colt45

Climb: South Brother- Date of Climb: 6/3/2004 Trip Report: Scrambled up the south brother via the easy route. There is still enough snow to make for a fun outing. trip report here It looks like a traverse from south to north could be continued along an impressive-looking rock ridge (right side of this photo.) Anyone know about it? Gear Notes: ice axe, sandwiches. Approach Notes: No snow on the trail.

Climb: Yosemite-Royal Arches/Crest Jewel Direct Date of Climb: 5/24/2004 Trip Report: This is an amazing link-up! Here's a full trip report.

If we're talking about the same article (March 2004 issue of R&I, page 26), I don't see any such prominent disclaimer. I did notice that the caption for the photo is "Infinite clip-up: multi-pitch sport-routing for every-man, in Washington State". And while the article's author obviously is not one of the FA's, one of the FA's is interviewed--and presumably took the initiative to contact the mag and portray the route in a certain fashion. If it were not called "America's Longest Sport Route" (probably by the FA's), R&I may not have published the route at all.

I was very frustrated by the whole situation with the chossy unprotected slab too. I agree with the ideas about not getting in over your head, it's alpine, who says it has to be safe, etc, etc. But-- Who reported the route to R&I as "America's Longest Sport Route"? I am assuming that it was the FA. And who reported for the R&I description that "you can rap at any point"? I doubt that the R&I writer just made up all that information on his own. If it was, indeed, the FA's who decided to call up a major climbing magazine and classify their climb as a non-committing sport route, blame is certainly in order. With the current mandatory soloing, and the article in a high-profile magazine calling it a "sport climb" (and having been up on the route myself and seeing the potential danger), I agree that a serious injury or death is almost inevitable. Given that cc.com is one of the most prominent resources for NW climbers, I am more than a little surprised that the first ascenscionists were (presumably) willing to call up R&I and claim the FA of "America's Longest" route of a particular type, but did not bother to log on to the internet and spend a few minutes supplying some beta and information to the local community. Of course I was peeved too by getting shut down on the route, I don't know anything about the FA's, and I am psyched that people are willing to put forth considerable time and expense to establish a long, mostly awesome route close to Seattle. I'm just saying that some responsibility is in order once you call up a mag to spray about your new route.

It is also worth noting that my photos do not do justice to that final pitch. It's huge, steep, and smooth. There are three overhanging bulges encountered on the way, and the last one is the crux. But as layton said, it's endurance. The rappel was not bad, I think that some bolts may have been added recently. The longest rap we had to do was ~150' (you rap straight down a gully, not down the route). There are some trees where the rope might get stuck but we didn't have any problems. One more thing worth noting is that the Todd Swain topo mentions a "5.10+ scary offwidth". This is BS. That section of the route is 5.8 or easier. This section involves a tower where you need to tunnel behind it to get to the final pitch. If for some reason you climbed up the side of the tower instead of climbing through it might be an offwidth, but that would involve going the wrong way b/c you would need to downclimb the other side to get to the belay!!

I was back in Red Rocks March 12-20, and finally got around to assembling a trip report! Here's the breakdown for those who do not have sufficient time or motivation to click on the link: Day 1: Saturday. Sour Mash (7p 5.10a) with Merrick & Yuko Day 2: Sunday. Triassic Sands (4p 5.10c) with Merrick & Yuko Day 3: Monday. am: Sport climbing at the Gallery. 10b, 10a, 10d, 12a (work). Day 4: Tuesday. "rest day". Day 5: Wednesday. Cloud Tower (7p 5.11+) with Loren. Day 6: Thursday. The Fox (5.10d), Caustic (5.11b) with Merrick, Loren, Yasmeen. Day 7: Friday. Simul-climb Johnny Vegas/Solar Slab with Merrick (13p 5.7; about 4.5 hours to summit).

the poor rock quality in the vicinity probably would not allow for pitons...bolts should work though...

