JosephH

Climb at your own risk is entirely correct. The issue with the rr bolt wasn't about that - it was about correcting the one place at Beacon where someone could raise a stink about a route's guidebook rating versus the reality of it, and do it in way that would lead to less 'reasonable' infill bolting in the name of safety (i.e. making most routes more like YW p1.). Again, the perverse logic of adding one bolt on an extremely misrepresented route in order to prevent widespread infilling in the event of a death on said route.

The route is called '[un]Reasonable Richard', further adding to the innocuous nature of the danger. It isn't a great climb. No one bullied me and I defy anyone to locate where that bolt once was. At this point I'm pretty good at making bolts disappear, epoxying over the hole, and camo'ing the result in shape, color, and texture.

Ground up or on rappel can both end up with too many bolts and bolts in the wrong places when idiots are pulling the trigger.

No, I dont. Three mistaken stars sends people to a line that's rated 5.9, which makes it one of the easier climbs at Beacon, which makes it attractive to intermediate leaders. It then fails to mention the 50 foot runout up the slab which in effect suckers some folks into a decking situation - seen a few leaders barely survive long enough to get to a point they could lower off the line. It's a very unusual situation is all - it has nothing to do with classic lines other than a rating that mistakenly leads people to believe it is one. Again, I don't like my climbing safe, I wouldn't do it if it were.

What do you suppose the odds are of a BD or Metolius breaking like that are no matter how you wailed on it...

Not at all, unless you can't read or, of course, if you were stupid or tasteless enough to consider the route worthy of three stars and failed to mention the 50ft runout as well.

Better if they just aren't installed at all for the purpose of 'making climbing safe'. 'safe, or entertainment, climbing is what's driven the exceptional demographics now associated with the sport.

Pretty well sums up the best argument against bolting.

Yep, people have been straying onto the dangle thinking it was great and easy since the day it was put up.

Dirt simple - clean the alien head out of the crack and it will then be available for another piece. Maybe use another alien to keep it spicy...

It's a generational thing, most old guys go with passive pro whenever possible; young folks are typically the opposite. I suspect that nutcraft and opposition placements are just not high on the priority list for them and cams have the appearance of being more secure and so that has ended up being the prevailing mindset for younger folks. All in all in a toss up between a good nut and a good cam, I'm going with the nut every single time.

Just a quick note on this front - you do sometimes run into situations where the only available placement isn't optimal to the overall rope path you are constructing. In such instances you try to sling long, but as you note, sometimes you can't. In those instances one option would be to 'set' your passive gear harder, but I don't really consider that the best or even necessarily a reliable method to deal with the situation. Generally in the situation you describe what you really want is an opposition piece if you can get one - if not, the fall back is to place or set the nut as best you can so it resists the pull. In general, I try to work with the geometry of placements to the degree that I can to retain passive pro; I only rarely 'set' my pro and then usually only the slightest tug until I feel some 'grit'. That came about after years of following my own pitches roped-soloing - eating my own dog food as it were. The point being setting all your passive pro hard can create a real nightmare for your second to clean which in turn wears them out and slows down the whole parade. I'm not suggesting at this point in your career that you not set pro, but rather that you not generically substitute that for carefully thoughtout placements and opposition pieces. Good for you for getting after it, being cognizant of the importance of slinging, and being conscious of the rope path you're building.

The predominant difference between rock and alpine (mountain) climbing is the shift in potential dangers from subjective hazards (in your control) to objective ones (not in your control). Objective hazards in rock climbing basically come down to holds breaking and rock fall - pretty much everything else is driven by a decision you make, i.e. they are subjective hazards of your own creation. That shifts drastically in the mountains which exhibit far more dynamism of weather, snow and ice conditions, avalanches, crevasses, rock and ice fall, etc. - i.e., events out of your control and that you did not initiate. How do climbers deal with those potential objective hazards? With knowledge, experience, wisdom? Sure, the same as on rock, but also by using those to make educated guesses - by gambling and attempting to do so 'intelligently', but gambling never the less. For me the high gambling quotient is the reason I and quite a few friends I know don't do alpine. I like my games to be more like chess where luck and external events have very little to do with the outcome, where talent and skill are the primary determinants of outcomes. Don't get me wrong - talent and skill play a huge role in the mountains - but so does gambling well and being lucky.

