that every person (given their particular physical characteristics) should be able to climb every route.
An example I remember from the old days is this. The story was that John Long did the FFA of the Paisano (spelling?) overhang at Suicide Rock in SoCal (a wide crack through a roof) by wrapping his fists with duct tape until they were wide enough to fist-jam the crack. Now, regardless of whether or not the story is true, it illustrates the point that a small person with narrow fists is going to have a much harder time with that route, or find it impossible (no matter his wonderous off-width tactics). Wrapping one's fists with enough tape to fill the crack seems to me like a form of direct aid, so maybe the FFA wasn't really "free" after all. Is the Paisano overhang really "repeatable" as a free climb, when only people with the right sort of physical characteristics have a decent chance at the thing?
The point is that characteristics of people have ever affected the perceived value of various routes.
I think that there is a continuum of repeatability, ranging from a bolt ladder to a route consisting only of microflakes hookable by somebody weighing 65 pounds or less (or 30 pounds, or wherever your threshold of the absurd is). Obviously, the closer to the microflake end of the continuum your route is, the less valuable it's going to seem to most people (all the people that weigh more than 65 pounds, for example). Does that mean that there is a parallel (and hopefully related) continuum of value? If so, the big question in my mind is: what is the nature of the connection between the two continuums? The answer to that question is going to have to deal with the other point about difficulty and risk, which I why I'm inclined to think that "climbing" is ABOUT difficulty and risk; otherwise it would be "hiking" or "gymnastics" (which is not to denigrate either of those, btw).
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Same place as you, man...... (WB)
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006 - 07:16pm PT
|
ummm... your analogy is nice but flawed.
One example is a limit of physics and the other is a limit of ingenuity. A midget could use head stacks on Pisano. A known weight (Pete) on an object of known capable load (flake) will never succeed unless you either lighten the load or make the flake stronger.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006 - 08:08pm PT
|
Hmmm... I don't think my analogy falls that easily. I agree that one appears to be an ingenuity limitation, but actually both are physical problems. In the one, the climber must fill a space; in the other the climber must not weigh too much. Ingenuity can solve both problems... but within the limits of style?
Your claim that a midget could use a head stack seems to me to miss the point. The point is that crack can be just the size that a person can't effectively fill it with just his body parts (too small for a head jam, too wide for a fist, etc.). Now, sure, by some means any crack can be free-climbed, but at what rating and in what style? Is the route the same rating (or style, for that matter) for a guy who fist-jams it, compared to the midget who head-jams it? Are both going to VALUE the route the same way? The issue is, after all, about perceived value, which it has been said is a function of repeatability (by some means).
The weight problem can be solved in essentially the same way as taping one's fists to be the right size (so as, I assume, to "level the playing field" rating and value-wise). My idea is simple. Let's say that the "repeatable" weight for WoS is determined to be exactly 155 pounds racked. So, you just weigh yourself racked at the base of the climb and then string up and attach to yourself the appropriate number of helium balloons to make your racked weight exactly 155 pounds. Then, you'll be on a "level playing field" with the FA team members and can do the route in relatively the same style (and hopefully the balloons won't spring a leak).
Another alternative, of course, is to, like Christian Bale for the movie The Machinist, simply lose enough weight to climb the route. Isn't that just a matter of ingenuity too?
Whether the physics problem is "filling a space" or "not weighing too much," climbing is just a game of solving physical problems with ingenuity. The issue of how is strictly a matter of style.
So, I don't think my analogy is so flawed after all.
We invent rules of how to play the game, and somehow those rules get inflated to the level of dogma. Is it any more unreasonable to expect a second ascent team to not weigh too much than to expect people wanting to climb the Pisano overhang to have a physical configuration that makes it reasonable for them to do so (without having to resort to... headjams!!!)?
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006 - 08:11pm PT
|
WHAT THE F*#K
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Same place as you, man...... (WB)
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006 - 08:14pm PT
|
Sounds like a job *for* the Pisano midget.... with a cheat stick of course!
My 230 with a wall rack is feeling kinda big for this one. Klaus is like 123lbs and Pete looks pretty skinny. I nominate them. I do like the balloon deal-e-o though.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!