Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
The climber in the pic is linked two pitches together. The belay down and right does provide a striking view of the roof.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 24, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
|
Bump for a Classic Meadows Tale...
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 25, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
Great route.Great story.
|
|
Chris Wegener
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 25, 2014 - 04:19pm PT
|
Great story Roger, though I am late to the party.
I seem to recall you saying that when you and Jim did the route he mentioned that the future of climbing was going to be in climbing overhangs. Did that happen on Hoodwink?
You also said "excessive runouts on moderate pitches turning naturally moderate routes into horror shows," in your article and I think that this is prescient.
As Joe Hedge says many climbs in Tuolumne are museum climbs, because that are casual for good leaders who don't bother to do them but far to run out for leaders only comfortable at the moderate grade.
Further some of the things that Tom Higgins was concerned about have come to pass. There are routes going in that are, for lack of a better description, over protected. There is no doubt that some of the charm of climbing in Tuolumne is the "sporty" nature of the climbing. The requirement that the leader needs to be confident and in control to allow success. It is not often the physical challenge that needs to be overcome in climbing in the meadows but the psychological challenge.
There is a fine line between sufficient protection and too much. Body length or less spacing between bolts on moderate routes seems like overkill. On the other hand twenty to thirty feet between bolts is insufficient.
I don't think that Tuolumne should be like Dresden where there is a minimum distance between bolts (five meters!) but it shouldn't be a climbing gym either.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 11:01am PT
|
Chris,
OT and IMHO, many Euro's developed smart bolted long routes while CA climbers were sketching up horror fests. The main difference is that they place bolts before cruxes and adjust the runouts based on difficulty. For example, a 5.11a route would have bolts within 6' of 11a cruxes, within 10' of 5.10 moves and have runouts at 5.9 and below. The bolts protect the route but they can be plenty sporty. There is also a practice of giving a second 'French-free' number. So a 5.11a free climb might be rated 5.10c mandatory between bolts (5.11a or 5.10c A0).
The routes are often developed by professional mountain guides who want to repeat the climbs with a reasonable amount of risk and first ascentionists who want to proudly recommend their own routes.
|
|
Chris Wegener
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 11:48am PT
|
That is in general a good idea. Having even long 5.9 runouts on a 5.11 route is mostly reasonable but that is not what I am concerned about.
In Tuolumne there are many classic 5.8 and 5.9 lines that are too sparsely bolted for those who only lead at that grade and are rarely done by better climbers leaving the climbs in limbo. Considering there are many climbs in the range we need to understand the dynamic that will retain their essential nature while still allowing beginning climbers to discover the magic that is Tuolumne
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 01:14pm PT
|
The accident history of Tuolumne Meadows, dating back to 1988 as reported in Accidents in North American Mountaineering (ANAM) do not seem to bare out the contention that the bolt spacing is "dangerous."
There in 1 out of 28 accidents reported there in that time span (26 years) that can be attributed to a leader fall in runout ground above a bolt. That was a 2001 accident on Needle Spoon 5.10a, ironically this climb is renowned for its, comparatively, close bolt spacing.
I would have expected many more accidents if bolt spacing were actually a problem.
1988 Great White Book - caught in rain storm
1992 Lembert Dome, East Wall - stuck on climb
1995 Regular Route Fairview Dome - benighted
1997 West Country - piece pulled when weighted on lowering
1997 Needle Spoon - rappelling accident retreating from storm
1998 Northwest Books 5.9 var. - leader fell on runout far from last gear
1999 Guppy Dome - dropped while lowering
2001 Cathedral Peak - lightning
2001 Needle Spoon (p1) - leader fell on runout
2002 Western Front - leader fell traversing out of climb (5.7 ? no such climb, climbs in area all 5.10)
2004 Eichorn Pinnacle - rappel anchor failed
2004 Regular Route Fairview Dome - benighted
2004 DAFF dome - fall while descending in rainstorm
2005 Northwest Books 5.9 var. - leader fell runout on natural gear
2005 Matthes Crest - second broke leg jumping
2005 Lembert Dome - benighted descending
2005 Regular Route Fairview Dome - benighted
2005 Tenya Peak - stranded, lacked experience
2006 Northwest Books 5.9 var. - leader fell runout above natural gear
2007 Regular Route Fairview Dome - benighted
2007 Northwest Books - fall descending
2007 Sh#t Hooks - second fell hitting ground
2007 Cathedral Peak - leader fell pulled protection
2008 Cathedral Peak - benighted
2010 Cathedral Peak - leader fall
2010 Third Pillar of Dana Lenticular Limbo - leader fall off route
2011 Cathedral Peak - fall on descent
2012 Family Affair - dropped lowering
I totally agree that TM routes can be intimidating due to the protection. Having climbed there every year since 1996 I seem to have gained some confidence on the runout, at least through the 5.10 grades.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
|
Ed
thanks for the data.
