chris

You guys tell me. Climbing with clean protection is a recent (relatively) phenomenom. How do we address repeat ascents of routes that were established when pitons were the standard pro? Or of free ascents of aid routes? Once a route has been free'd, how should the fixed gear be addressed?

Yeah, I was feeling pretty clever with that "e-ass" and "bonehead" comment. Sorry for starting the name calling - that was pretty childish of me. E - I can't see enough to tell WTF is going on! Is that lower bolt intended to be part of some anchor? Are there two more bolts to the left with chains, and the bolter intended someone to incorporate the three bolts into an ascent anchor? Are they standing on a 2m wide ledge? Can't tell. Don't know. Never climbed it. I don't know what the history is! Did Kor place three bolts on the FA cause he was worried about piton scarring? Did someone else come along and add a few bolts, and then a few more? Don't know - haven't researched it. If that was the case would I be angry with Kor? But I don't know. I agree with you too, the bolts seems excessive. In fact, I'd like to see most of them go. Maybe. In the end, what I'm arguing, is that "NO BOLTS NEAR NATURAL PROTECTION" is a great guiding principle. But that's all it is. Every decision is not black/white. Every circumstance requires a re-consideration of the guiding principles. And I want to know more.

Kev, you just articulated your ignorance very well. Bolting OW has been happening since the 1960's. These include the not-so-insignificant First Ascents of the East Face of the Keeler Needle and the South Face of Mt. Conness, both of which feature bolt protected off width pitches. Whatever happened with understanding history before taking action in the present? My questions about this pitch are completely valid - Kor may have bolted this pitch to prevent scarring the crack with multiple piton placements. Since he has a reputation for only placing bolts when he felt they were absolutely necessary to prevent death, I do wonder and want to learn why they were placed here. So rather than be the moron you descibed above, I'm asking for more information and withholding my final judgement until I've heard more. Its called research, you should try it sometime. With all that wind-up and mud-slinging done, I do agree that these bolts appear superfluous. I wonder if it was re-bolted to follow Kor's original bolting methodology (which is a lot more run-out than in Frosty's pictures), or if it had been retrobolted. Retrobolting will have me as pissed off as Kevbone seems to be now - and only my respect for what Kor accomplished is moderating my responses.

But why is that? Because the manufatures want them to, to get there curiosity up about "how long it will last, how many falls etc....." Then they get to turn around and sell more ropes. Kevbone, marketing (in most cases) is driven by the advertiser's desire to address a perceived consumer want/need. Manufacturers make lifetime and use recommendation becauses most consumers factor in product lifetime into a purchasing decision. Also, its well known that petroleum products (like artificial fibers in a rope), off-gas, break-down, and susceptible to uv degradation. And I'be been using Beal ropes exclusively for five years - they've been fine, and I really recommend them for alpine and ice!

check out the following technical information at Beal: dynamic test standards: http://www.bealplanet.com/portail-2006/index.php?page=normes_dynamiques&lang=us lifetime dynamic ropes: http://www.bealplanet.com/portail-2006/index.php?page=duree_vie&lang=us I don't think these recommendations are made purly to sell more ropes - I also believe that consumers repeatedly ask this question. Its important to remember that the UIAA/CE tests are to certify a rope to a minimum standard, not state that this is a ropes maximum abilities.

That's a sweet example Frosty, but I have two questions: When did Kor do the FA? Since it may predate the common use of cams. Where are these photos on the route? Enelson is be an e-ass and Kevbone is being a bonehead and they're both assuming (have either of you climbed this route?) that its the first pitch and not some wide ledge off the ground, which could justify the low bolts.

Off White is completely right - how do you train your staff to "have a kind word" for "visiting climbers" who might not be "familiar with the conditions?" Worse yet, how do arrange the meeting? Do you require climbers to arrive at a ranger station to pick up a permit? Who is this conversation going to be with - a desk jockey, or a backocuntry ranger who happens to be in town after a patrol? Will the station remain open later at night and earlier in the morning, especially on the weekends? Requiring any kind of face-to-face meeting assumes 1) that the public land managers have the manpower and the personnel to provide accurate information 2) that public land managers have the budget to pay for this duty.