Staying tied in is definitely a good idea, but the big loop of rope has a tendency to get stuck below you. Of course you can loop the slack rope over the shoulder and bring it with you...but then the gri-gri doesn't self-feed if the second is climbing faster than the leader. Plus, of course, it is annoying to have a bunch of rope over your shoulder. I stay tied in to the end with an eight on a bight to a locking biner until there is at least ~50 feet of slack. At this point, I will potentially untie from the end. I'm always super careful to keep all other gear away from the gri-gri so the locking mechanism doesn't get jammed open. Moreover since I'm using a DMM belaymaster carabiner, the plastic guard would not allow the biner to jam the grigri open. Also I use a well broken in 10.2 mil rope, which feeds through reasonably easily--but not TOO easily. I would NOT use this system with a slippery or skinny rope. Regarding the case of the broken locking biner for the soloist--my understanding was that he was NOT using a DMM belaymaster or similar biner, or steel biner with a high cross-load strength, and factor-2'd onto the belay with the biner cross-loaded (assuming this is the same case that was reported in Accidents in NA Mountaineering a year or two ago). This would (probably) not occur with an appropriate locking biner, and besides forces of this magnitude really will not be encountered while simuling. It would be safest to tie in and use a backup knot...but how many people tie in and use backup knots while using a grigri to belay a cragging pitch less than 150' in length? Moreover the weight of the 50+ feet of free rope has an effect "similar" to keeping your hand on the rope. Simuling is dangerous though, so make your own decisions...

Cool! Thanks for the beta. We actually got there in 4 simul-pitches, but I thought it was the top of pitch 15 from counting anchors as we passed. Additionally the R&I blurb calls the crux pitch as #11 (which was 4 anchors earlier) and the other party seemed to have a pitch-by-pitch typed description of the route calling the traverse pitch #16. Not that it really matters, except for knowing how far you have to go after conquering the choss! Now to wait for some more good weather...

hmm...could this be a different bush? One possibility is that the bush Matt is referring to is now gone (eg due to an avalanche over the winter), and this OTHER bush happens to be another convenient landmark. I looked REALLY carefully for a bush 120' over and could not find it. In any case, was it about 250' for you and Matt to get to the anchor: 120' over, then 130' or more up, with mandatory simuling? Anchor 30' left of a bush? From there ~200' straight up to the next anchor? And did you guys unrope to srcamble back over for the descent? Since two different people are giving two different sets of beta for a critical section of the climb, it would be cool to sort this out.

I'm curious. What is completely different from what's previously been posted? Well there is "the" lone bush up there. That may have made things confusing. Nope. I just checked. No reference to "the" bush or "lone" bush on that other thread. Here is the post I am referring to: ScottP: "Chuck, did you and Matt have a topo when you went up to do it?" MattP: "No, we did not. And we wasted some time as a result. Onmce you get started, you will probably do OK without a topo up to the top of pith 12, a full-length pitch with perhaps 4-6 bolts in it. However, from here you mave to move right to a bush (120 feet, no bolts), and then start upward again. A topo would help, but is probably not needed if you have this beta. Copy your friend's copy of R&I and you will do fine." This is the only post I have seen with route-finding beta. Here are a few reasons why I found the new beta to be completely different: (1) The section in question is after pitch 15, not pitch 12. (2) Pitch 15 has 2 bolts in 60m, not 4-6 bolts. (3) It's 250' to the bush, not 120'. (4) The bush is quite a ways UP and right, not directly right. There are numerous small patches of plants directly to the right which could be mistaken for a bush. (5) It sounds like the anchor is not at the bush, but 30 feet left of the bush. etc... anyway the difference in beta was significant enough that I spent 2 hours on the pitch and could not find the way, and the other party spent a reasonable amount of time looking (with identical beta) and could not find it either.

Thanks for the beta!!! So, to clarify: there is 50+ feet of mandatory simul-climbing? And the point to start climbing UP from the vague right-rising ramp system is when you are below and about 30' left of the obvious bush? Then up to a bolted anchor immediately level with the bush. Next pitch: straight up more choss for a ropelength to another bolted anchor. Also, if it's 250'...how do you get back down? Is it mandatory to down-solo the pitch? I want to be certain that I have this right because it was frustrating to get lost, it seems somewhat unusual to put mandatory loose simul-climbing on a mostly unprotected section of climbing with difficult route-finding, and this beta is completely different from what has been posted previously on this site. I don't see why a topo should not be posted. I agree that it isn't that difficult to find the right way lower down, but it would be nice to have solid beta. If I can actually stay on route and finish the the thing next time, I would be strongly tempted to make my own topo and post it somewhere unless the FA did not want this to occur for some reason. Given the amount of time, money, and effort required to place all those bolts you would think they would put forth more effort to make information available for people to enjoy their creation.

