Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:33am PT
|
Wow, Matt, I remain as baffled as before. Really. I understood everything up until this line: "yet, we may have to 'improve' a hook placement or 2 above this hole that we are drilling, because the fall from there would be too serious..."
You seem to continually fixate on the idea that we were "improving" hooks, like the common notion of "enhancing" hooks that is familiar to everyone because they have seen so much of it on other routes. What you are imagining is that we find a flake when we are WAY run out and say, "Man, I'm not willing to fall from here, so if I just drill a little pit here for the tip of the hook.... Well, ok, it's a LONG way run out, so it's needs, really, a little BIGGER pit, 'cause I'm NOT falling from here.... Ahhh, yes, that looks deep enough. Well, maybe just a LITTLE bit deeper."
There are NO "pits," or holes drilled behind flakes, or "enhancements" to make a hook placement "better" such that it is less likely to fail. As we have already said, what we ACTUALLY found is that when we would tap a flake AT ALL, that seemed to make it more likely to fail rather than less. So, if anything, the more run out we would get, the less likely we would be to want to try to "find" some wildly marginal flake and "make" it work for us. The farther out we would get, the more likely we would be to look at a flake and say, "No, that's really crap! I'm not trying that one. After all, a hook wouldn't even seat on it."
You also continually imply that there's just "modifications" willy nilly on the route, as you suggest that any place we got run out there would be "a hook placement or 2" that we "enhanced." We have argued this endlessly, but I will take one final "stab" at clearing this up in your mind. Let's say that Mark's earliest, wildest, most hyper-"honest" (to the point of hyperbole) "estimate" of our "modifications" is strictly accurate (which even he has said is not the case). In that ONE passage you have repeatedly referred to he said 10 to not as much as 20 percent of hooks might have been modified. So, let's go with the outer edge of 19 percent, just for the purposes of your argument.
The number of hooks we used on the route is one of our known quantities, because that we did count up as we went: 151. Assuming a 19 percent figure, that would mean that 28 of those hooks were "modified" (I think, an absolutely outrageous number that is far from reality, and I have never agreed to as many as a dozen). Now, there are 13 pitches that number is spread over, but we won't even count the 13th, where there are only rivets and bat hooks that we didn't count as "hooks." So, that means 28 "modifications" spread over 12 pitches, which averages out to 2.33 "modified" hooks per pitch. All of those twelve pitches were at least 145 feet long. We were often run out during a 145 foot long pitch (since there is only an average of about 3 protection bolts per 145 foot pitch). So, giving you your wildest best-case scenario data, you would still be very hard pressed to sustain your idea that any time we got run out above a rivet we would plan to "modify" "one or 2" hook placements.
But, again, all this "data" is actually a red herring, because we didn't "modify" hooks in anything like the sense you are used to seeing, which is a point you seem to insist on not getting. Our "modifications" did not make hooks "better" in the sense of making them more likely to hold us. Our "modifications" made a hook placement POSSIBLE where it was not POSSIBLE before, and such an attempt made that placement MORE likely to fail rather than less (a point we have repeatedly made from the very beginning of this discussion, and which you perpetually don't get). So, again, we certainly weren't doing it to AVOID falls, which is the point with traditional "enhancements" that are designed to put more rock under the tip of the hook.
If, after all that has been said on this subject, you can continue to believe that our knocking a period-sized crystal off of a dime-sized edge was some sort of "chicken move" to avoid falls, then you really are beyond the value of any further discussion on this matter. All I can say at this point is: "Get your butt out of your chair and up onto the route, and then, IF you can get anywhere on it, you'll be in a better position to talk about all of the "chicken modifications" we (in your mind) were sprinkling liberally all over the route."
Regarding the earlier sentences of your "argument," all I can say is that I still don't get the point. Dowels and rivets were introduced TO do the very thing we used our rivets to do: "Keep the commitment level high," where that JUST MEANS, "Keep the long fall risk high." If you are advocating that ALL drilled placements must be bolts to make pitches "safe," then I can only say that this perspective doesn't jive with decades of "hard" (read: long fall danger) routes that have used rivets for just this very purpose. If you want rivets to be counted on to hold falls, then just put in bolts (or use a scream-aid on any old crap, and it's effectively as good as a bolt).