Mike, In our case we know for certain that montanapup's asthma is exercise-induced, not necessarily allergens. She's been as high as 18000' feet in spring and summer without incidences, and has had incidences trail running this winter at sea level here in Bellingham.

Uhhmmm, well, dual frequency beacons haven't been promoted in quite awhile. Even when they were the norm, they were notorious for having problems with changing frequencies and wire problems for the ear bud. Switching completely to 457mgHz was a relief. I have a dualie too, but I only use it for multiple victim transceiver drills. They've become museum pieces.

I've climbed the Knudtson and Harrington Couloirs in September 2005 and 2006. In dry years the Harrington features 80m of bare, 60-70 degree ice at the finish. Exciting. For future ascents: There is a fixed-anchor rap descent down the climber's left side/skier's right side of the Knudtson couloir. 2 60m ropes needed. Red line - Knudtson Couloir, III AI3 (partially hidden) Yellow line - Smrz Couloir, III AI3 5.6 Green line - Harrington Couloir, III AI2/3 Blue line - Moynier Couloir, III AI3/4 (partially hidden)

Are we talking about the same route? Are we talking about a bolted crack at index, or at smith?

CJ is right - I will never ski with anyone who insists on using a dual freq transceiver.

I think there's more evidence that locals push it too far because they feel more familiar with the conditions and the terrain than visitors.

I'm not an engineer (not even close - my bicycle can confuse me), so I did a quick check with BCA. Follow this link, and click of the PDF "Obsolescence and Analog Avalanche Transceivers: Ensuring Downward Compatibility-ISSW 2004 by Bruce Edgerly and John Hereford" http://www.bcaccess.com/tech_library/tech_reports.php I'm reading a copy of it right now.

I can tell all of you from personal experience that nothing is scarier than helplessly watching your partner suffering from a full asthma attack at 14000', 240m up an ice climb, in northwestern Sichuan Province, China. If the meds hadn't worked she would have been in a world of trouble. It was also a scary moment to realize that the air pressure and temps effected the pressure within her inhaler. In her case, this expedition taught us that cold air actually irritates her lungs and makes her more susceptible to asthma events. We're experimenting with neck/face warmers this winter.

I think the only way its gotten away with being bolted is its location and lack of publication. Moonshine and Sunshine dihedrals aren't bolted, are they? I vote for the chop...

For simplicity and user-friendliness, the Tracker still appears to be the guide industry's favorite. Its probably going to be the model montanapup buys when she's ready to. I'm using the Barryvox, for the customization that was mentioned above. If you have experience using transceivers - especially older analog models - then something like the Barryvox will work great for you. I'm really concerned with signal degradation in older beacons. So, I'd consider purchasing a new transceiver, or sending in your old one to the manufacturer for maintenance and a tune-up, every 5-10 years.

Maybe, but think of yr favorite trad route. Now what if the next time you get on it you find bolts all over it? Could happen. But maybe yd just ignore them, fine, but theres no denying that the "bolt/sport" mentality has "re-visioned" what climbing is. Imagine House landing a chopper on top out of NP Rupal Face over a couple years time and buliding way staions, putting in bolts fixing cables, and then climbing it and claiming a "First Ascent". I know thats an extreme analogy, but thats one thing that "sport" climbing has brought with it, an distorted view of what it means to "climb". Things change, thats true, but some effects of the "anything goes" attitude are fucked up. But that's not the trend in North American climbing - in fact just the opposite. Lines that were once considered impossible to protect, and therefore bolted, are being climbed trad and the bolts are getting the chop. "Mixed" routes - lines that utilize natural protection, with sparingly used bolts to protects "X" runouts, are being established. There is one sport route over in Leavenworth that I'd like to open a discussion about "rehabilitating" to this standard. In fact, your Rupal Face analogy is an example of the old mentality - to use hardware to beat a route into submission, leave behind fixed lines and fixed anchors. Just look at the debate sparked when the Russian team won the Piolet d'Or for their Himalayan FA using refined 40 year-old big wall strategies. More evidence? I just finished reading The End of the Beginning, Alpinist Iss. 18 pg. 50-57, a shining example of how hard sport and gym climbing, mixed with the demanding trad ethic that Pope and Raindawg talk of, is pushing another generation further. Would anyone argue that Joshua Tree is over-bolted? The despite the presence of sport climbing venues across the country, from Rumney to Smith, the trend is not to bolt everything into submission. The few examples of this distorted using of technology are decried, argued about, and more often than not chopped. Grid bolting and squueze jobs are almost universally frowned upon. I'd argue that bolting next to natural protection is almost never accepted. There are examples out there of lines first bolted because they were "unprotectable", then freed trad, and the bolts subsequently removed. I agree with that standard - if the bolt can be proven to be unnecessary, then take it out (better yet, don't put it in).

