Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 01:31pm PT
|
Most people commenting don't mention if they've done the route, so I assume they haven't. For the record, I haven't so now I'll add my spew.
My first thought was what guido said. Snake Dike immediately came to mind. The FA party said (according to written histories) they thought additional bolts would be OK and maybe even a Good Idea for the last couple of pitches. Which has been done. Last time I climbed it there were no mid-bolts in the last two pitches. I slung a couple of knobs. But it's only 5.4-5.5 and not a death fall if you blow it, although it's made hamburger out of more than one bouncing leader. There've been many other instances in the Valley and Tuolumne where the FA party has added/suggested or OK'd added bolts.
I've climbed in Tuolumne since the mid 70's and like many of us Old Farts, still love the challenge of the runout, even on 5.9. As long as I don't think I'm going to end up with broken bones if I come off. Pywiack Dike Route comes to mind where I blew the crux first time for a 60' slider and then went back a few months later, stayed on route and cruised it.
The Boltway above Hermaphrodite flake is an abomination with I think 8 bolts in 150 feet on 5.7 with plenty of rest stances. 5 bolts would still be safe as houses. The Eunuch was a great climb, it just needed new bolts, not added ones.
I think one or two bolts have been added to Crying Time Again since we declined to climb the last pitch a few years ago. I was annoyed that I was not able to finish the climb without risking a death fall. I want to go back now and finish it properly.
Did Pippin a month ago with 40 - 50 foot runout on 5.7 sections but plenty of 5.5 in between. No sweat. Bolts every 20 feet would spoil it.
If you do add bolts, please bolt from a stance and only 2 - 4. Keep it sporting. With 20 - 40 ft runouts on sustained 5.7 I might well go up and do it. Facing a 300 foot fall on steep ground, no way.
so RickA, it's up to you. Keep us posted.
Fred Glover
Edit: I'd like to add that a climb that can be done to the top of the formation is MUCH more interesting than a rap off. I've never considered doing SC because I knew I wasn't going to do the 3d pitch. As to making it too popular? Good routes will become popular, at least until the next outdoor sports fad causes the number of climbers to diminish, or enough climbers die to scare off the noobs. That's no argument for putting up unaesthetic or deathly routes.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 01:34pm PT
|
With a name like Super Chicken how could you not honor the Chicken and add a few bolts? There is a place for both approaches but given the grade and quality of the climbing of the entire route as you describe it, if you are hesitant to take on the runouts at 5.7 then change the situation as the FA er
What's the problem? You just change the name to Super Chicken Sh**.
I've never been too thrilled with the concept that the FA gets control of bolt placements for all eternity. But given with how much venom that position is advanced, I say, if you want to put some bolts in, in order to change the pitch from a very rare obscurity to something that sees regular ascents, by all means go for it.
cheers
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 01:46pm PT
|
Survival you're a weenie, a big, big weenie. But I agree with you.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 01:58pm PT
|
So yer a weenie too Philo?
*whew* I was hoping it wasn't just me.....
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 02:00pm PT
|
Hey man the BIG WEENIE CLUB is somewhat exclusive, not everyone measures up.
|
|
shipoopoi
Big Wall climber
oakland
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 02:15pm PT
|
rick(and others), i have personally gone back to a very select few of my routes and added bolts to them to make the route safer and more popular. a prime example is get into the groove(11A) on medlicott. when i led this pitch originally on stance with 4 bolts it was way run, but that was no big deal. then, after putting up material girl to the left, and borderline to the right, i realized this wall was not accesible to the masses, including most of friends. so, i added 3 more bolts to get into the groove, effectively making it a sport climb. and once the tr is up, the runout routes left and right can be toproped, so i effectively opened up 3 routes to regular climbers.
i didn't ask anybody about it, i just did it because i felt it was right. i really don't think it is a pandora's box where all these first ascensionist from the old days are going to retro bolt their old scary lines. if a few routes get some better pro so cindy, mindy, and mandy can go climb them, it's no big deal. their is still plenty of routes in the meadows to go test your mettle on.
rick, i hope you add those bolts, steve
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 26, 2011 - 02:49pm PT
|
Jim W- I don’t remember ever setting up a belay on a new route without anchors ( in fact I have a faint recollection of drilling two bolts at the belay), so I am inclined to deny it, being usually rather fastidious about reliable belay anchors. Greg has been up there when he replaced the bolts and there were two old bolts at the belay. The current ST topo (that Greg drew?) shows that the two bolts are 130’ from the second belay. But if, in fact, it happened as you say it did, well, jeez, what was I thinking? Haven’t a clue today. I mentioned in the opening post that memory works in strange ways and there you have it.
Thanks all for the input. I had hoped to get clarity by polling others, but the good arguments made on both sides have me completely flummoxed now. I was initially leaning towards suggesting adding bolts, but am doubtful now.
I said in the Superpin thread that I believed the consensus of the community should be given a good deal of weight in these sorts of questions. What is increasingly clear is that there is no consensus here.