Climb: Mt Garfield-Infinite Bliss Date of Climb: 5/1/2004 Trip Report: on Saturday, Yuko and I made an attempt on Mt Garfield's Infinite Bliss route. The first 14 pitches are AWESOME. Super fun climbing on bomber granite. There is an easily bypassed wet section due to a small waterfall on pitch 6 or so. Instead of following the bolts through the waterfall, we traversed past it and went up an easy gully to the left. After belaying at a tree, we traversed back right above the waterfall to rejoin the route. Due to a misunderstanding on the beta regarding a "pitch 12" traverse (or because we did not count the pitches correctly), we considered traversing and/or attempted to traverse to the right on pitches 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. In every case, that was incorrect and the right way was basically straight UP. Regardless we made it up the first 14 pitches in about 5 hours (simuled most of it). Pitch 15: we found ourselves at the base of an enormous chossy slab. It was about 300 feet wide and 600 feet tall. And it was possible to climb up it basically anywhere along the entire width of the slab. So, we got totally lost and wandered around for a couple of hours. After some sketchy down-climbing, simuling, and rappelling off a questionable group of bushes we tried again and found the right way. The beta is to just go straight up the choss, instead of traversing. (ie, this isn't the traverse pitch either). Interestingly, the bush we had rappelled from was within 15 feet of the anchors! It's really hard to spot the chains among the choss. At least I was able to traverse over to the bush and get my cordelette back. Pitch 16: Another loose, chossy, unprotected pitch. This seemed to be the 'traverse beta' pitch. I wandered around on this one for a couple of hours. There was no pro anywhere (rock quality was terrible) and I couldn't find the next set of anchors. Eventually I gave up and downclimbed 200 feet back to the belay which was not super fun. Then we simul-rappelled the route (took 2 hours) and went back to Seattle. The first 14 pitches are super fun and very high quality. The bolting is reasonably safe (although mostly not "sport climbing"). The pitch 11 crux is super well bolted, including a few places where you could probably clip more than one bolt from the same stance. Pitches 15 and 16 are extremely loose with basically no pro. Since there is no feature or bolts to follow, finding the arbitrarily placed bolt anchor at the top of pitch 16 is not easy. The cc.com beta said to traverse 120' right to a bush, then go up. But there is no bush 120' to the right. And I tried climbing up from both bushes that were in this area, plus up 'about' 120' over from the belay, but to no avail. On the first 14 pitches, there are loose rocks laying on the climb although the route itself is solid. 15 & 16 are extremely loose. Since the climbing on the first two-thirds of the route is quite good, I may return...IF I can get better beta on where to go for p16, and IF the climbing after p16 is supposed to be good. All in all though, a fun experience. Yuko follows pitch 9 (?), an awesome, solid groove. A party of 3 is visible below, at the top of pitch ~5. Yuko way off-route on pitch 15. There is no pro, and no way to know whether you are on route. looking up after rapping the route. The arrow points to a party of 3 (barely visible) on their way down, at the top of pitch ~10. They couldn't find the right way on pitch 16 either. Gear Notes: Quickdraws, two 60m ropes (you definitely need 60m!), helmet. Approach Notes: Drive 1.0 miles from Taylor Creek junction to the parking area. Start of trail is vague, but well-defined higher up.

Plus the loading was done in 0.5 second intervals. I know that in rope drop testing they let the rope "rest" between drops, which apparently makes a significant difference in the number of falls held. So biners might actually be even more durable in real life. There are a few interesting tidbits in the report: *In order to show evidence for long-term deformation of carabiners, they cite a study where a load <=2kN was applied 500,000 times in succession. This did bend the tested carabiner...by 1/10,000th of a centimeter!! *To quote the article: "Climbers normally attach a carabiner to the rock face every 1.5 meters during their ascent. This means that the furthest distance the climber will ever fall is 3 meters." hmm...was this study actually done by a climber?! *Look at figure 5 on page 13. In their demonstration of a "worst-case scenario fall" it is clearly not worst-case scenario, as the fall factor in the image looks like less than 0.5. *And the best part is the first paragraph of the conclusion: "Only so much could be accomplished within the amount of time allowed for this project. Furthermore, any good experimentation project asks more questions than it answers. Many new questions arose during the course of this project that could potentially form the basis of further work." This is an interesting paragraph in that it could be appended to ANY study of ANY topic! It was a nice way to lengthen the manuscript though without needing to generate additional data to fill the space. But weak conclusion statements notwithstanding, it's always nice to see some data to know how gear might be expected to perform over time.

