Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
The SMC stainless steel hangers are the equivalent of most compact designs currently available. That pleasing shape is original equipment more than any other hanger design. The Leeper hanger was a bad design primarily because chromoly steel was an unsuitable material. The same goes for the original SMC chromoly hangers. Routes in areas like Suicide could retain their historical look and flavor and all somebody has to do is think about it and make the period sensitive hardware call. Route restoration doesn't get any easier.
A suitably darkened pinbolt tucked behind an ear would be far more subtle (and hence cool as per OW), better protected from rockfall damage and will never become a spinner!
Just think of the advantages and the greater selection from which to choose.
|
|
Hummerchine
Trad climber
East Wenatchee, WA
|
|
jghedge:
No offense to anyone, just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed your post!
|
|
Hummerchine
Trad climber
East Wenatchee, WA
|
|
Of course it is personaly preference, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find SMC and Leeper hangers to be butt ugly, and I also find Metolius, Petzl, and Fixe hangers to be not only pleasing, but beautiful. To my eye, clearly not to all. For those who feel otherwise, enjoy!
|
|
Hummerchine
Trad climber
East Wenatchee, WA
|
|
Dang, one more thing. It would be interesting (per this thread) to know the exact statistics on hangers, as in which ones have been used the most as original equipment on routes. My experience spanning nearly 30 years would rank brands I have seen from most common to least:
Metolius
Petzl
Fixe
Leeper
SMC
all others.
This includes WA, CA, AZ, WY, UT, NY, KY, OR, ID, CO, Canada, probably forgot some.
What have others found?
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Steve, I like the pinbolt idea.
Do you think that your stainless replicas will be able to be adequately driven into the old placement without deformation?
Do you think that the bolt should be a removable design for future maintenance (even stainless rusts)?
I don't think the replica hanger idea should be widely accepted. I think it'd be cool for a few routes, including some of the classics in the Valley. However, I don't think many people would support the ASCA switching to replica designs when modern tested hangers are available, especially when the stainless SMC hanger is basically a modern hanger still in use for many new routes.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
"Looking at his photo it doesn't look like the pin is really designed to be driven well, just set in the existing hole and bolted to the wall. This would seem to mean that the fall holding ability of the unit is in the bolt. If that's the case then I just don't see the point."
Seems to me that practically speaking, this unit has the strength of a bolt and it doesn't much matter if the pin gets looser in the crack.
Randy wrote
"Treating routes like these as both great routes as well as historically significant in a "physical" sense, is the best way to not just preserve an ethic, but to elevate it to something to be respected and honored. In the process, it becoes living history that can be exeprienced by anyone who brings the proper skills to the table."
That's the point, if care, respect and attention is paid to these routes, they might survive. If 15 years go by with no ascents (as is likely the case) and nobody even cares that the gear is degraded and unsafe for all, then the new generation is more likely to say "You guys didn't use it or value it, so it's ours now to change any way we like."
It's also a way of dealing with the conflict between tension toward retrobolting and the need to provide fixed gear on routes that used to require hammering and removal of fixed pins, and which, because of expando fragile features, regular fixed pins are unsafe and don't last. The pin-bolt says "Look, pins used to go here, we can't fix a pin here because the stone will suffer, but we're not retrobolting, we evolving hardware solutions while preserving boldness"
Steve does seems to appreciate the aesthetic of using historic looking gear. The way I look at, the folks who spend the time and money doing public service for the climbing community get a good share of latitude in how they do it if the end results works.
Ultimately, the community of the future will decide what do do with these old routes. No One knows if these routes will be repeated if maintained. We should probably find out before handing them down to a new generation so they will have reality and not assumptions to work with. A route that's actually climbable has a lot more to say for itself, and represents a viable choice. A decayed relic doesn't say near as much.
Peace
Karl
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
ok, for what it's worth, i never did space babble.
but i done pinkgug at rubeedoo -- proud, fer sure.
|
|
Hummerchine
Trad climber
East Wenatchee, WA
|
|
Karl:
Whatever my opinion on all this bolting stuff, I could not agree more with your comment:
"The way I look at, the folks who spend the time and money doing public service for the climbing community get a good share of latitude in how they do it if the end results works."
