Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Owlman
Trad climber
|
|
Can we line up on June 2 and really go at it?
I mean Colonial Style, you know, with the blue coats on one side (the trads ofcourse), and the top ropers on the other side of the meadow?
Black Powder guns only.
Or Spears?
Spears!!!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Hmmmmnnnn
Toss em over the bridge into the Merced?
Ok, I'll bring Walleye ......then try toss him in.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
From Climbing In North America by Chris Jones
©1976 by The Regent of the University of California
page 361
"The Bolting Issue
On the North American Wall and elsewhere the leading Yosemite climbers made a major effort to avoid placing bolts. They would go into extreme A5 nailing and hang sky hooks from tiny flakes rather than drill a hole. They saw bolts as radically different from pitons. With bolts, climbers were free of the natural configuration of the rock and could go anywhere at will, provided, of course, they had the time and equipment. The unrestrained use of bolts opened up areas of rock where there were no natural lines and mad success inevitable. These were the major objections to Harding's Leaning Tower route. However, the point at issue during the early 1960s was the use of bolts to avoid difficult nailing or to protect a free climb where better climbers would do without. Unskilled climbers were using bolts to overcome routes that were beyond them when using "traditional" means. The issue was hotly debated around campfires and in the pages of Summit, from Chouinard's "Are Bolts Being Placed by Too Many Unqualified Climbers?" through a whole spectrum of attack and counterattack. The purists wanted to keep climbing difficult. They despised the success-at-any-cost attitude of the bolting enthusiasts.
How Frank Smythe would have smiled to hear his arguments brought up to date!
In this debate the purists were partially successful. There have been outbreaks of bolting on established routes, but there is now nothing like the proliferation of earlier days. However, the issue of whether bolts should be used to connect up blank areas of rock, to create direct routes or "directissimas," or even used at all was not then addressed. It has not been resolved to this day."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
From Climbing In North America by Chris Jones
©1976 by The Regent of the University of California
page 368-369
(In the section titled Big Wall Ethics).
"The saga of the Dawn Wall was far from ended. The media hailed it as the greatest climb since Mount Everest, and the protagonists became instant folk heros. Climbers were not so sure about the merits of the Dawn Wall. One aspect of the climb that could not be challenged was the guts that Harding and Caldwell had shown. While their tenacity was universally admired, their heavy reliance on drilled holes resurrected the bolting controversy once again.
Climbers hardly bothered to question the bolting on Half Dome's Tis-sa-ack and south face, the first because it was Robbins, the second because it was a route that few cared about. Why was the Dawn Wall different? It was a recognized problem on which others had tried and failed using "legitimate" means, that is, accepting a constraint on the number of bolts. The 300 drilled holes seemed outrageous, and then there was the incredible publicity.
Are bolts ever justified? A handful of first-class European climbers maintained they are not. If they are, what proportion of bolting is acceptable? The heart of the argument is that by the tedious but relatively simple expedient of bolting, any blank rock can be climbed, that bolting is not in the true spirit of mountaineering, that it threatens the foundations of the sport. It all comes back to Frank Smythe's thought, "It is knowing where to draw the line that counts in life."
While climbers up and down the country argued the merits of the Dawn Wall, Robbins decided to make the second ascent and "erase" the climb by chopping out the bolts. This was no easy decision. In taking such an unprecedented step, he was laying his reputation on the line. He and Don Lauria spent the first day removing bolts. During the first bivouac doubts about their action assailed them. They continued to the top in another five days without removing any more bolts. Although the route was not erased, Robbins had made a strong statement.
The Dawn Wall became a symbol of the various schools of thought in climbing. Whatever the merits of the actions on the Dawn Wall, the purists' concern that bolting not get out of hand seems to have been realized. Subsequent routes on El Cap averaged around sixty bolts. Those outside the gut level of the sport may consider this concern over ethics far too heavy and serious. Does it really matter? The answer depends on your viewpoint. Does the sportsman take an automatic weapon to kill his tiger?"
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
From Climbing In North America by Chris Jones
©1976 by The Regent of the University of California
page 140-141
(In the chapter THE SIERRANS).