"Except for Dan - maybe" Anyway, you make a good point. Anybody know the stats on the traverse--distance covered, peaks, how long it took, etc?

I would be more surprised if he DIDN'T tack on OS. I was recently flipping through Alex Huber's photo book, which includes a chapter by Peter Croft. Croft mentions that one of the several times that he free-soloed Astroman, he followed it up--the same day, right afterwards--by free-soloing the Rostrum, the Nabisco Wall, Outer Limits, and Red Zinger! Someone who solos at this grade probably would not get too tired from tacking on a 5-pitch 5.9 (which probably took less than 30 minutes to climb).

According to your website, the trip departs from the east coast in 14 days! Good luck finding partner(s) with a supremely flexible schedule and $3,000 to burn...

I'm tempted to conduct my own study that results in a somewhat counter-intuitive result. How's this one sound (obviously I am making up the numbers but I bet that the relationship exists). INTRODUCTION For many years, it has been widely held that the use of a rope in rock climbing prevents injuries and death. However the existence of any such relationship has never been rigorously examined. STUDY DESIGN An examiner-blinded, case-control study. An exhaustive search of the rock climbing literature was performed. Inclusion criteria was injuries and deaths reported on technical rock climbs in Yosemite Valley, CA, between 1997-2002, that were rated between 5.7 and 5.9 on a standard difficulty scale. Controls were obtained by systematically observing climbers on the popular 5.8 route "Nutcracker". A team of investigators recorded whether each climber used a rope. A panel of blinded physicians then examined each climber after the route to confirm post-route viability and to determine whether any newly sustained injuries were present. RESULTS In the period 1997-2002, 112 injuries were reported on routes satisfying the inclusion criteria. 111 (99.1%) of the climbers were using a rope. Among controls, 98 climbers were observed on Nutcracker over a 5-day period. 81 (82.7%) of these climbers used a rope. No injuries or deaths were observed during the course of the control investigation. CONCLUSION The use of a rope while rock climbing was significantly associated with an increased incidence of severe injury and death (OR=1.20, CI=1.12-1.35). This relationship also held when stratified by subgroup analysis (including crack vs face routes and routes <5 vs routes >=5 pitches in length). Given these results, additional study is warranted to determine whether a climbing rope actually provides any safety benefit. ===== Article in the popular media: Scientific study reveals that rock climbing is significantly safer when done without a rope. excerpt: "This merely confirms what we knew all along" said the lead investigator. "You see, use of a rope is likely to distract the climber and lead to error. Moreover, the slower rate of a roped climber results in increased exposure to objective hazards and hypothermia. And several reported injuries involved the rope itself leading to injury or death after disloding loose rock." "We hope that these results will end the dangerous practice of using a rope for supposed 'safety' while rock climbing," he continued. "After all, does a monkey tie into a rope before climbing a tree? No!"

Here is the abstract from the article. Note that the authors did not directly "do" anything, they just compiled results from studies that met their inclusion criteria. The criteria is pretty vague: they analyzed studies having "interventions that include stretching." Calculating an odds ratio is somewhat fishy because there is definitely going to be a lot of variability in both treatment and control groups among all the studies. For example some studies with experimental stretching routines that lead to more harm may cancel out other studies with standard stretching routines that significantly reduce injury. Also, the definition of "injury" may vary a lot from one study to the next. Injury=torn tendon? Joint pain? Broken ankle? And of course, the specific activity studied to determine presence/absence of injury was probably different between studies. Heavy weight lifting? Walking around the block? Channel surfing?? Be sure to read their conclusion statement at the end. --------------------------- ABSTRACT THACKER, S. B., J. GILCHRIST, D. F. STROUP, and C. D. KIMSEY, JR. The Impact of Stretching on Sports Injury Risk: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 371-378, 2004. Purpose: We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of stretching as a tool to prevent injuries in sports and to make recommendations for research and prevention. Methods: Without language limitations, we searched electronic data bases, including MEDLINE (1966-2002), Current Contents (1997-2002), Biomedical Collection (1993-1999), the Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus, and then identified citations from papers retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Meta-analysis was limited to randomized trials or cohort studies for interventions that included stretching. Studies were excluded that lacked controls, in which stretching could not be assessed independently, or where studies did not include subjects in sporting or fitness activities. All articles were screened initially by one author. Six of 361 identified articles compared stretching with other methods to prevent injury. Data were abstracted by one author and then reviewed independently by three others. Data quality was assessed independently by three authors using a previously standardized instrument, and reviewers met to reconcile substantive differences in interpretation. We calculated weighted pooled odds ratios based on an intention-to-treat analysis as well as subgroup analyses by quality score and study design. Results: Stretching was not significantly associated with a reduction in total injuries (OR = 0.93, CI 0.78-1.11) and similar findings were seen in the subgroup analyses. Conclusion: There is not sufficient evidence to endorse or discontinue routine stretching before or after exercise to prevent injury among competitive or recreational athletes. Further research, especially well-conducted randomized controlled trials, is urgently needed to determine the proper role of stretching in sports. ------------------------------------

