Al_Pine

You really oughta walk what you talk and FREE SOLO NAKED (while on LSD)!

Decision has been made. See link . The "preferred alternative" is going to be adopted. What a surprise. Highlights: road gated at Dingford Creek all the time. road gated at Taylor river Nov-April. Implementation set for Nov 2004.

dis-plabitical!

This is a good reason for climbing with three people.

When I fall off, I typically fall down. Don't know about you. Reminder, if ever climbing with "Cracked", check out his belay anchor before leading up the second pitch, unless of course, he's like 250 lbs. I think the force multiplier is only about 1.67. Isn't anybody worried about using only double fisherman's on those pieces instead of triple?

Only for a downward pull.

I dunno. What would he say? Is there something wrong with this?

I was under the understanding that moderators have limited ability to view IP addresses of posters. Thus, a moderator's "guess" at an avatar's true/other identities is more credible. Unverified speculation could therefore be more "damaging". So the answer to your question is "yes" (IMO). At least in this case Chirp seems amused and flattered, though Dwayner might be a bit annoyed at being falsely accused.

Whoa! First time I've seen a moderator outing someone's avatar! Times they are a changin'.

I don't believe you. You're story is too incredible. I believe it's either exaggerated or totally unntrue and made with the intention of inciting anti-cyclist "bullshit". Your post is full of shit. What do you think about that?

Totally agree Fleb. It's twice as fucking lame to be talking all this shit about someone who can't even log on to defend himself .

Now. It does seem like most of you favor making sure the crux is bolted as safely as possible. I think this puts us squarely back into question #2, the bolt ladder question. Suppose this crux is continuous. Suppose it "guards" lots of climbing above. Are you cool with a sequence of bolts close enough together that you can clip one while locking off on the one below? Or should I bolt it the "dangerous" way a la #1, and require people to make the moves?

Thank you all for your replies. They definitely give me some ideas to chew on. A couple comments: My idea does not have the intention of making the move more scary (though it undoubtably would) but of making it a "mandatory" free move. The reason I would do this is because, from the perspective of climbing, I value these routes. Ascending any route with gear right at the cruxes is basically a done deal before you even start (once you get over the totally contrived convention of never yarding on your gear) You're gonna ascend it, the question is only in what style. Mandatory free climbing makes it more of a challengem, the outcome uncertain. Of course, this would be a bit silly for single-pitch sport climbs, since really noone cares about "ascending" or reaching the chains, the style is more important there. If you said this sounded like a stupid idea while envisioning single-pitch, then I totally agree with you. I'm still not so sure on a big multipitch linkup, or something with a summit involved. Many comments were to the effect that a bolt being lower than perhaps "natural" would be contrived. That is a good point; however, I do feel that once you start talking about rap-bolt protected free climbing, you're already pretty damn deep into the "contrived" neighborhood. As I stated in a previous post, my proposed strategy would just shift the contrivance solely to the bolter, and remove the contrivance from the climbing. Comments on "why keep people off of your route" are valid too. If this crux was the hardest move on the entire route (by even a single letter grade) , I don't think I'd intentionally employ this strategy. Well, maybe I would if it was basically the end of the climb. Pope's comment on the bolt taking a bunch of falls got me thinking. As I implied above, I wouldn't want to make this point a "stopper" for upward progress, but if it indeed turned out that way, not only would you have a lot of people winging on it, you'd also have people lowering or rapping off of it .

Interesting responses to question #1. With respect to my proposed method being contrived, I think one could consider climbing through a crux without using a quickdraw within easy reach to be contrived also. Bolt at the knee, the climb is contrived. Bolt above the head, the climbing is. So Slothy, looks like you disagree with the first bolt ladder on the Grand Wall (can be avoided by climbing Cruel Shoes at "only" 10d) and also the yarding bolt on Lovin' Arms. Continuing up the chimney just a ways then traversing greatly reduces the difficulty of the pitch. In fact, if you go the "yard on the bolt" way, the pitch is actually much harder! What do you think about that! By the way, I would consider setting up a pendulum to be (climbing-wise) aesthetically equivalent to a bolt ladder.

Ryland, yes I would agree that a bolt should be placed at the very least at a good clipping stance. Suppose there is a good clipping stance just below the crux. Suppose I place the bolt at my knees instead of as high as could be clipped from that stance. I would do this so that the crux can't be aided through by using the bolt. Suppose my tactic it adds no huge obvious hazard like hitting a ledge. Are you cool with this? Sphinx, I don't understand how your answer replies to either of my questions. By the way, I am serious in my intent about asking these questions. I am not just trying to fan flames. I am possibly delving into the "evil" world of rap bolting and wonder how people feel about both of these issues.