"On Snowpatch and Shiprock the Sierrans convincingly demonstrated the excellence of their granite gymnasium, Yosemite Valley. Back in the valley, climbing was on the move. Successive attempts on the Lost Arrow Chimney, "the nightmare of all those who inspected it closely," inched the route upward. A new generation of climbers was making its mark. Typical of the newcomers were Fritz Lippmann, Robin Hansen and their friends, the self-styled "goose gutters." The active encouragement of beginners was a strong tradition on R.C.S. outings. The goose gutters felt this cut too heavily into their climbing time. If the Sierrans scheduled a weekend meet, the goose gutters went elsewhere to avoid the crowds. However, this shift from group to individual climbing was not the real concern. What bothered the original R.C.S. members was the newcomers' extensive use of direct aid. It was an ironic twist. Aid climbing had brought censure on the original R.C.S. group. The older generation also considered the newcomers rash. They criticized their lax attitude to safety and reminded them of Leonard's dictum that should he ever fall, his first thought would be, "What will Underhill say about this in Appalachia?" The newcomers' Arrowhead Chimney climb (not to be confused with the still unclimbed Lost Arrow Chimney) was characterized by Shand as a route "which borders on the suicide climbs of the Wetterstein and the Kaisergebirge."
Were these criticisms the result of a lack of understanding between generations, or was something else involved? If Eichorn's group used pitons on the Higher Cathedral Spire, were not Lippmann and his pals entitled to find their own frontier? After his defeat on Shiprock, Coloradan Carl Blaurock had written, "Will someone find the key to the route by which the summit may be finally obtained, or if it is to be reached, will it be by methods not considered ethical?" Did the end justify the means? The debate was opened, but it was a debate that would have to wait. When Lippmann got down from the Arrowhead Chimney, Yosemite's age of innocence was over. It was December 7, 1941."
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
Jody
You may have strong words
but Bachar has a stronger mind.
|
|
bachar
Gym climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
En el pais de los ciegos, el tuerto es el rey.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Expediency
Frank Smythe
British climbers may justly consider themselves free from taints of mechanisation and nationalism. For the most part they have always looked upon mountain climbing as a sport in the purest sense of the word, a test of strength and skill in surmounting natural obstacles undertaken in accordance with traditional rules, and governed by the love of the thing for its own sake. At the same time, they cannot be wholly absolved from the charge of expediency. There exists, or has existed, a school of thought that Everest must be climbed, if not by traditional methods legitimately augmented by the best that manufacturers can supply in the way of food, specially suitable clothing and the usual mountaineering equipment, then by the employment of oxygen breathing apparatus. It is true that the diminished oxygen content in the air near the highest summit of the world suggests the use of such an apparatus; there is little enjoyment to be had out of climbing without it at the highest altitudes of the Himalayas; at the same time, there would to my mind, be singularly little satisfaction in reaching the summit of Mount Everest with oxygen apparatus, and any satisfaction in so doing would be offset by the thought that perhaps it might be possible to get there without it. It is certain that were Everest to be climbed with oxygen apparatus, mountaineering tradition -- were it worth anything -- would very soon demand a non-apparatus ascent. This cult of expediency, as exemplified by the scientific experts, is to my mind one of the evils of the present age. Let us keep mountaineering clean and undebased even on the highest peaks of the Himalayas. Let us win through to the top of Everest for the love of the thing, not because it is expedient to get there. Expediency and good sportsmanship simply do not go together.
If any charge can be preferred against mountaineers as a whole it is that they have taken their achievements too seriously. I have been as guilty as any in that respect. I now realise that it is the joy, the good comradeship, the climbing that matter in mountaineering, not the attainment of the objective. Mummery was the great apostle of the joy of mountaineering, and it is impossible to associate such a character, bubbling over with irrepressible gaiety, conscious always that it was the game that mattered and not its prizes, with the dour exponent of the expedient in mountaineering to-day, with his pitons and his oxygen apparatus and, not least, a nationally-minded Press to spur him on to some fresh 'conquest' for the fancied honour and glory of his Fatherland. It is essential to the well-being of mountaineering not to overburden it with mechanical aids but to keep it as simple as possible.
from MECHANISED MOUNTAINEERING: FELL AND ROCK CLIMBING CLUB JOURNAL 1942
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
somebody's got an eye around here?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The Murder of the Impossible
Reinhold Messner
What have I personally got against "direttissimas"? Nothing at all; in fact I
think that the "falling drop of water" route is one of the most logical things
that exists. Of course it always existed - so long as the mountain permits it. But
sometimes the line of weakness wanders to the left or the right of this line; and
the we see climbers - those on the first ascent , I mean - going straight on up as
if it weren't so, striking in bolts of course. Why do they go that way? "For the
sake of freedom," they say; but they don't realize that they are slaves of the
plumbline.
