Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
ADK
climber
truckee
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 01:49am PT
|
I think Bporter was referring to the difficulty of routes based on the type of protection that was available.
I too will take a bottleneck nut over a cam any day of the week but I have to say cams make a lot of routes easier and less scary for me. I was climbing an overhanging underclinging type flake today where the climb demanded that your upper body was above the flake. Stuffing #2s was way easier than blindly searching for a bottleneck hex placement.
E: When I first started building my rack 5 years ago, I had nuts and tricams only for a couple of years. When the cracks got wide, i got scared. Tricams rule though!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 03:21am PT
|
I think there's no question that climbing in general was simply more challenging on passive gear. It is often harder to get solid placements and you sometimes had to suck it up and just climb on to better protection or stances. That's why a while back I proposed the "National Cam-free Day" where everyone climbs on hexs and nuts for a day. It would be an eye-opener. The NCFD would highlight all the hard routes put up back in the day on passive gear alone. Most of them are all still considered great routes, but the use of cams makes many of them appear less challenging and committing than they were back when they were put up.
But I agree with BPorter that advances in protection are OK - even better than OK. I just think that's in addition to nuts, not a substitute or replacement for them. Sometimes I end up behind young climbers on routes more easily and safely led on nuts yet they do all sorts of dubious things with cams instead. You can see they have a real bias for cams, view them as "real pro", and border on not trusting nuts at all. Almost like they grew up on too many "Transformer" cartoons or that the recent technology infusion left them with an affinity for complexity. Go figure...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 10:01am PT
|
Healy,
it was precisely BECAUSE cams made what were formerly runout test pieces far more reasonable that Jim Bridwell and Scott Fischer were initially against the use of cams at all.
But they soon realized the futility of their position and learned to embrace the new technology and use it to their advantage.
We are simply doomed to be unable to appreciate the skill and boldness of climbers on who's shoulders we stand, and more's the pity.
|
|
Cracko
Trad climber
Quartz Hill, California
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 11:50am PT
|
Healyje,
I totally agree. We have reached consensus !! But I must disagree with Ron's "We are simply doomed to be unable to appreciate the skill and boldness of climbers on who's shoulders we stand, and more's the pity." I fully appreciate the skill and boldness of climbers who put up all the routes I climb with less gear than what I use. In fact, I appreciate it so much that I strive to do these routes as close to the original style as I possibly can. An "all clean" ascent of a trade wall route is something I am very proud of, as is an "all nut" ascent of a free route. And, I can maintain this full appreciation even more when I slam a cam into a crack, where others before me protected with a stopper, knowing full well that I will never rise to their level of skill or boldness! But, at least I got to experience where they have been and that is why I climb.
Cracko
|
|
Jello
Social climber
No Ut
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2006 - 12:25pm PT
|
The OP wasn't meant to contrast using nuts with using cams. It was meant to document a time when there was a major change from using tried and true, but destructive, pitons, to clean and non-destructive artificial chockstones. It was a bigger psychological difference than cams vs nuts, and represented a committment to preserving the rock, even if it meant accepting greater personal risk. It was a leap of the spirit, rather than a technological advance. Ironically, it turned out that many climbs were better protected, and could be climbed easier and faster, using nuts. As a result, it was a win-win development.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 12:45pm PT
|
Jeff, your last post reflects my experience. I think by 1972, we were pretty much using hexs and stoppers, although I fixed pins if I though they were required (mostly thin LAs and knifeblades, as I recall).
Climbing with nuts was lots better than pins: faster, easier on the second, quiet, and, in the age before quick draws, easier on the rope drag. (Remember when double biners attached to a pin would sometimes twist and release the rope—yikes)
I never climbed with cams, so I cannot speak to their use. However when I have watched folks place them, I am surprised by either how easy they are to place, or the mindless stupidity of the leader trusting them. I guess that I was that way about nuts in the beginning--checking, tugging, inspecting, …procrastinating. However, after a while you could spot the best placement and the right size in one glance, slip it in, clip and go. At which point procrastination had to stand on its own.
Roger
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 12:47pm PT
|
Jeff,
win-win is over simplified. Some routes at the time WERE harder to protect clean, but overall it was favorable, with the stylistic aesthetic overwhelming those minor instances.
Cracko,
there are always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part pioneers are underappreciated, if only from the practical application of updated technology.
|
|
Jello
Social climber
No Ut
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2006 - 01:07pm PT
|
Ron- Roger emphasises my point, but I agree there were times it was more difficult to protect with nuts, so you're right, as well.
Do you remember the days in Eldo when the ethic on even FA's was to start on the ground with a rack of nuts and do the climb in one go, on-sight. Any hanging, frigging or fall was considered a "taint", as in , if you do any of those things, it "taint" a real free climb - ala Erickson? I was absolutely committed to that style. When there was no natural pro available, we either retreated, or sucked it up and climbed on. My best memories of those Eldo days include huge runouts on Inner Space, Three Old Farts (since retro-bolted), Fool's Journ (with Warbler), Sunday Comix, etc.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 01:27pm PT
|
As you know I'm well familiar with the Erickson ethic (see FA the Unsaid), but not all of us employed it. It was merely the goal to strive for.