Here is a summary of the arguments:
For retrobolting:
• SC will never be a test piece, with the third pitch having a humble 5.7 rating, and the climb a 5.9 rating overall.
• The 5.7 run out is out of character with the rest of the climb which is well protected. Like having an unprotected pitch in the middle of West Crack on Daff Dome.
• The examples of two 5.7 classics, Snake Dike and West Country. Would it really have been better in retrospect to have left these climbs in their original run out state decades ago and vastly reduced their current popularity?
• Several gurus of Tuolumne, have retro bolted their routes for similar reasons, including Kamps and Steve. (Another guru is conspicuous by his silence here. Long Ago?)
• Reduction of the principle of maintaining the sanctity of the first ascent to the absurd. Werner soloed the route on sight (!!). What if he had soloed it before Jim and I had climbed it? Would we really insist today that only on sight free soloists may repeat the route because there would be no bolts at all?
• The “North American Retrobolting Ethic” permits first ascensionists to alter their original bolting design and it is appropriate to do it here.
Against retrobolting:
• It would not be in keeping with the great tradition of Tuolumne climbing, which values maintaining scary routes in their original condition. (reminds me of my favorite Winston Churchill quote. When Churchill was trying to cut the budget of the British navy, an admiral objected that there would not be enough money to “maintain the great traditions of the British Navy.” Churchill replied, “And what are those traditions? Rum, sodomy and the lash!”)
• Preserve the opportunity for those (apparently very few) wishing to experience the climb in its original state.
• The slippery slope: If we add bolts on SC, it’s only a matter of time before the Bachar Yarian is a boring clip-up.
• Embrace the danger: Don’t make it safer; rather have climbers aspire to be confident enough to lead it as is.
• The history lesson: Runout routes are valuable to demonstrate the way things were in the distant past, before sport climbing.
• Preserve the risk “game” for future generations by following the traditional rules, like the Brits have successfully done on their tiny Gritstone cliffs and the Germans have done in their sandstone areas.
Scratching my head, here.
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
Nederland
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 03:13pm PT
|
Don't you have anything better to do Rick?
Are you really going to drive down to Neptune's, buy a couple bolts
and hangers, go get on a plane and fly out to California, then rent a
car drive out to Tuolumne, climb the route (again), then hand drill
and place a couple bolts?
It's almost ski season, time to be getting in shape
for the backcountry:0
|
|
Matt M
Trad climber
Alamo City
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 03:19pm PT
|
Against retrobolting:
• It would not be in keeping with the great tradition of Tuolumne climbing, which values maintaining scary routes in their original condition. (reminds me of my favorite Winston Churchill quote. When Churchill was trying to cut the budget of the British navy, an admiral objected that there would not be enough money to “maintain the great traditions of the British Navy.” Churchill replied, “And what are those traditions? Rum, sodomy and the lash!”)
• Preserve the opportunity for those (apparently very few) wishing to experience the climb in its original state.
• The slippery slope: If we add bolts on SC, it’s only a matter of time before the Bachar Yarian is a boring clip-up.
• Embrace the danger: Don’t make it safer; rather have climbers aspire to be confident enough to lead it as is.
• The history lesson: Runout routes are valuable to demonstrate the way things were in the distant past, before sport climbing.
• Preserve the risk “game” for future generations by following the traditional rules, like the Brits have successfully done on their tiny Gritstone cliffs and the Germans have done in their sandstone areas.
Most of the "against" points assume that ONE ROUTE in an entire PARK will suddenly open the flood gates to massive Retro Bolting across the board. Frankly, it isn't going to happen. Look at route people have mentioned being retro'd over the years. There's never been a continued increase in that trend. Just occasional chat about a route here and there. The zealous anti-retro crowd is often the loudest and most vocal (esp on forums such as this). Most of the community falls somewhere in the sensible "middle" where having a reasonable distribution of climbs at ALL protection levels is the most logical way to go about it. The reason you see it pop up again and again in TM and the Valley is that there I NOT a reasonable distribution There are FAR too many obscure routes destined to remain so because of R/X ratings.
Also consider: Bolting sucks. It's a LOT of work that most climbers have NO INTEREST in doing. The idea that bolting a 5.7X pitch 3 of a route will lead to the B-Y becoming a clip up is ridiculous. Plain and Simple. If you retro'd 30% of the moderate R/X routes in TM and made it well known that these climbs were now "safe" you'd have FAR FAR less crowding on classic "easy" lines than you do now and STILL have plenty of harder, bolder routes to "aspire" too.
The entrenched mentality that ALL bold climbs need to remain as such will continue to keep vast amounts of rock relegated to the dirt and moss realm. Instead, having a well thought out "progression" of routes gives climbers a path to travel while seeking those aspirational climbs. They can end where ever they choose on the path. As it stands now, there's a limited path to follow. You either crowd the few classics (or not even classic, just "safe") and stay there or jump into the realm of injury or worse. There are many climbs I aspire to get on but the jump between G and R/X is to steep for me as a father and husband.