They have a horror of deviations. "In the face of difficulties, logic commands one
not to avoid them, but to overcome them," declares Paul Claudel. And that's what
the 'direttissma' protagonists say, too, knowing from the start that the equipment
they have will get them over any obstacle. They are therefore talking about
problems which no longer exist. Could the mountain stop them with unexpected
difficulties? They smile: those times are long past! The impossible in
mountaineering has been eliminated, murdered by the direttissima.
Yet direttissimas would not in themselves be so bad were it not for the fact that
the spirit of that guides them has infiltrated the entire field of climbing. Take
a climber o a rock face, iron rungs beneath his feet and all around him only
yellow, overhanging rock. Already tired, he bores another hole above the last peg.
He won't give up. Stubbornly, bolt by bolt, he goes on. His way, and none other,
must be forced up the face.
Expansion bolts are taken for granted nowadays; they are kept to hand just in case
some difficulty cannot be overcome by ordinary methods. Today's climber doesn't
want to cut himself off from the possibility of retreat: he carries his courage in
his rucksack, in the form of bolts and equipment. Rock faces are no longer
overcome by climbing skill, but are humbled, pitch by pitch, by methodical manual
labor; what isn't done today will be done tomorrow. Free-climbing routes are
dangerous, so the are protected by pegs. Ambitions are no longer build on skill,
but on equipment and the length of time available. The decisive factor isn't
courage, but technique; an ascent may take days and days, and the pegs and bolts
counted in the hundreds. Retreat has become dishonorable, because everyone knows
now that a combination of bolts and singlemindedness will get you up anything,
even the most repulsive-looking direttissima.
Times change, and with them concepts and values. Faith in equipment has replaced
faith in oneself; a team is admired for the number of bivouacs it makes, while the
courage of those who still climb "free" is derided as a manifestation of lack of
conscientiousness.
Who has polluted the pure spring of mountaineering?
The innovators perhaps wanted only to get closer to the limits of possibility.
Today, however, every single limit has vanished, been erased. In principle, it
didn't seem to be a serious matter, but ten years have sufficed to eliminate the
word 'impossible' from the mountaineering vocabulary.
Progress? Today, ten years from the start of it all, there are a lot of people who
don't care where they put bolts, whether on new routes or on classic ones. People
are drilling more and more and climbing less and less.
"Impossible": it doesn't exist anymore. The dragon is dead, poisoned, and the hero
Siegfried is unemployed. Now anyone can work on a rock face, using tools to bend
it to his own idea of possibility.
Some people foresaw this a while ago, but they went on drilling, both on
direttissimas and on other climbs, until the lost the taste for climbing: why
dare, why gamble, when you can proceed in perfect safety? And so they become the
prophets of the direttissima: "Don't waste your time on classic routes - learn to
drill, learn to use your equipment. Be cunning: If you want to be successful, use
every means you can get round the mountain. The era of direttissima has barely
begun: every peak awaits its plumbline route. There's no rush, for a mountain
can't run away - nor can it defend itself."
"Done the direttissima yet? And the super diretissima?" These are the criteria by
which mountaineering prowess is measured nowadays. And so the young men go off,
crawl up the ladder of bolts, and then ask the next ones: "done the direttissima
yet?"
Anyone who doesn't play ball is laughed at for daring take a stand against current
opinion. The plumbline generation has already consolidated itself and has
thoughtlessly killed the ideal of the impossible. Anyone who doesn't oppose this
makes himself an accomplice of the murderers. When future mountaineers open their
eyes and realize what has happened, it will be too late: the impossible (and with
it, risk) will be buried, rotted away, and forgotten forever.
All is not yet lost, however, although 'they' are returning the attack; and even
if it's not always the same people, it'll be other people similar to them. Long
before they attack, they'll make a great noise, and once again any warning will be
useless. They'll be ambitious and they'll have long holidays - and some new 'last
great problem' will be resolved. They'll leave more photographs at the hut, as
historical documents, showing a dead straight line of dots running from the base
to summit - and on the face itself, will once again inform us that "Man has
achieved the impossible."
If people have already been driven to the idea of establishing a set of rules of
conduct, it means that the position is serious; but we young people don't want a
mountaineering code. On the contrary, "up there we want to find long, hard days,
days when we don't know in the morning what the evening will bring". But for how
much longer will we be able to have this?
