Matt_Anderson

Last time someone posted something shitty like MountainMan did, the person who posted it at least had the decency to take it down after he was shown the error of his ways. How 'bout it MountainMan? And even if you do, you were still an ass to do it in the first place. Matt [ 05-15-2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Matt Anderson ]

I don't have the specs, but the difference in range for camalots vs. other cams is about 10%. Considering the general irregularities of most cracks, the difference just isn't that significant. Granted, its nice to have the extra range when you are pumped and don't have the time to take a lot of care in choosing which cam is the correct one. But all it takes is a bit of forethought to be able to make sure that you don't up your only usable cams early on the route.

Since youu're talking about squamish, I assume you're talking about rock climbing, not alpine. Heres the rack that gets me up 90% of the climbs I get on: Twelve draws (6 are single length runners tripled down, six are shorter slings/draws for easy clipping) A full run of normal nuts, from about as big as my pinky (i've got a fat pinky) to the largest that Black Diamond makes. I also carry a double set of the mid sized nuts. A double run of cams from the blue alien size to the size of a # 3 camalot (I rack them singly, which is expensive, but very convenient when you have a harness with six loops.) Double set of micro nuts ( Black diamond swedges or copper/steels) Because this is expensive, I built this rack by buying the most used/cheapest things first and then more as the money came along. 1)start with slings/draws. They are all you need for sport pitches and also necessary for trad. I rarely find that I need more than 12 on even a long trad pitch. Although I often need more for long sport pitches, such long pitches are uncommon at lower grades and who cares, anyway, it's generally easy to borrow a draw or two when you're just sport climbing. Re: cost management: The cheapest way to go is to get only ovals/D's. They suck for clipping. If you can afford bent/wiregates on one end, it raises the price, but sure is nice. I started out with almost all D's and ovals, with only a few bent gates. I kept the ones with bent gates for the clips that I thought would be hard for me and used the less convenient ones for easy clips. You can also cut corners by tying your own slings. 2) Then get nuts - a complete set from as small as you are comfortable falling on up to the largest ones your manufacturer of choice makes. I would also get doubles from aproximately 1/3 to 1/2 inch upwards. re: cost management. Until you can afford scads of cams, nuts allow you to climb most cracks up to an inch 1 1/2 inches. Nowadays, I've got doubles and triples in the smaller sized cams. so I only bring a single rack of nuts with doubles in the micro sizes and mid. 3) Then get the larger size cams, a run from about 1 1/4 inch up to 3 inches (about a size three camalot) will open up a bunch of cracks. I would then double up that size. While nuts can often substitute for small cams, they almost never do for the large cams. I love camalots, but if price is a factor, you should just go for cheap cams, i.e. trango, etc. Camalots cost @ $60.00 a piece, so for $300, you get five placements. Some cams these days are selling for the low $30s. For the same $300, you could get 9 pieces. There are a bunch of climbs a beginning leader can get up with 9 placements, but not 5. At this point, you have enough to get up a whole lot of climbs for a reasonable price. Unfortunately, the lack of small cams makes hard climbing on thin cracks, problematic, to say the least. 4) Then a single rack of of your small cams of choice. More than other pieces of equipment, it seems that small cams have the greatest variance in usability. Aliens fit better than almost anything else, metolius last forever. If you're gonna pay extra, this is a good place o do it. 5) Micro nuts, like Black Diamond Swedges. These things are ultra strong and I love them. At this point, you're not talking about a strictly standard rack. They do, however open up many other possibilities. 6) A second set of small cams. I bought hexes and never use them unless I'm climbing with someone real slow. In that case, I hang three of them on one of the cams I placed low on the route. From there on, you can hear cow bells whenever your climber moves. As such, you can yell at him when he's just sitting around. If you anticipte trying to climb routes of sustained difficulty with out no hands clipping stances, Hexes suck. They are, however, cheap. Whoopee. So is rat poison, you don't see me buying much of that either. Matt P.S. Like everybody else says, the quality of your decisions will improve dramatically the more that you can afford to hold off on buying a rack and tinker with other people's gear. Of course, the lack of independnce sucks in the mean time. P.P.S. Finally, work your ass off to find ways to get pro deals. Find friends who can get them. Work in a gear shop and quit as soon as you buy gear. 50% discounts make even camalots affordable. [ 05-14-2002, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Matt Anderson ]

A different view . . . I've got one of the splitter cams, have taken it out for a single day of crag climbing, placed it a couple of times. It placed fine, I liked it. I did not wing on it. Evaluation - Seems fine to me. I like the fact that they are light as hell. Their expansion range is not as good as aliens, etc. Matt