So, in the future, please don't continue to try to flog the dead horse of our "modifications" by introducing them into EVERY discussion, even where they obviously don't fit, such as this one.
You don't like that we "modified." We get it!!! But you're one of the few who thinks that this is an "issue" any more, and you're not convincing us that we did anything "wrong." We've heard AND understood ALL the arguments about it. That discussion has never succeeded in making the case that we did anything in "poor style" compared to many if not most of the most respected ascents of not only that decade but all the decades since the start of the 70s. That dog won't hunt, and dropping it into this discussion still doesn't turn a puntable, perfumed toy poodle into a black lab!
So, as I said before, try to take another "stab" at it, that THIS time answers the simple question: Do you advocate that EVERY drilled placement MUST be a bolt? I just don't understand what Werner, darod, and now you seem to be suggesting, because it strikes me that it flies in the face of the whole POINT to using rivets at all. Please explain.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:57am PT
|
interesting.
actually in that last post, i was just being obnoxious.
i stated my opinions at length, a bit above.
care to comment on my edit?
thanks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:33am PT
|
Yeah, Matt, there are "ladders." It's been stated repeatedly that almost the entire third pitch is a rivet ladder. There are a few short ladders here and there as well.
What you might see in various places (this sort of thing is actually easily seen from the ground on the first pitch) is something like this: A protection bolt, then (dang, hoped to hook from the good bolt, but nothing there) a rivet, then (dang it again!) another rivet, then (cool!) four hooks in a row, then a bolt, then free climbing past two more bolts, etc. It's not like placement types were spread evenly through the pitches or among pitches. There are easy sections and run out sections spread through the pitches (these are long pitches). Again, if you think you're getting anything LIKE a "picture" from crunching the numbers, I can only suggest you get up there and actually see how those numbers play out. It's a big slab, but I encourage you to perform whatever count intrigues you once you're there.
The figures are for the whole route, which is thirteen pitches and about 1800 feet of climbing.
I'm still not hearing what's wrong with body-weight-only rivets.
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 09:45am PT
|
Placing a rivet is not just to keep the commitment level high. You do that as oppossed to a bolt, because it takes a fraction of the time and at least on the short term, is probably less damaging/intrusive to the rock. Now, choosing a rivet that is not intented to hold falls (although they did as you mentioned before), is what I think is the wrong mentality and trying to manufacturing difficulty.
Richard and Mark, from the start last year of this saga here in ST land, I have appreciated your honesty and I have been a firm supporter of the truth. I believe you guys put up a damn hard route and people did and still do, treat you almost like criminals, all based on ignorance and local arrogance, I have appreciated how forward you guys have been about the route, more so than most people would be in this kind of situation. I believe your route was futuristic and probably misunderstood, and also believe you did it in the best style you could have possibly do it, period.
In regards placing a bad rivet with the sole purpose of keeping the danger/commitement level high though, I guess we will have to dissagree.
You guys are alright in my book, and would have a non-alcoholic beer with you any time!!
Cheers,
darod.
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 10:45am PT
|
I think the choice of body weight only rivets is totally a question of style (not ethics) which is a subject fit for much debate over a few beer, but can’t really be held as criticism of the route on an ethical basis. I just want to make sure everyone maintains perspective here, as an academic debate over preferred style does not fall into the “moving target” of ethical standards.
The choice of what to put into the hole, once it is drilled, is really at the discretion of the FA team. I think their choice to use the rivets they did to maintain the commitment level was totally legit. They placed bolts often enough to prevent falls from being fatal, but kept the commitment level with their choice of rivets, because they were trying to push themselves to face their fears and all of that. The result is a route which is more mentally committing than dangerous (at least not any more dangerous than a highball boulder problem where you might get banged up or break and ankle but death is not likely.) It sounds like it really makes a climber come to terms with their fear of falling (as apposed to decking) in a way most routes don’t require. I respect that.