Depends on the person, but for me it's all about getting on the coolest routes. For example right now I figure that if I can't usually onsight 11a single pitch gear routes, then I won't be able to try multi-pitch 11c's. And there are a lot of climbs at this grade that are supposed to be super fun. The Rostrum, Astroman, etc...plus long 5.11's may have poorly protected climbing at 5.9 or 5.10. Consequently being very confident that you will NOT fall while climbing up to a certain level may lead to peace of mind (and gain access to a lot of quality 'scary' routes). And the more comfortable I am on say 5.10, the faster I can climb consecutive pitches of 5.10 which may be handy for climbing long routes in what I consider the most enjoyable style (eg the Nose). Having the most fun in climbing in each of these ways requires pushing the grades up, which at first may require going for 'no-falls' single pitch ascents at a more difficult grade before gaining enough experience to simply onsight at the grade.

I'm in a similar place, trying to get comfortable on 5.11 trad. I haven't read through the "5.10 barrier" post. But here are my random assorted thoughts: I use the same strategy that got me to 5.10 trad. Back then I would do lots of 8's, a reasonable number of 9's, and the occasional 10-. Now I do lots of 9's, mostly try to climb 10's, and occasionally jump on an 11-. Sometimes I will try to lead an 11, get my butt kicked, and set a toprope. Then I'll do 5 or more laps to convince myself I'm solid with the climbing focusing on the smoothest technique possible, with minimal pulling on the arms. Then, go back and actually lead the thing. The key for me is to not modify my climbing style when on lead instead of TR. eg overgripping, using poor footwork, etc when on the sharp end. I have found that the truly outstanding trad climbers are those who are able to climb on lead with the same technique as on toprope. I think that 5.11 trad is a challenging progression, and different from moving to 5.10, in that it requires finesse in gear placement, especially trusting smaller gear placed from technical stances. Many 5.10's offer comfy stances for the pro, and the placements tend to be larger. But this does not seem to be the case so often on more difficult climbs. For me, getting a lot of mileage on easier climbs always helps for the experience with climbing movement, gear placement, and trusting the gear. After all if you can rack up a resume of 30 or 40 5.10+ pitches, an 11- isn't going to be so bad physically (although psychological barriers can certainly persist). When I am in the zone where I think more about the climbing than the gear, I tend to climb much better. I KNOW that when I get on a climb and think to myself "OK this is 5.11 trad, it's going to be a push..." I climb much worse and find the moves much more difficult, even when climbing moves that end up being just 5.9 or 5.10. Also I don't think that Stone Gardens boulder problems have any relation to most trad climbing. However the Stone Gardens cracks DO relate a lot to Index. Do endless laps up & down on their artificial cracks, focusing on smoothness & footwork, and Index climbs may feel easier. In my opinion, the "essential" PNW multi-pitch route is the Grand Wall. It's pretty consistently 5.10, I think 11a is a bit of a stretch (this grade applies to just one or two strenuous but secure and well-protected lieback moves on the Sword pitch). Freeway is supposed to be a great multipitch 5.11 and is my next local goal. Other climbs that stick out in my mind are Serenity/Sons at Yosemite (solid 5.10 crack climbing), and Cloud Tower at Red Rocks (well-protected 5.10 & 5.11 cracks). And, I have found the underlying principle to be not stressing too much about grades, and doing whatever seems like the most fun. So I'll go do long moderates, or go bouldering, or try some 12- sport routes, or whatever. Almost invariably, mixing it up seems to help my climbing among all disciplines.

Or you could place screws with your left hand and remove them with your right hand, thus avoiding forceful supination altogether!!