A bit off topic, but this always bugs me: Lambone said: quote: fall forces generaly decrease as the runnout gets longer. and Scott P responded: quote: True, true Why does anyone think that fall forces decrease as the runout gets longer? If you are 80 feet up a route and fall five feet above a bolt, the fall factore is 10/80 (.125). If you are 80 feet out and 10 feet above a bolt, the fall factor is 20/80 (.25). The longer the runout, the greater the fall factor. matt

I have jumars and don't really like them. The the grip is uncomfortable. Otherwise they are fine. Four aiders gets in the way and is to comfortable - engouraging you to lollyhgag around in the botttom step. Two aiders forces you to be more active and gets you moving. That said, I seldom go for the four hour leads, so maybe if I did, I'd prefer the four aider setup. 'Cpourse, maybe the fact that I don't use four aiders prevents the four hour leads . . . matt

Its been a while, but I remember a lot of long pitches. But since you are generally able to walk off, 50 meters should do you fine. If you feel like a rap is inevitable, I would not assume a single 50 m would be enough, so make sure the ends touch. Matt

Don't know for sure, I always thought that bag ratings assumed you wearing a fair amount of insulation, at least expidition weight, plus sock and hats. Matt

But bags are more comfy than just a harness, especially if you have a skinny harness. They should be plenty comfortable for a six pitch climb. You can avoid pressure points from gear by just lifting whatever is hanging from your gear loops over the bag and letting it hang outside the bag. It may be overkill (although if you were considering bringing a plank of plywood for a free climb, you apparently aren't worried about overkill.), but if you want to make it all more comfy still, bring something to pad your knees: It's way more comfortable to just cram your nees against the rock than to use your feet to balance yourself. Just in case you care, I had REI make three from me and two partners (At the time that I wanted one, I couldn't find one commercially available). Aside from the fact that I wish It was made with less bulky fabric, its great. It took some sweet talking to convince them to do it. They would refuse to make it if I hadn't convinced them that I would never rely on it for security, only comfort. Let me know if you want a description of the rough pattern I gave them. . . matt

The way you feel pushing your limits is generally more about you than about the specific challenge you face. If you had the butterflies the last time you did something you were unsure about, you probably will on the next.

Needs some repair, but the Chevy still runs.

Yeah, and Royal Robbins can only lead 5.9 . . .

beta? quote: The last pitch up the 10c corner is really fun also .10c my ass. Or are you just trollin? Matt

So I don't have the time to thoroughly research the issue, and because of that, I won't give advice, because I could be wrong and then you'd sue me for malpractice, but . . . A whole bunch of the things bandied about in people's attempts to answer your question are just plain wrong. If you want to be protected from someone suing you, pay a lawyer to give you an answer he'll stand behind. He could draw up an appropriate release and explain its limitations. matt

Mark, I haven't windsurfed, for a few years, but I used to alot. Whatever I know about the windsurfing is based on my observations looking down of of the climbs. So take this as pure speculation and with a grain of salt. It's flat water boarding. I don't think I've seen sails smaller than @4.8m. The winds look steady and come from the north. The water temperature is gonna be cold b/c its on Howe Sound. The put in point is of a long spit on the east end of town. I haven't been told and haven't thought much about the cause of what seem like really consistent winds but suspect that it is a pressure gradient similar to the gorge b/c: The chief on one side and the lower angle rock on the other side, would create a simila tnnel effect as the gorge;The only time I've seen theem out there was on relatively good weather days (that's when I go up on walls);When it rains there, the wind will often be nonexistent; If that's the case, June might suck b/c it seems to rain alot there in June and the pressure gradient would be unlikely to form without the help of a bit of sun. Matt

There is fantastic windsurfing there. Shannon falls is nice. I hike up the chief is cool. Garibaldi looks nice. And I'm not sure of the date, but there's an annual logging festival which, I'm told is a miind expanding expereince with a different culture. matt

And another thing. It's a fucking cheater stick!

Yeah, I wanted to know how he did that to . . .