All that being said, I would personally be inclined to put the best protection I could into whatever hole I drilled, so if I did an FA I would be looking for a different experience than these guys were. If I used rivets it would be because they required less of a hole and were less obtrusive, but I would use the strongest rivet I could get, because I have trouble even convincing myself that a bolt will hold, so with my irrational fear of heights everything I do above twenty feet up a cliff requires quite a level of mental commitment anyway.
This is all Big Wall Theory, however, and completely an academic exercise for me, since I have never used a rock drill except to hang pictures in a brick house. I have had to be very sensitive to distinctions of ethics versus style however as I was president of Climb Nova Scotia (CNS certifies instructors and handles access negotiations in Nova Scotia) for two years, and have given these issues a great deal of thought in the local context.
Teth
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 11:42am PT
|
When you use bad rivits to keep the so called "commitment level" high it means you created the route for yourself and yourself only as I see it.
You can do that, I wouldn't.
Now it's your route and yours only .........
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:11pm PT
|
Well, I guess in the end, it seems that Teth makes the most overarchingly cogent point: "Style vs. Ethics." Nice job, Teth.
Darod, I HAVE very much appreciated your perspective throughout all the discussions, and I'll share some sort of beverage with you ANY time!
I still don't see how the Zamacs mean that the route is now for us alone, but sometimes I can be dense (seriously). Anyway, I guess we now own an El Cap route. Cool. :-)
Dang, I just thought of a major problem, and it has really destroyed my cool! If those rivets start getting replaced with the bolts that some think are needed, then our ownership will trickle through our fingers.... Soon, just ANY sort of riff-raff will be "bold" enough to go up on the route! It won't be just for us any more! Arggg! Noooo! People can't DO that to OUR route!!! I see ONLY one option: Mark and I are just going to have to take up shifts across the Valley with a high-powered rifle and at least wing anybody who even THINKS about replacing those rivets!!! I don't own MUCH in this world, and I'm NOT losing WoS! Can I get some help on this from any of you? Darod? Anybody who's been sympathetic? Come ON guys, band together! Help us KEEP what's OURS!!!
(Sorry... don't know what got into me. I'm all better now.)
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:21pm PT
|
see richard? you still don't get it! the valley is steeped in traditions and precident. there is no historical precident for protecting your turf in the valley w/ a high powered rifle! if you want to keep the "riff raff" off of what you view as "your" chunk of the big stone, you have to climb something above them and drop poop bags...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:31pm PT
|
Matt, with the limited information you had, I can certainly understand you not "getting it" about how best to protect YOUR resource. It's sad. Really. Poop bombs are the "small guns." Pathetic.
Actually Mark and I DO know from a very well-known, although now dead, Valley boy that threat of a high-powered rifle IS the best way to keep the riff-raff from degrading a route, like, say, the Sea of Dreams. So, I KNOW first-hand how effective such a prospect can be, and if it can keep the Sea pure, it can keep WoS pure! Without that ol high-powered rifle looking over our shoulder, there's just no telling what we would have done to the Sea!
So, Matt, I appreciate what you're saying, but, man, you've just got to be prepared to REALLY step up to the plate.
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:33pm PT
|
Classic Matt. Classic!
Edit: OH, I don’t think Madbolter1 got it.
Edit 2: Or is mad just being sarcastic too? Now I am confused. I assumed Matt was pointing out the absurdity of the whole protect your turf mentality.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:38pm PT
|
That's not true, Werner.
Tom replaced the bolts and rivets on the first two pitches. The rivets will indeed hold short falls when you put a Yates Scream-Aid onto it. They're every bit as strong as a head, maybe stronger. An aid route that involves runout hooking above heads is legit.
Also, as you can read above in great metallurgical detail, the existing rivets and bolts are not bad, either, and will still hold falls when equipped with Yates fall arresters. Ammon proved this with three fifty-footers onto [an] old bolt[s].
The route is not enhanced when you compare it to any others. If there are any enhancements, I couldn't see them.