Yeah, that's why I was looking around for used commercial models instead - less to rip out! Completely agree, Oly. Those Sprinters are the ideal, but they're still too new. Yeah Dan, that's the only source I'm finding so far. I even tried to look up rental fleets for sales. I'm just going to have to get off this computer, make some calls, and look around.

Actually, this isn't spray (or at least it could not be, if everyone can have a civil arguement about this). Its a debate about what constitutes progress and evolution in our sport, and if sport climbing has contributed or diminished the results. I just finished re-reading for the umpteenth time The White Spider, in which Harrer observed that the Swiss failed to make the first, second, or even the 15th ascent of the North Face of the Eiger because they insisted on applying "classic" techniques. He points out, several times, that the Austrian and German practice of climbing shorter rock walls at a hard grade made them more likely to suceed, a practice not accepted by the Swiss for another generation. I lived in Jackson, Wyoming, for a few years, and my skiing markedly improved. One reason it did so was the crowd I was in - a community of extremely talented skiers who lived there, skied there, and benefitted from the lifts, gondola and tram at the ski areas. Skiing inbounds in mileage and variable conditions eventually made us better skiers OB, and the community was large enough to "pull itself up by its own boot-straps", so to speak. I believe that sport climbing has contributed in a like fashion to trad climbing and alpine. Sport climbing has allowed a community to grow, has encouraged standards to rise, and has created more public awareness and acceptance of the entire sport more than trad climbers in the Valley or alpinists in the Cascades. To decry sport climbing is akin to arguing that the 50-meter sprint isn't really a track event, and equally pointless. Sport climbing is a discipline of climbing because of its simple existence. Pope can go ahead and argue that we should boycot sport climbing in all its influence on the sport. I disagree, and believe that his position is a minority.

Arguing about how well a route should be bolted is a topic here at cc.com with a long, colored, and...well...pretty beat history. Fact is, there are routes at Smith and elsewhere with a grey area of hard moves right off the deck, but a bolt wouldn't keep the leader from decking. One example I can think of off-hand is a 5.10 at Mt. Erie, with an ugly tumble if you pop of the opening moves (possibly off the bench). I found a suitable branch and stick clipped that first bolt!

Thanks E! My logic is that 2 people + climbing gear = 7 people with no gear (and a lot of mini's still have space for that!). Especially if I go for a no-frills interior. Nothing quit as decked out as yours. As I imagine things, it be used for long weekends to month long trips, but not to live out of long term. Putting the trip into road trip. What I want in my dream van: 1. insulation on the walls, foam on the floor, and removable insulation inserts for the windows 2. carpet floor 3. veneer paneling 4. a minimal bedframe for a mattress 5. plastic storage bins 6. maybe an electrical system to run a laptop and a dome light 7. a hook from the roof for a hanging stove 8. a stereo with an USB port

I just took the time to read this whole thread. I am so humbled. And - its really cool to see how we were talking about Mox back then, now that Layton and Eric have climbed it!

That's right (see, I knew it was easy). FA 1949 by Dick Eilertsen, Dick Lowery, Dick Scales, and Don Wilde on their way to traverse the ridge from Sibley Creek to Eldorado. Story is they got back and reported their FA to the Seattle Mountaineers, who refused to report the climb by that name in the interest of "good taste" (Beckey, Vol.2, pg 311-312).

WTF??? You're leaving the sunny and wonderful community of Bellingham?