Oh for Christ’s sake. Ambiguity Shambiguity. Read my freakin’ post.I’m ambiguous? Read your own fuckin post. The whole question came up because of questions at a crag that these days is primarily filled with bolted, single pitch climbs. It wasn’t talking about bouldering, mountaineering, soloing or hackey sack. As a result I posted about cragging. I'm just concerned with contrived, bolted, squeeze jobs, primarily at sport crags, because, hey, that's where they generally occur. Incidently, I'm pretty damn sure that my proposed rule of thumb does not apply to hackey sack, So don't use it! You could get hurt! Inherent in such a discussion is a belief that sport crags should exist, so while any discussion with that underlying assumption may hook Dwayner or Pope on some 50 pound test line, I'm not specifically trying to address an "all bolts or rap bolts are evil" concern. By the way, you’ll notice they didn’t bite. Why? Because I was talking about a freakin sport crag! You read ambiguity into my post. This is the scope of my concern as defined in the original post: quote: the easiest path up that ascends the given area of rock without straying so far from the protection that the fall potential is increased to an unacceptable level. Everything else, I would label contrived, if someone bolted it. Chuck didn’t label anything ambiguous. He just talked about other possibilities. Well, to answer his queries, if there's protection between the cascadian coluoir and the N Ridge of Stuart, then I'm not saying that the N Ridge of Stuart is contrived. And since Dean Potter soloed the route, the whole worry about his particular sequence straying so far from the protection as to make the climb dangerous really doesn’t apply, does it? As I understand, if you protected the crack on A-man and climbed the face and fell, you hurt yourself. Well, then, while a bolt line up that particular face would be a crime (for other reasons), I would not label it contrived (although it would, in that setting, probably be a squeeze job). Furthermore, I'm not talking about "acceptance of actions such as bolting a natural line." Are you saying that I implied I accept bolting naturally PROTECTED lines? What the fuck? Where the hell did you get that? I said that bolting a hard route to close to an easy line "ruins the experience of those who follow the purer form of rock climbing and ascend the natural line of weakness." You state “You still did not answer how you would justify your actions (or acceptance of actions such as bolting a natural line) to those who think that the use of ropes and pitons is not pure?” What fucking actions? I simply labeled a climb contrived and bitched about a squeeze job! And what’s with those continual rope and piton remarks? I have no idea if you think that others thought that ropes and pitons were the only pure way to climb or if they were the bastard way to climb. What’s the point? Pitons hurt the rock, try not to use them if you can. Ropes stop falls. Is it purer to climb without them? Sure. Does anybody (besides soloists and poor reasoning, nitpicky, to busy with school to climb so I boulder boulderers?) not use a rope? And, yes, I do happen to think that climbing sans bolts is a purer form of climbing. I bet just about everyone does. But no where did I say that every less pure form of climbing should be removed just because its less pure. (otherwise, naked soloing would be the only rock climbing I would approve of – it’s the most pure – clothes are aid ) Finally, just in case you actually thought you had a valid point with your Birchef Williams idea, you don’t. Applying the first couple of paragraphs of my first post, if you bolted a line four feet away from the dihedral on the B-W, it would be a contrived squeeze job. Plus, someone would probably gang rape you for doing so. Have nice day! Ahhh. I feel better already!

Peter, Reread my post with the following in mind and it may not drive you crazy. I'm only addressing roped climbing. The first line of my post concerns: quote: the proper rating of a roped climb I'm not bagging on (or even discussing) boulderers. The discussion of a contrived line as it relates to boulderers doesn't have the same environmental or aesthetic concerns because they don't bolt. The only down side I'm criticizing is unecessary bolting. That said, I think the ideas I propose represent a purer form are justified on the one hand based on environmental concerns and on the other because of my "ideal" for climbing: 1) Environmental reasons justify choosing not to overbolt: Choosing to toprope instead of bolt a climb that is to close to other climbs is "purer" because it is less of an eyesore and does less damage to the rock. It takes into account the aesthetic wishes of others before bolting another line to make yourself feel better. 2) My "ideal" of climbing justifies choosing not to bolt the difficult moves two feet away from the easy moves. As I said mistakenly attributed to being a bag on bouldering): quote: The whole point of [roped] rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1). For me, 2) is the most beautiful and rewarding part of climbing. This is just my ideal and others may or may not buy into it. I think that it is purer because it follows the flow of the rock. Of course, anybody that chooses to clib on a section of rock and not bolt it can do so as they wish (boulders, top-ropers and those anticipating a pendulum). I just wish that if they want to ignore what nature gave them (the easy, natural way two feet to the right) and make climbing into an exercise in self-control (not grabbing those holds nearby) that they wouldn't screw up the rock doing so - they can do that inside.