Right on, and thanks again to all who do the dirty work...I sure don't, and I certainly take advantage of all of your efforts!
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
The pinbolts in either installation option described above can be removed and serviced for whatever reason. The epoxy cap screw scenario assumes that a good twist with an allen wrench would release the stainless capscrew. There is some uncertainty here as to the service life of the epoxy but past one hundred seems reasonable. The mechanical option should be good for several hundred and would require overcoming permanent grade threadlock compound to remove the throughbolt.
If SMC hangers are acceptable, original equipment and available I still don't hear a good argument against retaining the original funk and flavor. It won't hurt nobody......honest.
Mild steel just ain't the stuff for any doubters out there.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
Interesting thread.
For me, these routes on Middle and Middle Apron epitomize a very aesthetic free climbing opportunity: multi pitch, steep slab climbing protected largely through exploitation of natural features, with minimal reliance on bolting. This is connoisseur territory and a delightful alternative to bolted slab.
(And the holds on Middle and Middle Apron in particular are often chunky and secure, mixed in with all the other styles of crisp edges, uneasy smears and whatnot; it is such intriguing stuff).
I gain a high sense of satisfaction by relying on protection derived primarily or solely through adaptation to natural features and then spanning those features with long sections of delicate, bold moves on crack-less, unbolted rock.
Use of passive gear in natural features is a cool experience when slab climbing. A piton still exploits a feature; it is not an imposition into blank rock as is a bolt and therefore a piton retains the feel of working with the features. To me, then, a fixed pin on such a route is much more desirable than is a bolt in terms of its complimentary approach to the terrain.
Yet, there has always been the problem of pin placement degradation through freeze thaw, flake expansion and subsequent rock degradation through pin replacement.
We have a route in Boulder called Wendego, which has (had?) these fixed pins which were the primary gear for some pure, hard face moves; the late Rob Slater was adamant they not be relaced with bolts. He said the old pins were bomber (Not! Too Rusty), but hey, I get the aesthetic twist and the sense of marring that territory with bolts.
The pinbolt seems a little quirky at first blush; but I think we should give it a shot, at least in so much as it is a viable upgrade for pins which exploited a feature and thereby minimized bolting in blank rock, where that particular implementaion of craft was part of the intended game.
And yes, if it comes off well, future routes could be done ground up with nuts, cams, pins, minimal bolting and then pinbolts could replace the pins in time.
Happy Sailing All,
Roy
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
Joe, you raised some interesting points.
> On the one hand you're talking about preserving the ethic, honoring the history etc - but on the other you're talking about *rapping down it* to fix it. Why not do it ground-up, on lead - you could even hang on the old gear while you fire in the new stuff. You have to hand-drill anyway, right? Why not just lead it? It'd still be way less bold than the FA. Plus with sticky rubber it's much easier. Surely someone is willing to actually back up all the hot air on this thread.
I agree it is a jarring contrast with a traditional ascent to think about casually rapping down the route to redrill/replace bolts (and possibly to replace some pins as well). If you or someone else want to have the adventure of doing that on lead, be my guest, and have fun doing it. However, the fact that nothing has been done in 30 years to fix the bad belays and to restore the route suggests that this type of adventure is not that appealling to the few people who may have the ability to do it. So I don't feel I am likely to be denying someone their desired on lead rebolting adventure. More likely, people who want to lead it would prefer to just climb it and not have to deal with the hassles of rebolting. I don't think they would care if it was rebolted on lead or on rappel, as long as the results are good.
> See, this is what's so laughable about this whole thing, spread out over these various threads. You're insisting on ramming your climbing style down someone else's throat, with no intention of actually going out and doing those routes yourselves - you're going to rappel down them.
I'm not imposing my preferred climbing style on anyone. People can lead, follow, solo, toprope, jumar, etc. this route; even hangdog on it if they think it would help. :-) I don't think people care if I rap down it and never lead it, as long as I don't interfere with someone else who wants to climb it.
> Wouldn't the people whom you're talking about doing all this work for have already done it for themselves if they were really into all that history and honor and respect?
You could be right - maybe there are no people left who want to lead it. Maybe nobody wants to rap down it and toprope it, either. Actually I know there is at least one person - me, who wants to rap down it and toprope it again (and try the pitches I didn't get to in '95). Maybe I'm the only one. That wouldn't bother me. I suspect over the coming years there will be other folks who will climb it as well.