The information I mentioned is present in every anatomy textbook I have seen. In the below links, you can sort of see how the brachialis has a mechanical advantage relative to the biceps. Flex your arm with your palm away from your body and you will note that the biceps doesn't really contract that much...then rotate your wrist back and forth with your arm flexed and note that the biceps now contracts noticeably... Here are schematics of the muscles, with a brief description of their function: brachialis biceps brachii And, here is info on biceps tendon rupture from Campbell's Operative Orthopedics (10th ed., 2003). Note that supination is the only somewhat consistent deficit in the absence of surgical repair (although one study found an 8% long-term loss in elbow flexion strength). ------------------ According to Gilcreest, over 50% of all ruptures involving the biceps brachii muscle occur through the tendon of its long head. He also noted that an acute traumatic rupture of this tendon occurs most often when a person is raising a weight of 150 pounds (68 kg) or more; the exact force required depends on the strength of the tendon. The rupture usually is more or less transverse and is located either within the shoulder joint or within the proximal part of the intertubercular groove. Most of the remaining ruptures occur at the musculotendinous junction or at the attachment to the glenoid. (A few ruptures occur through the tendon of the short head, the muscle proper, or the distal tendon of the biceps muscle.) According to Watson-Jones, surgical repair of a rupture of the tendon of the long head is not necessary but usually is desirable for both functional and cosmetic reasons. Soto-Hall and Stroot studied the power of flexion of the elbow and abduction of the shoulder with the arm in external rotation in patients with rupture of this tendon. They found that, when a rupture was recent, the power of flexion of the elbow was about 20% less than that of the opposite side and the power of shoulder abduction with the arm in external rotation was about 17% less that of the opposite side. However, when a rupture was seen late, no appreciable weakness was noted in either flexion of the elbow or abduction of the shoulder. They concluded that, except for young people, conservative treatment is indicated for most patients with rupture of this tendon. Warren, using a Cybex isokinetic dynamometer to evaluate 10 patients, found no significant loss of elbow flexion power after rupture of the biceps brachii but did find an approximately 10% loss of supination power. Mariani et al. compared their results with operative and nonoperative treatment of ruptures of the long head of the biceps brachii. Biomechanical testing showed a mean loss of 21% of supination and 8% of elbow flexion strength in patients treated nonoperatively; those treated operatively had no measurable loss of strength. We reviewed 43 ruptures in 42 patients, all but one of whom was older than 50 years of age. Half the ruptures occurred with minimal or no trauma, and over half the patients had a positive impingement sign at initial evaluation. Physical examination and Cybex testing of 19 patients revealed no differences in elbow flexion power in patients treated nonoperatively and those treated operatively; the operative group had slightly better supination power. We prefer operative repair of proximal biceps tendon rupture in young, active patients who are not willing to accept the deformity or slight weakness of supination. Occasionally, repair is indicated in a middle-aged patient whose profession, such as carpentry, requires full supination strength if the patient believes the time out of work is outweighed by the slight increase in supination power gained by operation. -------------------------- The book then goes into surgical details, which is not particularly interesting. But they do note that post-surgically, "participation in sports should be delayed for at least 12 weeks."

I went back today, and solo aided 10% Meteorological Vinculation. Just wanted to report that this pitch is AWESOME--10 thumbs up--and actually seemed like a reasonable C2. If anyone is looking for a good step up after City Park and Iron Horse, I highly recommend this pitch. Super clean and aesthetic. Small nuts, offsets, & cam hooks are useful. The anchor at the base could not possibly be more convenient (huge block, with a pinch to keep a tied loop around it). The crux section where the crack thins a bit has bomber gear below, clean fall, and reasonable but tricky placements in flaring pods. At first I thought the pitch ended at the Japanese Gardens intermediate anchor, but it keeps going and gets even better! The route has several free-climbing bolts at this point, but by avoiding them I was able to maximize the fun (they aren't necessary for aid types, as the gear in this section is bomber). One 30m rappel to the ground. The plan now is to tick off a few more C2's, then go back and try that version of Narrow Arrow again...

In terms of climbing, it is worth noting that the biceps is only a weak flexor at the elbow. The brachialis (mentioned above) is the primary flexor of the elbow. You just can't see it b/c it's under the bicep. As I understand it, the primary function of the biceps is actually supination (ie rotating your hand away from midline) and it is more of an "accessory" flexor, and really is only involved in flexing at all when your hand is supinated (eg doing pull-ups with your palm facing toward you). Your orthopedic surgeon would probably know what is best. Reattaching a tendon would certainly involve potential complications, and the key question is whether there would be a significant gain in function in the end after the risks, expense, and downtime.