I've seen the person taht I think is the first ascencionist since the route was put up and after I formed my opinion on it. I didn't say a thing. I wish I had. matt

Yep, its Chuck's topic. Any body wanna reply?

new topic? I started one . . . http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001923 [ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: erik ]

quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pope's response got me thinking about the "contrived" issue. I guess I was getting at this when I sent out the post about Lingerie. I was pretty sure the book rating only made sense if you kept yourself from using holds that are easily reachable. In one sense this seems foreign to climbing on real rock, and more like climbing in a gym, hence my taped holds comment.But...I got to thinking . Where do we draw the line? It seem obvious in some instances, like a problem at the UW rock with giant verboten hold that makes the problem much more difficult because you need to do some serious contortions to avoid touching it. What about the opposite side of the spectrum though? You [it]could[\it] say that every climb on Snow Creek Wall is "contrived" because you could much more easily walk up the back side. Is the Remorse start to Outer Space contrived because there's an easier way to get to Two Tree Ledge? Is Pony Keg at Vantage contrived if you resolve to not clip the bolts on Whipsaw? What makes something "contrived"? Does it matter? Not really, but it might be an interesting discussion. What do you think? New subject to prevent thread creep. For me, the proper rating of a roped climb is determined by the difficulty of the easiest path up that ascends the given area of rock without straying so far from the protection that the fall potential is increased to an unacceptable level. Of course, the danger of what an unnaceptable level varies with the climber. The whole point of rock climbing is taking the challenge that nature presents you and solving it by 1) making yourself stronger and 2) finding the easiest way. Contrived climbs ignore 2) in order to train for 1). For me, 2) is the most beautiful and rewarding part of climbing. Most contrived climbs are a result of: 1) Crowding to many routes into a given area of rock; or 2) The desire of someone to put up a difficult test-piece in spite of the fact that a particular area of rock is more suited to easier climbing. OVER CROWDING. As a general proposition, if you can easily traverse over to another line of bolts and get protection or get in the way of another climber, than you added a line where there shouldn't be one. Not every inch of a crag needs to be bolted. The new route to the left of Rainy Day Women and to the right of the big dihedral on World Wall I at Little Si is a prime example. Anybody climbing that route gets in the way of people on the adjacent routes. For at least half of the climb it is easier to climb the holds on the adjacent routes while simultaneously clipping the bolts on the middle climb. It’s an eyesore and the person that established it should take it down and repair the bolt holes as well as possible. If the person really wanted to sample the few independent moves on the route, it could have been top roped (and the moves aren't even that good anyway.). FIRST ASCENSCIONISTS IGNORING THE FLOW OF THE ROCK. A first ascensionist has a responsibility to those who follow to establish lines along natural paths. Bolting a 5.14 route, no matter how aesthetic the moves, and calling it 5.14 even though the rating requires you to refuse to touch the holds on a 5.10 four feet to the right is ridiculous. Doing so ruins the experience of those who follow the purer form of rock climbing and ascend the natural line of weakness. THE ALTERNATIVE: Routes that have appealing moves, but are so close as to not be considered truly independent should be left as topropes. Take the following hypothetical: If it is easier to go five feet to your right, climb up for 8 feet, and then rejoin the bolted line by traversing five feet to the left, than the proper rating for that climb is how hard it is with all of the f'd up traversing. I would even apply this rating if the above statement were true for every bolt on a fourteen-bolt pitch. Obviously, ascending a route in this manner is unaesthetic. The fault lies in the first ascencionist who ignored the natural flow of the rock. S/he should have bolted the easier moves to the right and installed top-rope anchors (if necessary) over the fun, but contrived moves to the left. Many people will say that’s ridiculous – you bolt the lines that are fun. I disagree. You bolt the lines that nature gives you. If they are anesthetic, then you are probably climbing at a crappy crag or a crag that is more suited to top-roping. Anything else reduces the outdoors to a climbing gym – the appropriate place to change holds in order to fit your idea of aesthetics. Re Lingerie at Vantage: (disclaimer: I haven’t seen these climbs, this is only based on the descriptions given in the “perplexed” thread.) If a person wishes to sample the harder climbing on lingerie at .11d, they may, of course, do so, but I would say that they climbed a 5.easier via 5.11d holds/moves, not an 5.11d. If lingerie is a bolted climb, then I think it should be a top-rope and the (presumably) easier “sex party” should be the way to set up the top-rope. As mentioned above, some crags will just naturally be more suited to a greater percentage of top-ropes. LETS CALL A SPADE A SPADE: I don’t have a guidebook in front of me, and I can’t recall specific examples, but it occurs to me that many of the climbs on the lower entablatures at Vantage are so close together that they would be considered contrived under the above definition. I think that is because people have so little respect for the rock at vantage that the damage caused by treating it like the plywood in a gym is less than the extra fun/ego boost they get from squeezing in another line. In some cases, that’s ok – for instance, the chipped quarry climbs in England. Its up to the local climbers in the area to determine if they think that their local crag is such a dung heap that they don’t mind bolting it to hell in order to satisfy there own short-term desire for a new route. matt

quote: converted shed, 1 room, small bathroom, no kitchen but you can share the kitchen inside the house but is there an internet connection?