> And isn't it possible that slab climbing died out, and will continue to stay dead, because the runouts are viewed as silly, contrived, and arbitrary, not historically significant, bold, and exemplary?
I guess it depends on what you mean by dead. Some people still climb slabs and do runouts. Hard routes with runouts will never be very popular. That doesn't bother me; I like the idea that there is a diversity of difficulties and risks in the different routes. I think you have a good point that merely replacing the fixed pro will not make Space Babble (or similar runout routes) popular. But it will make potential falls more survivable for the small number of people with the talent and interest to climb it. So it may be helpful to those few folks who were going to do it anyway, or who feel the refurbished gear makes it a more acceptable risk.
The runouts are definitely bold. Whether they are historically significant and/or explemplary depends on your point of view.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
Tom wrote:
> Dang, one more thing. It would be interesting (per this thread) to know the exact statistics on hangers, as in which ones have been used the most as original equipment on routes. My experience spanning nearly 30 years would rank brands I have seen from most common to least:
Metolius
Petzl
Fixe
Leeper
SMC
all others.
This includes WA, CA, AZ, WY, UT, NY, KY, OR, ID, CO, Canada, probably forgot some.
What have others found?
Personally, I'm not sure, because I don't climb that many bolted routes. But I suspect your ordering is about right, since the first three on your list have been in common use since rap bolting began in the mid 80s.
What is the reason for your interest? I hope the point is not to suggest that SMC are unpopular because they were poor quality, simply because they are currently infrequently found. I can tell you that the reason I stopped using SMC hangers on my new routes was simply because the Metolius became cheaper! (Some things never change with climbers - looking for cheap bolts and hangers seems to always be popular!). I don't know why the Metolius became cheaper; it might be because they were better for the steep routes being bolted at the time, which led to larger production runs and lower costs. But that's mostly a guess.
Things I like about the (stainless/thick) SMCs (vs. Metolius/Petzl/Fixe):
 plenty strong and durable for routes less than vertical
less metal, so nicer to look at when installed
do not stick out so far from the rock, so maybe less bruising if you hit them in a leader fall (I have never hit one, though)
Things I don't like about SMCs:
not so good on overhanging rock - they bend (probably still strong unless they get bent back and forth repeatedly, but not nice to look at)
less room in the hanger for having a lap link or quick link plus clipping in a biner
expense (when Metolius became cheaper)
hard to find now
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
A couple of comments on pinbolts vs. placing a bolt in the same location as the piton eye.
placing a bolt in that position will be unacceptable to many people, because it constitutes "bolting next to a crack", which is one of the very basic guidelines for bolting. I know it is something I keep in mind when I'm placing bolts on a new route.
Yes, there is a grey area, because some cracks will hold marginal gear (like say RPs in a shallow flare). There is no easy answer to those situations. Some people will want a bolt and others will not.
are pinbolts just a bolt "masquerading" as a piton? Well, maybe, since the bolt part could be holding all the weight in some cases. But they are not really the same as a standard bolt because they are very restricted in where they can be placed (not only in a crack, but also where fixed pins were used on the FA, and where clean alternative pro is judged as inadequate).
I do not envy Steve (and Kevin + Ron) in making the decisions on Space Babble p1 about where fixed pins / pinbolts should be replaced. Especially after Terry and Werner led it without them. Given that RPs did not exist for the FA in 1976, maybe the pins are not needed there anymore. But it could be a grey area like above, since it would not be surprising if some of the clean gear is not high strength or is subject to getting pulled out if the rope moves in certain directions.
others have mentioned that the pinbolts may be "too good", i.e. stronger than the original fixed pins and thus a drilled upgrade which would not preserve the original risk of the fixed pins. This could well be true. There might even be a design solution which yields a fixed pin that does not fall out due to heat expansion or need to be maintained/reset, but fails in some way during a fall at about the same load that the original pins would fail. This might seem like a ridiculous requirement, since most replacement/rebolting gear is designed to be very strong, and to be a solution to weak old gear. However, I think if this is really a concern, it could be solved in a somewhat messy way, by having a (suitably thin) swaged cable loop through the eye of the piton. So if there are people who really want to lead on the original weak fixed pins, they could clip the cable loop, which would break in a big fall. I hope nobody seriously wants this sort of feature, because it messes up the asthetics of clipping the pins/pinbolts for other folks.