I'm worried about that dead dragon: we should do something before the impossible
is finally interred. We have hurled ourselves, in a fury of pegs and bolts, on
increasingly savage rock faces: the next generation will have to know how to free
itself from all these unnecessary trappings. We have learned from the plumbline
routes; our successors will once again have to reach the summits by other routes.
It's time we repaid our debts and searched again for the limits of possibility -
for we must have such limits if we are going to use the virtue of courage to
approach them. And we must reach them. Where else will be able to find refuge in
our flight from the oppression of everyday humdrum routine? In the Himalaya? In
the Andes? Yes certainly if we can get there; but for most of us there'll only be
these old Alps.
So let's save the dragon; and in the future let's follow the road that past
climbers marked out. I'm convinced it's still the right one.
Put on your boots and get going. If you've got a companion, take a rope with you
and a couple of pitons for your belays, but nothing else. I'm already on my way,
ready for anything - even for retreat, if I meet the impossible. I'm not going to
be killing any dragons, but if anyone wants to come with me, we'll go to the top
together on the routes we can do without branding ourselves murderers.
 Mountain #15, 1971
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
From Robin Campbell's essay "Climbing Ethics"
"... I will begin by outlining a minimal set of 'Categorical Imperatives for Ethical Mountaineers'. These are:
1. Climb the Mountains
2. Test Your Skill
3. Test Your Nerve
4. Love the Mountains
These, I think can all be supported without controversy in the sense that most climbers would accept them as minimal conditions for being a Good Mountaineer. 1 is so obvious it is usually overlooked; 2 and 3 have been extensively discussed - they were dealt with by Lito Tejada-Flores, in his widely published article, [url="http://home.comcast.net/~e.hartouni/doc/Games_Climbers_Play.txt"]Games Climbers Play[/url], and they are much in the mind of all normal mountaineers (though 3 is often rejected by the serious-business brigade); 4 is perhaps the most intriguing and the one about which I shall have most to say...
Love the Mountains
I suggest that this imperative should be interpreted quite literally, so that we treat the mountains as we would treat a lover. Of course, the conjugal relationship is somewhat promiscuous -- there are a lot of us and a lot of them and each of us loves all of them. It is as a result of 'love the mountains' that climbers deplore the acts of defacement and defilement to which our mountains are so often subjected. Defacement by chairlifts, railways, fixed ropes, paintmarks, pegmarks, rubbish, beaten paths - all are acts of assault upon a loved one and are therefore deplorable. Defilement by excessive indiscriminate promiscuity -- so-called 'people pollution' -- is also deplorable, particularly so when the people concerned do not love mountains. Elitist attitudes of this sort were forged a long time ago. On that celebrated occasion when Moses climbed Mount Sinai to receive those more important Ethical Imperatives, the Lord was very specific with respect to this point about how the mountain should be treated by the rank and file. First of all He informed Moses that He had sanctified the mountain and then warned him of the dire consequences that would befall any of his people who set foot on the mountain. For good measure He ordered Moses to instruct his menfolk not to 'come at their wives' for three days!
A second consequence of this Fourth Imperative is that, like any lover, the mountain should not be treated lightly, should not be taken for granted. And so it here that we derive our proscriptions against the attempting of the unduly difficult or the unduly dangerous. The mountaineer who takes these liberties is taking them with his life but it is no that that we should care about: it is that he is taking liberties with the mountain.
A final implication of this imperative is that rape is unethical: the mountain must have the chance of turning you down..."
from NATIONAL MOUNTAINEERING CONFERENCE 1974
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Somebody borrow the dart gun from the bear control guys.
Tranquilize Jody so he wakes up decorated.
Illustration Ouch?
PEace
karl
|
|
scooter
climber
fist clamp
|
|
James-
We should fight, you can throw me in the river first. Then I will throw you in the river. Then you can Throw me in the river, then I will throw you in the river. I wonder if that would satisfy the blood lust for all these people. One way to know who will win a fight is who has been in the most. There are little tricks some people don't know, like pulling a shirt over someones head. That is a good one.
P
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
from the AAC Historical Use of Fixed Anchors
"2. BOLTS
As with pitons, development and use of the expansion bolt can be traced to Europe early in the 20th century. In 1927, Laurent Grivel, a climbing guide and blacksmith in Chamonix, France, used bolts on the first ascent of Pére Eternal, a 200-foot spire on the north ridge of the Aiguille de la Brenva. Their use continued sporadically in Europe, but was not well documented.