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 04:19pm PT
|
The "slippery slope" arguement is not valid here. What we are talking about on this thread is an FA party adding bolts to a route they climbed in the past. For the slope to be slippery we would need to assume that because several FA party's decided to add bolts, then many more FA parties will do the same. That simply will not happen.
Could the FA-approved retrobolting of routes lead to the "community" wanting or expecting more retrobolted routes? Yes, perhaps. But that does not change the fact that the FA party would still make the final call on the issue. Assuming, of course you respect the FA party and their vision of the route.
You want a slippery slope? How about this example- September 2011: a vocal "community" says no retrobolting ever, even if the FA party wants to do it. Therefore the community is over-riding the wishes and intent of the FA party. Fast Forward to September 2075 and all the old Yosemite climbers of the 1960-1990's are 6 feet under. The "community" now exists of 99% weenified (is this a word?) gym climbers who want to retro everything including cracks. The FA is not there to defend their route, nor is there a tradition of respecting the FA- remember that back in 2011 the "community" decided it knew best?
I think the best way to avoid the weenification (gymification) of our crags would be to respect the wishes of the FA party now and forever. If you let they community over-ride the FA wishes now, then it can happen down the road when the community consists of different players.
|
|
jw35
climber
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 04:25pm PT
|
Oh.............this is too much fun, I can't resist. The lack of anchor bolts is part of my genetic memory. I can see it like yesterday. I even think my grand kids can remember it. And that was exactly my thought, what were you thinking. Of course if you do add the bolts, even in your more cautious years, you'll have to lead it and place the bolts where you'll feel they'll be appropiate. Which would give them the correct spacing. Whether that be 2 or 20 bolts. Hand drilled of course. It can't be too easy. Wouldn't 20 be fun. As to a consensus or permission..............ain't gonna happen. Just do what you want to do. It's only climbing.
Jim
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 04:28pm PT
|
Both First ascensionists have weighed in suggesting adding bolts.......nice of them to ask the rest of us. As Rick was an original stonemaster, he doesn't need my permission to add a bolt or whatever to one of his routes, nice of JW to add his voice too. "It's only climbing" LOL! Nice take on it!
Werner can still free solo it even with the bolts in.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 04:34pm PT
|
If anyone is putting in free bolts, perhaps they can retrobolt the Deuceldyke on Half Dome. I reckon it could be a good alternative to Snake Dike if crowded. But it would need to have another 2-3 bolts per pitch to make it "well protected", I reckon.
Hey, what's with the old geezers asking the young guns to add bolts to their climbs?
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 04:52pm PT
|
Rick, It sounds like your recent experience with the climb strongly suggests adding a few bolts. A fresh perspective sometimes gives you a better view.
As someone who has climbed the route, yes, adding bolts will change the experience. But, I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a change for the worse. You would still get the feeling of being "out there on the knobs" even if 2 or 3 bolts were added.
If Super Chicken had become a popular trade route and the 3rd pitch regularly climbed as is, well, that would be a different story. But, that isn't the case here.
Go with your gut.
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 26, 2011 - 05:12pm PT
|
Don’t be so haughty there, grandpa Wilson. I do seem to recall that you did not earn the moniker, “Wild,” by being a paragon of prudence as a youth.
Why don’t you tell your precious grandchildren about how sober and sensible you were when you led the the massively run out crux on our first ascent of Guardians of the Galaxy, put up about the same time on neighboring Lamb Dome?
|
|
bergbryce
Mountain climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 05:32pm PT
|
Adding a few bolts to this pitch isn't going to make it a sport route.
It will make it a route myself and many others like me would enjoy climbing for years to come.
As others have mentioned, there's no shortage of R and X routes in the Meadows to go test your mettle on.
I don't see this opening any flood gates for adding unwanted bolts on other routes. If anything it's an improvement, akin to Golfers Route, a fine, sporty 5.7 that had a few bolts added if I'm not mistaken, and today many enjoy but still backs off several who just can't stomach the runouts.
I also don't know any climbers who think cracks should be bolted and I'm under 60.
|
|
pk_davidson
Trad climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 07:10pm PT
|
Your partner has given you the clue you need to solve the conundrum:
Just do what you want to do. It's only climbing.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 07:20pm PT
|
I think this thread is great.
There is no one size fits all when it comes to route development.
I think it's great that an FAist would reconsider a climb and look at it in a new light and take in a variety of opinions to help determine what to do. It shows care and thought. The nature of the questions shows you are taking into account idealism and pragmatism.
Obviously you won't get community consensus on this one, but you will have a more complete list of pros and cons to consider in your decision.
|
|
Eric Beck
Sport climber
Bishop, California
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 07:33pm PT
|
Adding the bolts gets my vote. I think of this as nothing more than correcting an error. Routes evolve. All of us can think of climbs where the FA party did not find the best line over a section, yet no one feels bound to repeat what should be considered a route finding error. Sacherer and I did hundreds of feet of new stone on the FFA of the dnb.
Add 5 bolts, 25 feet apart.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!