OK, the cable loop idea is pretty bad - most people seeing that would simply think whoever put those on was nuts, and they would probably be right.... But I see this sort of concern being raised in the context of replacing rivets on aid climbs, and it was raised in this thread as well. I just don't see a simple enough design solution to handle it at present, since you don't want the piton to fall out and create the same maintenance problem. Maybe the answer is that any people who really want to experience the original shakey gear need to bring their own manky/weakened quickdraws to clip the pinbolts with. The same for people aiding on former rivets replaced by stronger buttonheads - they can use the thinnest cabled rivet hangers to recreate the thrills of potentially long falls that existed when the original rivets were still fairly new.
This sort of thing might seem like a ridiculuous approach to climbing, where you deliberately make something less safe than seems natural. But it's not that strange if you think of climbing as a game, where you choose the rules to make it interesting. After all, we often pick a very difficult section of rock, and then make it artificially easier by using shoes, chalk, rope, nuts, cams, pitons, bolts, topos, beta websites, leading instead of toproping, etc. So we are often already making things less safe than they could be.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
A bit more elaboration on aspects of this pin bolt concept, as I think it is a corner case with a valid application in support of a limited frame of route styles.
While “Sanitized” routes are much more the norm in modern times, there are members of the modern generation who adhere to, aspire, and accomplish a minimalist approach to certain routes. This subtle trend, coupled with extant examples of pin placements as a characteristic feature of quite a few classics on Yosemite’s Middle Cathedral and in Eldorado Canyon, may help to illustrate my point.
Off hand, I can think of two examples of young climbers who have embraced some “Old School” routes or styles. Adam Stack, several years ago in his earlier youth, lead a bolted crack, in Dream Canyon, Boulder area, sans bolts, all on natural gear, rating I believe was 12+; he went on to work the Salathe with Tommy Caldwell. Matt Seagal repeated Skip Geurin’s Super Fly, in Eldorado Canyon, a very necky natural route, 12+. I know other younger, twenty-something locals who are expressing an interest in moving from sport to difficult trad.
While choosing not to clip in situ bolts seems contrived and it’s not my bag, I get what a young Adam was doing. Once gear is in situ however, I use it. So whatever we do to the rock, this is for most practical purposes what will define how other climbers will tend to experience the route.
There is an aspect of contradiction to the pin bolt, in as much as it takes the sometime questionable pin placement and relegates it to the security of a solid bolt; in this regard it represents a compromise. But I would propose that many, though certainly not all, pin placements where once quite bomber.
Per the idea of replacing stuff ground up vs on rappel, I say that is a further remove from the issue, as this falls into the category of route maintenance and is distinct, at least in my mind, from on sight ground up route establishment. It is distinct from subsequent on sight ground up ascents. If others wish to headpoint the route or in contrast, prefer to do route maintenance from the ground up, that is their prerogative.
So, to the degree that it supports a greater dependence on natural features, especially for a route style which historically focused on this notion, I say the pin bolt may have a place. Eldorado Canyon is a prime example of dependence on natural features and old pin placements and I would be interested to see what the Eldorado Fixed Hardware Review Committee thinks of the pin bolt concept.
Again, while we know necky trad is not the norm, it has its adherents, young and old, as well as its exemplary routes, such as Bachar Yerian, Space Babble, Body & Soul, Jules Vern, Superpin: the cherished examples are out there.
No doubt, many climbers, young and old, will scratch their head when confronted with the pin bolt concept: both at face value and again when prompted to consider it as a tool to achieve the ends of route preservation. Given that likely outcome, I still propose many of these more natural trending routes styles deserve to be retained as close to there initial state as possible, for they represent and enable expression of a valid, meaningful approach to the endeavor and for some climbers these routes offer access to a highly regarded aspect of the game.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
Because Joe, for some, the first ascent style still matters, as does the opportunity to more or less do repeats in said style. Furthermore, my statement addresses route maintenance, not route institution and I agree with the opinion that rap placed, overly run out route routes are a contrivance.