It was not until the well-publicized 1939 ascent of New Mexico’s Shiprock by Sierra Club climbers David Brower, Bestor Robinson, John Dyer and Raffi Bedayan that the expansion bolt really surfaced in the climbing world. The difficult ascent involved the use of 54 pitons, half of them for direct aid, and four expansion bolts “where inadequacy of stance and lack of piton cracks would otherwise have plunged the entire party to their deaths in case of a fall.”
By the late 1940s bolts had become commonplace in American mountaineering, not only as a means of protecting against a fall, but also as a means of facilitating upward progress on flawless rock and as secure rappel anchors. As Richard Leonard and Arnold Wexler wrote in the 1946 Sierra Club Bulletin about the expansion bolt, “It makes the climb no easier—placing one, even on a flat ledge, is a long job—but it permits a lead in safety that might otherwise be quite unjustifiable owing to the belayer’s inability to hold a fall.”
But the ability to place a bolt virtually anywhere made this tool a bit more controversial than pitons, and their permanence offended some. Fred Beckey, arguably America’s most prolific exploratory climber, offered the proponent’s position in a 1949 article in The American Alpine Journal: “I do not believe in blacksmithing a route up a cement wall—that is not climbing—but recently we have met peaks that would be impossible even with aid pitons. The choice remains: to retreat, or to use a few bolts to overcome a flawless pitch.”
The debate over bolt use reached a fevered pitch in 1961, when Yvon Chouinard, a top Yosemite climber and equipment manufacturer, wrote an article in Summit magazine entitled “Are bolts being placed by too many unqualified climbers?” Chouinard commented that, “Due to their low cost and their availability, they have been used far more extensively in the United States than in all other areas combined… [M]any climbers would feel undressed if they approached a rock climb without their ‘bolt kit.’” However, several top climbers wrote letters to the editor opposing Chouinard’s idea that only experienced, technically proficient climbers be allowed to place bolts. The consensus of the opponents was best articulated by Chuck Wilts, a pioneering Sierra climber, who wrote, “I think climbers should accept the general principle ‘to refrain from the use of bolts unless really necessary for the safety of the party if the ascent is to be continued.’”
Though bolts continued to be controversial among climbers, as was reflected in articles and letters in the climbing journals, climbers tended to coalesce around the principle articulated by Wilts. With the exception of sport climbing, an bolt-intensive form of climbing which developed in the late 1980s and is generally practiced at non-wilderness cliffs, climbing has tended to progress to a point where people attempt to climb with as little use of bolts as possible."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Are Bolts Being Placed by Too Many Unqualified Climbers?
Yvon Chouinard
Summit March 1961
During the past few years climbers have become justly concerned with the problems of ethics in the use of bolts in climbing. The use of expansion bolts is difficult to write about and must be treated in the same manner as social morals. The problem is not one of individual taste, but rather one which must be determined by the entire climbing fraternity and adhered to by everyone who climbs. In presenting this article I will attempt to convey my own thoughts and ideals on this subject.
The problem of bolts is very real and grave. Due to their low cost and their availability, they have been used far more extensively in the United States than in all other areas combined. Bolts have been used only recently in Europe and then only on large, severe walls such as the west face of the Petit Dru, Cima Grande direct north face, and the Roda di Vael by expert climbers. Here, in the United States, many climbers would feel undressed if they approached a rock climb without their "bolt kit."
The main objection to bolts is that they permanently mar the beauty of the rock. Bolts also enable inexperienced and unqualified persons to climb routes with comparative ease. Bolts are often a means of making up for inexperience and inadequacies, and I like to think that not every route is for every climber.
Bolts have three uses: as rappel and belay anchors, for protection and for direct aid.
1. Rappelling. This should be a very rare use, as it is almost always possible to use bushes, trees, pitons or a knob of rock as an anchor. A bolt's only use should be on difficult sixth-class pinnacles where good pitons cannot be placed, or in the life and death descents from large walls, where again good pitons cannot be placed.
In 1959, I observed a shocking misuse of bolts for rappelling. On the first ascent of Shiprock only four bolts were used on the entire climb. Now, on one of the rappel points alone, there are five unnecessary bolts in place, three of which are Phillips type without hangers, and two compression studs, also without hangers. None of these five bolts are well placed, and it is possible to put in a good piton nearby.