Thanks for the answer Jon (what does your signature mean anyway BTW?) So this may be pushing it a bit, but the empirical-minded scientist in me want's to see if this exercise has proven fruitful. Are we now able to have a decorous discussion on bolting issues? Let's try it! <- link to interesting (?) bolt discussion topic.

I have a two specific bolting questions. Let us assume rap-bolted pitches. That is, nothing is hindering where we place a bolt other than our own aesthetic vision. 1. Assuming a reasonably clean fall, is it reasonable to place the bolt at the crux of the pitch far enough down so as to make it impossible to "cheat" using the bolt to pass the crux? Or does one have the responsibility to completely minimize the danger by placing the bolt as close to the crux as possible? 2. How do you feel about bolt ladders? Suppose many wonderful pitches can be linked in a row except for just a few majorly difficult sections (think Grand Wall or Lovin' Arms). Are bolt ladders justified? If so, is there a minimal grade difference between the rest of the route and the laddered section before such a ladder is justified?

Is Dwayner banned or not?!

Pope, First let me say that I agree with you that there continue to be a large number of posters who have and still do post things more obnoxious and more disruptive than Dwayner ever did. However, I don't think this fact logically implies that Dwayner's banning was wrong. And BTW, just to confirm a fact that might inform this discussion, is or is not Dwayner currently banned?

Like Iceguy I avoided work yesterday and bombed up to the mountains. I headed back to Lundin. Headed up to the same dropoff point but toproped a line further right and all the way from the base. It follows a line on the left side of the big arch that is just right of the line in the photo above. This time I rapped all the way to the base (60m rope). After some noisy trundling on the way down (the bottom half of the face has/had more loose blocks than the upper half), I started up some exciting flakes that begin pretty much straight below the right side of the big arch. There's some fun, clean 5.9 face climbing, stemming and flake pulling on the lower part. Then a large chossy ledge. From the ledge there's a bit of clean blocky stuff to a really clean 10a right-facing sharp flake with small hands behind it, about 20 feet high. Up more blocky to the left side of the arch. This is where it gets really good. This is on the other side of the squeeze chimney of the above-detailed route. The chimney is actually not big enough to fit inside, and it slants up and right, so it's more an overhanging off-width or strenuous undercling/layback. After about 10 feet there's some holds inside the thing (maybe pro here?) but it's still strenuous. At the top there's no great rest and you undercling reach out right to a handcrack that pulls through the roof and heads up steeply in a LFC for 20-30 feet. This whole section does not have many thin moves, but is quite sustained and strenous. Probably about 10a or b. After the LFC crack you connect up with the final overhanging handcrack of the previously detailed pitch. This line was very cool . Though toproping is not as satisfying as a lead would be, it makes for less of a load to haul up there (~ 2 hours). Gear I used for the toprope = #.75, #1 Camalots, small stopper (#3 WC), and a slung chockstone. Leading it might be considerably more difficult so the grades I'm estimating may be screwy. The offwidth/undercling part could be problematic in terms of protection as could some of the face climbing on the lower section of the route. There's some other easy chimney lines up there and still the right edge of the arch (looks hard) to explore. Depending on how much you value a scenic hike and bagging a peak, you might think it worth the 2 hour trudge. It's a warm southern exposure, good for early and late season. The two lines I explored are really quite clean. There were a few sections when a nice handjam was marred by moss, lichen etc. So more of you need go up there and sample these beauties! They are definitely quality pitches (I would think multi stars at the crags), just a bit of a hump from the car.

He's a regular freakin' Chauncy the Gardener he is.

I'm not Beck, but I would guess the relevance of this quote would be because it is a famous example of someone who was an outspoken opponent of bolts who had his mind changed by the character of a bolted climb. I didn't follow all those multipage bolt spews very closely so I don't know from which exact discussion the offending RR quote was cut, but wouldn't that quote be relevant to those discussions where people are saying that noone is going to change their minds about bolts so why discuss it?

From the report two posts above, "We bypassed the Gendarme to avoid hauling [...]". So was there any rime or icy shit up there? I've heard the bypass can be more nasty than the Gendarme.

Oh hee hee hee. Brilliant! Most Merkins don't fancy to our type of humour. Possibly because they're thick? Oh, priceless. Hee hee.