Quit whining, start climbing. If you think it's so terrible and chipped and everything, why not go take a look at it now? Maybe Ammon would let you use his ropes? Or you could try to climb it like me - it's pretty darn hard. I'll raise my offer to Ammon, and make it a case of beer delivered to the base of Wings of Steel! I'll get Randy to help, cuz he wants to take pictures. How much more incentive can we give Ammon? He's at five cases already!
Matt - you have a lot to say for a guy who has never stood on a hook. Or have you? Have you done any hooking whatsoever? If so, please share with us the total number of hook moves you have made while leading aid climbs. Note: "Zero" is an acceptable answer if it is true.
I still have an outstanding [url="http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=234216&f=0&b=0#msg236621"]question for John Middendorf.[/url] This link will take you to it, and put the question into context. Please answer beneath.
Now guys, have a good look at this photo. This is pretty much representative of the kind of hook moves I found on Wings of Steel. They are sick, scary and runout. If you move a hair, you're off. It is very difficult and strenuous to make a hook placement like this work.
Now, I will tell you that this is probably as extreme a hook placement as I was able to use. Most of the placements are better, but here's the thing - the hook placements are not really much better than what you see above!
The points I want to make are this:
The hooking is sick, hard, runout and scary
It takes Balls of Steel to climb stuff like this
Whatever enhancement these guys made, you won't be able to see because the enhancements are truly at a microscopic level
Now follow this logic - if this is the sort of hook placement that Mark and Richard actually used on the route, then ask yourself this question:
How much artificial enhancement would a more marginal placement then this one above take to render it useable, in other words, to bring it to the same size edge of as this? Answer this question, and you may get an idea of the level of enhancement these guys might have made in a few places!
If you can actually find the far-greater-than-actual "2.33 enhancements per pitch", then you have better eyes than me, cuz I couldn't see Dick on a stick.
I repeat - Mark and Richard are too damn honest! If these said, "we made no enhanced hook placements," then anybody climbing up there would agree. In their quest be be forthcoming in every detail, it is almost as though they are shooting themselves in the foot.
What nobody seems to be understanding here is the truly futuristic nature of this route! Look at the bloody hook above! Now imagine standing on it, and trying to move up. What do you find? Something else just as sick! And now you're ten, fifteen, twenty feet or more above your last bolt. How are you feeling now??? [Answer: me - pass the puke bag]
Now here is another point you guys seem to be overhammering. Hundred-bolt routes were put up on El Cap subsequent to Wings of Steel. Even counting enhancements, these guys drilled fewer lead bolts and rivets per pitch on Wings of Steel when compared to some later routes.
You know, when you drive a piton into a crack, you have to listen to it. With each subsequent whack of the hammer, the pitch of the piton's ring goes up, but the change in pitch is very slight. You need something of a musical ear to detect it. When the piton is fully driven, then two blows of the hammer will emit the very same musical note. At this point, you need to stop. You have said as much to the piton with your hammer as you can possibly say, because if you hit it any more, you will overdrive the pin, and actually loosen it.
Wings of Steel may be the most overdriven piton in the history of this forum! Recently, I scored as the Second-Most Loquacious after Lois, with a word count of 141 per post. Can someone please calculate Richard Jensen's average word count? He might be #1!
Hey Richard - I bet you overdrive your pin placements, too! Doncha?! Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:43pm PT
|
Yeah Matt, don't think madbolther1 got, go easy on him...
lol
edit: ditto Teth! is the joke on us now?
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:56pm PT
|
Just to clarify, how long is a Leeper narrow hook? It measures 7 inches on my 19" monitor, so I am guessing that hook placement looks two or three times larger in that photo than it actually is. Knowing how long the hook is would give some scale to the photo.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 12:59pm PT
|
Pete
I think we were talking about purposely placing bad rivets and not copperheads.
I always thought if you drill a hole for protection you put something in there to hold. (The rivets were never intended to hold falls) Not making time bombs.
The route is made for others too?
Just me wondering how people think in terms of ....... ? the community and others that will follow.
Edit: So all this is fine, but no wonder no one has done this variation on El Cap. You need to be so bad ass and have balls of steel to do. Most people are not crazy.
|
|
darod
Trad climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 01:00pm PT
|
the leepers are about 3", maybe 2 1/2"? something in that neighborhood...