I never was very good on Eldo sandstone. Weird stuff, slippery and at times deceptive.
It was kind of funny years later in '76 when Jim was in the valley with Art working on Half Dome, and he finally showed a crack in his ethical wall and decided to preplace a pro bolt.
He went casting about C4 to secure the needed hardware, saw me, and said, "Ron, I know YOU'LL have a bolt!"
Sure enough, if that 1/4" Rawl buttonhead with a leeper hanger is still up there, it came from my kit.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 01:39pm PT
|
As far as I am concerned, having to put a pin in a crack (and hoping it would stay there) while hanging on a hold, and then start nailing was much trickier than placing a nut. It was a pain. Thank the heavens for nuts/chocks.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 01:59pm PT
|
Hey Jeff, I never climbed in Eldo, but the ethic of ground-up, all free, all clean, pretty much single try ascents was also the goal in Yosemite at about the same time. I don't know how often it was achieved in practice--most of the time, I would guess. We included bolting in our definition of all clean on face routes. Did you guys?
The all free, all clean (with bolts) ethic stuck. But yo-yoing became more common--with lowering to the last good rest and pulling the ropes. I think 'Separate Reality' a mind blowing route at the time, was done that way. (Mike, comments?)
Then Ray started 'working' his routes, wiring them, and then returning to do a 'ground up' ascent. I was reporting for Mountain at the time (Mid-1970s) and asked Kauk and Bachar about Ray's routes. When they reported that they were 'desperate,' Ken and I decided to report them as straight up ascents. The modern world had arrived.
Roger
|
|
Irisharehere
Trad climber
Gunks
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 03:01pm PT
|
I was actually responsible for the removal of the chockstone in the Baby offwidth - accidentally.
Had a hand on it, leaning back to scope out how far it was to the ledge, and whatever way I stretched, it dislodged the chockstone, which popped out, crushed my pinky, and went to the ground, landing next to my rather surprised belayer.
My only lead fall to date!
Irish
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 03:08pm PT
|
Contrary to what many believe, I came up with the ball and grooved wedge design originally. I have written about this before, but it looks like a good time to throw it out there again.
I was living in Flagstaff, starting A5 and helping in the Wired Bliss shop from time to time, and worked on prototypes of my design in Steve's shop. I shared the idea with him, he took the split-ball idea and ran with it, and he even later patented the concepts of the three-part design which I favored. At the time, it was quite a burn. I got signed letters from witnesses who worked there who knew it was my idea, in case I ever wanted to take it to court, but I never did that.
Here's some of my original drawings:
The first two sketches predate Steve working on the design. He started making prototypes of the two-part design in late 1987 and early 1988.
The three-part Monkey Paw is a stellar design, I only made about 20 prototypes and a dozen or so finished models (in three sizes), most of which were strength tested to failure (they were full cable strength). I never went into production after the Wired Bliss burn, but now there are no patents protecting the idea, and it would be a great open-source project for a good machinist. I have detailed plans if anyone is interested. Working out the best angle of the groove was the key, discovered only after the many rounds of prototypes.
cheers
John Middendorf
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 03:39pm PT
|
I thought you invented the piton, John.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 03:45pm PT
|
So true John
I remember when you made these ball things. I think you gave me a prototype that I still have and used. I must look in my huge pile of gear.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 04:13pm PT
|
In truth John loaned me a prototype once.
edit; not to be confusing, it was a prototype soloist.
The instructions for threading were written in marker on the unfinished aluminum. I used it on the FA of Iron Messiah and as the climb progressed my sweaty hands rubbed out these critical instructions.
I now believe that I free soloed several pitches with rope drag, thinking I was belaying myself...
Curiously, when I returned the device with a report of the climb he then published a significantly erroneous and disparaging version in R&I and then became quite reticent on the subject.
It is significant enough to bring up in THIS thread because my climb used only 5 nut placements for aid.
Deuce had me creating unneccesary bolt ladders.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 04:29pm PT
|
Hey Ron, the story I heard is that John invented 'balls.'
Seems plausible.
|
|
Jello
Social climber
No Ut
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2006 - 04:52pm PT
|
Thanks for that info, Deuce. It's always good to get the record straight. The ball and wedge concept offers so much. Hopefully, someone will take it further.
Cheers,
Jeff
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 04:55pm PT
|
Actually Jeff I prefer to use the "wedge" and balls.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 06:21pm PT
|
"We are simply doomed to be unable to appreciate the skill and boldness of climbers on who's shoulders we stand, and more's the pity. "
Ron, I have to agree with Cracko on this one. Any climber today can still rack up a set of nuts, a set of hexs, and go hit any of the hard classics that were put up passive at any of the big climbing areas. They'll still have the advantage of lighter pro and ropes. But you never hear of any such reenactments though. But then again, I personally don't particularly fancy the idea of stacking stoppers and hexs in pegmatite gashes again for old times sake either.
People are often quick to comment on how the standards have moved on, but there is definitely an impedance mismatch when they ignore what was accomplished on passive pro alone.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!