Most of the long runouts on 5.8/5.9 are on slabs where a long slide is the likely result of a fall. I took The Big One near the top of Pywiack Dike Route, sliding at least 60 feet counting rope stretch. Had a few scrapes and my nerves were shattered for the day. Went back the next year and led it fine.
I think the Meadows has great 5.7 - 5.9 climbs specifically for learning how to deal with runout.
One of the most difficult aspects of long run outs on slab is route finding. Hence learning how to down climb. I fell on the Dike Route because I didn't down climb when I realized I was off route.
No, you really don't want to fall out of the Great White Book. So you learn how to be careful and in control.
Where I've had difficulty in Tuolumne has been on harder, well protected climbs.
Long falls are not the major hazard in Tuolumne as shown by Ed's data.
Mostly it's situational awareness: benighted, storms, off route, descending. Much like Glacier Point Apron. Much like most climbing areas.
Hoodwink looks awesome but a bit over my pay grade.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 02:04pm PT
|
I agree with everything said. IMHO (again) I think that Chris' term 'museum-piece' is appropriate. At T-meadows,I think that 90% of climbing is done on the cracks or the occasional high-risk adventure.
I think that many first ascentionists were placing bolts after cruxes when they could no longer downclimb safely. Their mentality was only to survive. Many of us clipped those feeble bolts decades after their usable life.
Regarding Ed Hartouni's statistics; You could also say that Pinto Wagons haven't had many explosions in the last 30 years. It doesn't mean that they are reasonably safe or good cars. How many first ascentionists would feel comfortable doing repeats of their runouts 10 or 20 years later? Would they recommend the routes to their children? Just because some freewheeling brazen youth in the 70's slapped random 1 inch bolts in pristine faces doesn't mean much compared to the deaths and serious injuries in a silly pastime like climbing. No one makes you bring a rope or bolt kit. If the FA was free to protect himself and if we don't want every party to be free to bolt at will then the reasonable compromise is for a consensus formula for bolting at the grade of climb.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 02:19pm PT
|
If we throw out the accounting of what actually happens in TM regarding accidents then it is possible to construct a narrative that supports anything, really.
However, you can't argue the "safety issue" without some indication that there is actually an issue.
Obviously, ambitious people lacking experience run into problems on TM climbs. These problems do not seem to be falling on far spaced ancient bolts. The majority of them are on routes that are unbolted (Reg. Route on Fairview, Cathedral Peak and Northwest Books) so one cannot even argue that the slow pace of climbing with runout bolts contributes.
I'm saying that you should find some other justification for advocating re-engineering routes, safety is not an issue as demonstrated by the rather low likelihood of such accidents. Being "scared" is not the something as being in a hazardous situation (that works both ways, of course).
Apparently people can climb these routes as competently as the FA team, even where the FA team may be reluctant many years later, see, e.g. Super Chicken on Medlicott : add bolts to third pitch? for a discussion.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
|
Ed, you can't compare the volume of climbers on those three routes to the vast majority of rarely climbed T-meadows runouts.
Re-engineered is your term. I'll say that climbers from that era left pins, tat anchors, shitty bolts and more than a few shitty routes and monopolized moderate climbs without having the guidance of more experienced climbers. It seems typically American to insist that one person's ignorant opinion is as valid as a wise consensus by experts. You could argue that irresponsible bolting is the equivalent of poor construction or unsafe bridges or rope swings. There is a real liability. If the FA party feels no social responsibility then why are we following irresponsible leaders? Have they earned that respect? You might as well argue that we can't replace bolts, upgrade anchors or remove loose rocks.
The standard for bolting routes has improved both the quality of gear and the quality of routes. Would you suggest that we return to star drives and pitons?