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 01:28pm PT
|
I have to confess that time-wise I've been unable to keep up with all the posts, so forgive me if I spout off on things already hashed out. Regarding our use of Zamac rivets, our intent was several fold: keep the commitment level high, create something reliable for future ascent parties, leave as small of a footprint as possible. No device is best at even two of these, let alone all three. We felt the Zamac was the best device available to compromise all three concerns. I still feel that the Zamac was the best choice because I haven’t seen anything else that does a better job at balancing these three issues. However, given the flack we’ve taken for them, having to do over we likely would have chosen something else out of respect for the will of community at large. But I should note that when Tom told me that he was going to replace the rivets on the first two pitches I asked him if he would save the removed rivets for me. He gave me four of them. The stainless steel nails which are the key to their strength had essentially no corrosion and looked as strong as the day they were place. The lead alloy sleeves have become noticeably brittle, but seem to have more than enough integrity to keep the nails in place. I would much rather lead the climb today with modern screamer technology than I would with new rivets and no screamers. My major point is that we intended to leave a repeatable route and the recently removed rivets indicate that we succeeded.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 01:42pm PT
|
Dang it, Teth/darod... I was the FIRST one to post the sarcasm about protecting MY resource, THEN Matt hopped on MY bandwagon. Then I upped the ante. But it's MY bandwagon! MINE, MINE, MINE! Don't you see??? (sniff, sniff). I'm so misunderstood! (sniff, sniff) You guys are sooooo MEAN! (sniffle) (I take back everything I said about sharing a beverage with you, darod... you meanie!)
(On my site, from which that pic is taken, there's another with a thumb holding it, which gives a sense of scale. Both of the pics show hooks that did hold body weight.)
OVERdrive, Pete? You have no idea. I put pitons into pin scars, when HB nuts would have been perfect. THEN, I take a two-pound sledge to 'em until that ol' eye is FLUSH. "Rising tones???" Bah! Don't need 'em! THEN, I pull out the five-pounder for a few extra whacks, you know, just to make sure! THEN, because I hate to fall... ever... I have Mark send me up the two-handed twenty-pounder, I lean waayyy back in my aiders, pull that big brute waaayyy back, and give that piton ONE more good hit, just for good measure! THEN, finally, I give that puppy racks-over-the-head, agressive testing before I eeeeaaaassse up on it.
Oh, and then I notice that I had threaded a manky old 1/2-inch tie-off through the eye of it, and I'm scared anyway! Does THAT answer your question?
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:06pm PT
|
Some of you have been asking, who is this Mark guy? Relative to Richard, he seems like a real nice, some have said “reserved.” And he never descends into ALL CAPS. Looking over the recent posts, it seems like a good time to shed some light on this. The main difference it twofold. First and most importantly, Richard doesn’t care a whole lot about being PC, at least relative to me, when being PC conflicts with saying what needs to be said. So I while I’m putting a big chunk of my neural power into thinking about how others will “feel” when they read what I write, Richard uses his neural power toward considering what needs to be said and whether it is logically consistent. Second, esp. over the last few weeks, I’ve been insanely busy with other demands which means you hear less from me. The truth is that Richard and I are much more similar in real life than we appear and philosophically are pretty close to twins. So feel free to address us collectively and know that if you met us you’d probably conclude that I’m more opinionated and Richard is more flexible than you would have expected.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:33pm PT
|
pete said, "Wings of Steel may be the most overdriven piton in the history of this forum! Recently, I scored as the Second-Most Loquacious after Lois, with a word count of 141 per post. Can someone please calculate Richard Jensen's average word count? He might be #1!"
Puhlease, you have an enginering degree right pete? Please factor in WHAT is being said into the actual word count. In terms of the BS level, there is no equal to LEB. Factor in that she is a troll and I take that as meaning that all her posts are 100% BS.
uhoh. That means you guys might be #1 and #2 on the Real Scale...But hey, if it helps you guys any, I personaly would rather read 100 words from a real character than 1 from a troll.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!