Interestingly, per your point, Richard Rossiter states that how the bolts got in there is irrelevant to subsequent generations, to him what matters is quality and aptness of placement selection. I get that sentiment.
Ironically, the Flatiron Bolt Committee will not allow ground up, on sight routes, because they anticipate bolts will be in the wrong place. On lower angle to steep angle slabs, I say that placement selection error is less likely to occur than it is on steeper terrain.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
I would distinguish it as restoration or route maintenance Joe, much the same in outcome as many of the other bolt replacement programs now in effect that Greg Barnes & Kevin Powell for example have undertaken.
In the end, per your points, I find no need for my opinion to prevail over yours. I do find it interesting to address the fixed pin issue.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Nice thoughtful post Roy. I am glad that folks who care are chewing on this topic.
jghedge, Space Babble is no contrivance. It was put up in immaculate style from the ground up with no rehearsal or preinspection as were most of the great lines on Middle Rock. It seems that all you metalheads can see fit to do is declare that style is no longer relevant and somehow twist every shred of an argument toward that end. If you personally choose to devalue the adventure and risk aspects of climbing, you are settling for less than your capability and the rewards potentially offered by the climbing experience are greatly diminished. I sport climb just like everybody else and I know a sanitized situation when I walk away from it.
To wish that others share in the bounty that traditional climbing has always offered is an act of generosity. To wish a sanitized, bolt rich experience on others is something quite different. I have yet to hear anyone on the sport side of things articulate the rich inner world of bolt mania that would somehow offset the adventure and challenge lost through compromise to feckless and immediate gratification. Ask yourself what you have gained by selling your soul as a climber to the devil of expedient convenience? Beyond fun..........
|
|
Kevster
Trad climber
Evergreen, CO
|
|
The idea of replacing the bolts on lead seems pretty stupid to me. Risk death for public service and end up making a bigger mess than was there originally (drilling new holes next to old ones). Doing a good bolt replacement job is harder work than placing the bolt originally as you are using a larger bolt and need to remove and hopefully use the same hole. Part of the reason the route does not get climbed is because the bolts were questionable when first placed, why potentially repeat the process with larger bolts?
I like the idea of preserving FA's in their original shape but question the pinbolt idea. Drilling holes next to cracks does not make a lot of sense, as the rock will be weaker. If you are going to drill a hole I think it is better to make sure it is going to be in good rock. Also even though they appear as 1 unit, in effect you are doubleing the protection.
I think another answer might be an expanding piton, where a bolt is between 2 sides of a piton and tightening the bolt expands the pin into the crack. Maybe we should start with simply gluing a pin onto the crack and see how it withstands weathering?
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
Joe opines
When it falls to 50 year old retirees, none of whom have any stated hope or desire of actually doing the thing themselves, to restore the most classic and storied route of the genre, which itself probably hasn't seen an ascent in a decade or more, and on rappel to boot...we're talking rigor mortis.
Roy pretty much addressed most of your "comments."
While I may be over 50, I ain't anywhere near retired. If SB has it's fixed gear replaced I am likely to do it -- I'd like to lead the pitches I didn't get to lead before.
In my opinion, your ideas are very 20th Century. The evolving trend is toward respect and appreciation of all types of climbs. It is no coincidence that current top trad climbers and those who are doing cutting edge routes throughout the world gained power, strength and stamina from sport climbing. It is all good, even if it is different. Perhaps your view of climbing has become too narrow and is suffering from ... what did you call it ...yeah, "rigor mortis."
So you're going to have this bold ground-up multipitch, but all the fixed gear will have been placed...on rappel?
Red herring if there ever was one...See the thoughtful replies of others.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
Jghedge, I think that you are entitled to your opinion on how routes are restored, but you are sort of in left field on this one. As far as I know, once the 'community' decides to replace old gear, nobody has expressed any concerns about how the work gets done. (By the same token, if someone decides to chop the effort, I don't think it was ever because of someone rapping in.)
I think that there are some fairly active types who like to rap in and replace bolts but who don't do much active climbing anymore. Everyone appreciates their efforts and no one faults them, because no one sees it as a problem. Everyone is talking about restoration of original gear and not equating the effort to the first ascent.
Roger
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!