I was on TSAR in '96 and it became clear to everyone that someone had to take responsibility for the misleading (get it?) guidebooks and dangerous routes. Responsible climbers began adding substantial anchors for safety and rescue and better bolts for humanity. I have a star drive that pulled out during a fall on Conness. A better bolt prevents danger to climbers and rescuers. I think that I'm on the right side of history and that the bolt-wars was an ignorant period in American climbing history.
You are ignoring the injuries due to runouts ( 3 on NW books). Many think that NW books needs a smarter finish and I know that there have been injuries on Cryin' Time Again because the direct finish is just stupid. The pulled anchor is also a vote for re-engineering, as EH puts it. There would be less crowds on the popular routes if there were more smartly-bolted faces.
( my memory is off re NW books finish, as I recall it's fine. I was thinking about CTA).
If the real argument is to 'preserve risky adventure' then nothing stops a climber from skipping all but the original bolts, soloing or acknowledging the badassedness of the FA party. I just don't think that soloing a line means that you own the rock forever. Ed's link shows that the FA guys might do it differently today because wisdom.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
|
Northwest Books is interesting. I've climbed it a few times, including not long ago. The only place I felt it was sketchy was the moves from the starting ledge to the first bolt. From then on a competent climber should be pretty safe. I don't remember feeling runout at any point after the first bolt.
As for Crying Time Again, yes that straight up finish is dangerous. I didn't do it and don't plan to. However that should be obvious to a competent climber and you can exit safely right on the ledges.
Sometimes your brain has to get ahead of ego.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 04:46pm PT
|
Just for the record, I'm all for replacing old bolts with the best technology available. This will have to happen into the future as the old equipment does become damaged or aged.
And it is true that routes exist that are put up by wide variety of climbers with a spectrum of skills for putting up routes. And occasionally those FA teams re-equip the routes, adding bolts and anchors, etc. And there is an evolution of route protection as the FA teams age.
But those routes got climbed, and continue to get climbed, with few of the potential consequences actualized.
It is simply not true that other routes in TM are not climbed. Many are... for one example, South Crack is climbed nearly continuously from the opening to closing days. No reported accidents. The third pitch and above are runout, and perhaps this keeps climbers off the route. But there are many that climb it.
The west face of Fairview has many climbs that see many ascents every season. West Crack is another route that nearly always has a long line on it, so popular that I don't go up there anymore, but it has a character of a TM climb, not many accidents.
Cryin' Time Again is an interesting route, I've done it at least twice that I can recall, and always walked off to the right. Maybe someday I'll do one of the other finishing pitch variations, but maybe not. Seems like a lot of choice on how to finish that climb. And it seems to be finished without a reputation of being a "death route."
Is there an ISO* standard for putting up a route? Maybe ISO 26000:2010? but then we'd have to come to terms with determining what the best practices are that lead to a socially responsible route. Of course that begs the question of how to make rock climbing "safe," of deciding what degree of risk is allowable, and of determining who can put up routes, where they could be put up, and how they are to be put up, undoubtedly with extensive input from stakeholders and the various regulatory agencies, national and international.
And all this would not prevent the majority of the accidents listed above, I suspect that would be closer to none of the accidents listed.
* ISO = International Organization for Standards
http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 05:47pm PT
|
The climbing community has always opined about style. It's just that the community here was operating in a vacuum and most opinions from BITD are now seen as relics. A climb is what you do. A route is what you leave for posterity. Again, solo or skip bolts, but there isn't much firm ethical foundation that will support cavalier risk as the highest responsibility for the future of climbing.
We don't insist that climbers repeat the original style. We don't insist that climbers climb at the highest current style. Neither is possible. We can agree that placing a bolt that makes a short fall dangerous is wrong. Sport bolts are frequently relocated to improve the route. There are enough interested experts to influence the future of our routes without taking away anyone's opportunity to risk everything. You can't lock the world into a moment in time.
The walls are no longer wilderness. They are filled with public routes for public recreation that are published in guides. There are organized rescue groups and a whole economy around promoting climbing as a reasonable recreation. Putting an X in the guidebook is a socially responsible move but we can do a lot better. Is an X route really a route or just a climb done by a crazy few. Nothing prevents the crazy few from soloing but is it right to let the crazy few own the future and own the rocks? Just because JB free soloed a 5.9 does that mean that no other climbing style is possible on that piece of rock? Not in my opinion. And I don't think that is an insult to the FA. If anything, developing a route would let future climbers experience a sense of what JB accomplished. Or should El Cap be closed to free-climbing because the FA was Aid. Should the Regular NW Face be free solo only, free only, aid only? If Norman Clyde free soloed a peak then should all future ascents be without rope? What about the fat anchor bolts. I did RNW Face without fixed anchors. Does that mean anything? Not to me.