2. Protection. Whether or not to put in a bolt for protection is a problem which is difficult to solve by an objective set of rules. If a climb has been done several times without bolts, even if it was only climbed by extremely well-qualified climbers, then this is an indication that bolts should not be placed by following parties. If a leader is confronted with a pitch that has been done before without the use of bolts, but feels that since the rock is icy, wet, or just too much for him to lead with any degree of safety, then he should simply descend rather than desecrate the rock with bolts, or risk a fall without them. A route doesn't always have to go, and wet or icy rocks or a less-than-expert leader is never an excuse for placing a bolt.
An outstanding example of an unqualified party choosing to place bolts because of a lack of ability was a team of two climbers who, in 1959, climbed the Lost Arrow Chimney in Yosemite Valley. On one of the pitches, which is normally done free, the party placed six bolts, partially because of the wetness of the rock, but largely because of their lack of ability. The bolts themselves can be removed, but the holes will always be there.
On a first ascent, if the next lead looks like it will be very difficult, dangerous and offers no chance for protection, and if the leader is an excellent and capable climber, then he is justified in placing a bolt. However, it is only justifiable if he thinks that it would be very dangerous even for a better climber than himself. For this reason, it is important of the leader to know his exact capabilities at that moment and to be able to judge a pitch on sight.
3. Direct aid. The problem of misusing bolts on direct aid is one of that can be solved in a far more objective manner, even though it is in this field that most of the misusage of bolts prevails. One of the biggest problems in American climbing today is that too many average, or even above-average, climbers are attempting direct aid climbs which are too difficult for their ability. This leads to bolts being put in place where they would not be necessary if the climber were more expert, and also ruining the route for the experienced climber who rightly belongs there.
The Lost Arrow Spire in Yosemite is a good example of what is happening on many difficult artificial routes in the United States. Several necessary bolts were placed by that great climber John Salathe´, on the first complete ascent. Through the years "climbers" have added more and more unnecessary bolts with the result that the reputation of this magnificent climb has somewhat declined. Because of the decline in the reputation of the spire less capable climbers attempted the route and still more bolts were placed until, in 1957, Mark Powell removed nine bolts that were not placed by Salathe´.
Some of the many reasons why a party would want to place a bolt on a direct aid climb that has previously been done are: inexperience, a short leader, crumbled or overused cracks, or the lack of proper equipment. In none of these reasons, except perhaps in the rare case of crumbled cracks, is the placing of bolts justified. Often a route requires special pitons, such as knifeblades, wide angles, or short wedges. If this is the case, then this information should be included in the guidebooks. With the great variety of pitons being made, especially with the increasing use of alloy steels in their manufacture, it is possible to utilize cracks ranging from hairline thinness to over six inches wide. Lack of any type of piton or equipment is never an excuse for the placing of a bolt.
Only the very experienced and expert climber should even own a "bolt kit." It is incomprehensible for the average climber to know just what can be climbed safely by the expert on either free or artificial ground by utilizing small holds in combination with poor direct aid pitons, by pendulums around blind corners, tension traverses, arrangement of slings, and by the use of special pitons.
Never should a bolt be placed that is just good enough to enable the party to surmount the obstacle and to then come out on the next party. If it is necessary to place a bolt, it should be a good solid bolt of the nail type expansion variety. This type does not suffer from metal fatigue as do compression studs.
With the many types and sizes of bolts being manufactured, it is very inconvenient to carry the many types of nuts, screws, and hangers necessary. The standard use of one type of bolt would eliminate the necessity of mentioning the sizes and types used on various routes in the guidebooks. However, the guidebooks should mention the number of bolts in place to aid in preventing over-bolting.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
another hint...
There is a very good chance that you are in possession of a picture of AH.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 6, 2008 - 10:14am PT
|
ED!
YOU ARE NOT GETTING PAID BY THE WORD!
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
:-)
I skipped over them.
I usually read all of Ed's posts, except when I don't read them at all.
I usually do not read his posts of somebody else's work.
|
|
bachar
Gym climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
Ed - thanks for the "Murder of the Impossible" piece.
" I'm already on my way, ready for anything - even for retreat, if I meet the impossible. I'm not going to be killing any dragons, but if anyone wants to come with me, we'll go to the top together on the routes we can do without branding ourselves murderers."
-Reinhold Messner
Even Reinhold was willing to retreat if it meant sacrificing climbing style - and he was just talking about using too many bolts on an ascent! I wonder what he thinks about top down escapist techniques, where the climber chickens out and lowers a rope down from the top to "complete" his "ascent" ?
Or does it matter anymore?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!