My original comment was that there exists a recognized standard for bolted alpine routes. Beefy Anchors. Strong Bolts. Protect the cruxes. Place the bolts 10-15 feet apart at the grades just below the crux grade. Keep the runouts reasonably safe at easier grades.
If we can easily identify a poorly bolted route then what's wrong with identifying what makes a smartly bolted route?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 06:26pm PT
|
If we can easily identify a poorly bolted route then what's wrong with identifying what makes a smartly bolted route?
If.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2014 - 07:26pm PT
|
Agreed. And I'm happy to lose this debate. I hope they all stand as testaments to history and preserve the legacy and the adventure. Thanks for walking me through it.
Back on topic;
Hoodwink is a beautiful climb and a perfect Tuolumne Meadows route. Roger Breedlove and Jim Bridwell have nabbed a sweet piece of history and I owe them a huge thanks. The story here is sweet icing.
Thank you all Misters Breedlove, Bridwell and Hartouni.
|
|
okie
Trad climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 07:39pm PT
|
Speaking of bolted TM routes...What's up with Needle Spoon?
The first pitch seems to have been bolted on rappel, unless hooks were used...not many stances, in fact very sustained without rests for most of it. The second pitch seems to have been done by stance.
What I find questionable is the location of the second bolt. You climb up 20 feet to a bolt, then climb another 20 feet to a very nice stance sans bolt. The second bolt is a few friction moves higher. So you climb higher to reach it. If you blow it here you're going 40 feet to a ledge impact. The third bolt is scarcely more than a body length above the second. Clearly, the second bolt should be relocated a bit lower to the natural stance to make this a safe route.
Just to make things even more puzzling, there are rusty 1/4 inchers to the left and right of here which seem to lead nowhere to any other bolts, phantom ghost bolts from a different time.
The law of the FA and fixed protection is a complicated deal. The example of the FA soloist is sort of the extreme example. In Oklahoma Duane Raleigh could solo anything up to 5.9, sometimes in his Nikes, and often did. One very popular 10a FA solo was retrobolted with his permission. Do we really have to defer to the soloist, especially when they name their solos and put them in the guidebook, until they die? Do their property rights get passed on to their next of kin?
Edit: if Needle Spoon was totally ground up... much respect.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 10:31pm PT
|
okie: 2000+ posts on the Law of the First Ascent
Chris, there are many corners that form roofs that are climbed by traversing--Left Side of the Hourglass is a good example or Peter, Peter--but straight-over roofs are rare in Yosemite. I can't see how one could make much of a future with so few opportunities. The Owl roof is a straight-in crack, but in 1972, none of us could get up it. Kauk was the first one to climb Separate Reality, but that was in 1977.
However, Hoodwink is sort of an oddity for Yosemite, there is no crack but there are just the right number of very positive holds in just the right places to make it fairly easy to get over the roof. For Yosemite regulars it had an unfamiliar but very satisfying sense of accomplishment, something to put a smile on your face, so we all probably started paying more attention. The Boa roof, across the road from Hoodwink on Pywiack enticed everyone, but Robbins aided over it. I am guessing someone has done it free.
Up-thread, Alan Rubin tells a story from 1972 about Bridwell holding forth to a rapt audience at a nearby table in the Lodge restaurant. The easterners notice that Bridwell, instead of the normal Valley pantomime of jamming sequences, appeared to be leaning back and reaching over an overhang searching for and finding a hold over the lip. One of Alan's group yells across, "Hey, Bridwell, you're in the wrong climbing area for that move, this isn't the Gunks".
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
May 29, 2014 - 01:06am PT
|
Needle & Spoon was totally ground up. No hooks. No bolts placed on rap. However, the first bolt on the first pitch was placed by an earlier party (Kevin Leary and Vern Clevenger?) and was just sitting there for a couple of years before Dennis Oakshotte hand drilled the first pitch ground up. That's why it's necessary to runner the first bolt to avoid rope drag.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!