bolts are not OK if you are a higher end face climber needing protection on a unprotectable area with runout they are OK if you are a 5.9 sporto doing 3-star routes in a guidebook. rich. Well, both of you are completely off-base. I only read the guidebook to communicate with Opdycke on the anchors and pins, otherwise I have no use for it whatsoever. kkk - it had nothing to do with ethics or the specific route in question, only to correct an anomolous situation where someone unsuspecting and unprepared could easily be drawn into a decking situation with no real options. If it weren't called out as a 'quality' three-star and supposedly accessible 5.9 it wouldn't be a problem. No where in the same guide description does it mention you might could easily end up being runout 40-50 feet and in danger of decking, and that reality happens to sneak up on you on that route. The route is more typically climbed by solid 5.10-.1l climbers to access a couple of serious 5.10s and not as a route by itself.

Plaidman, I'm very glad to hear you are setting your nuts much better these days as what you recounted above is pretty frightening to read and a big reason I personally recommend beginners and intermediate climbers focus on the basics and not get involved with Link or Max Cams. With regard to your having "throughly tested this piece in falls" - none of these Link Cam failures have been a problem of manufacturing or quality failures; they were completely good cams that were used in ill-suited placements. What that means is, your Link Cam is also completely fine, but a single misuse of it and it too will break just as easily as the others have. "Testing" of yours or anyone else's Link Cam by falling on it successfully means nothing with regard to it breaking in the same way others have if you misuse it. It's very important not to confuse the two different contexts because good cams can and will break in bad placements.

I would ask if you are dense, or about your reading comprehension, but that would clearly be pointless 10k+ posts later. Exactly which part of "the reason we did it was Olson's star rating creating an attractive nuisance" didn't you get? That was the entire and sole reason for the bolt.

I don't think so. The only 'false sense of of well-being' being imparted is by the guide's star-rating. Few routes at Beacon are as visually prone to 'suckering' someone into a bad situation on the basis of a star-rating as that route. It's the innocuousness of the real danger involved when combined with the rating and stars that does the inviting. I don't pretend to be able to see into the future, but I can recognize a bad setup (and potential aftermaths) when I see one.

Well, it's complicated and the logic even a bit tortured - first, we weren't making a 'dangerous route safe', we were attempting to remove an anomolous situation that could provide grounds for adding lots of bolts at Beacon in the event an accident happened to someone unwary on that particular climb. And that particular climb is still a drag in that respect - but the problem isn't that the route doesn't have a bolt, the problem is Olson gave it three stars. Had that not been the case we wouldn't have even considered putting the bolt in. Second, I'm personally all for dangerous routes, my new routes tend to all be 'dangerous' to one degree or another - certainly during the FA and a couple are still 'R' rated after the fact and that's how I like them. But none of them are anything anyone would ever stray onto by accident or be in any doubt about what they are about to get into on staring up at them. I certainly understand why folks didn't like us doing it, but there were broader considerations in mind than simply that route when we did it. The 'tortured' part of it is that bolt was actually installed to insure Beacon would remain a dangerous place.

The only established 'longer routes' on the east face are already drastically overbolted. The bolt under discussion wasn't about making 'climbing safe' per se, it was about not leaving an opening for some folks to say exactly what you are attempting to saying above. It wouldn't even have been an issue if Olson hadn't given the route the ridiculous star rating he did. That, combined with the fact there aren't many 5.9s at Beacon, in effect makes the climb an 'attractive nusciance' and a dangerous one at that for any intermediate 5.9 climbers who might stray on to it. The last thing on earth I want is for climbing to be safe. Just the perception of 'safe climbing' as entertainment is the problem, not the solution. Pamela is all sport, no doubt about that...

Now I remember, the AEC was about to issue an operating permit for our tritium betavoltaic anchor wedge batteries when some fool mentioned that sport climbers hang on bolts for extended periods of time. The upshot? After a rigorous timing survey by the AEC's adjunct TVA staff at the T-Wall they determined that, given sport climbers' extended times-on-bolt, the ionizing radiation exposure levels over the average sport career would be unacceptable. After that we then turned to the solar option, but the technology price-point just hasn't come in yet. Our least favorable option would be you'd need to plug an 18v Bosch lithium battery into a socket at the base to power the route - nothing new there, but more weight to pack in than just a badge. But we've learned our lesson and we'll be going green if we get back to it. Probably look into using natural radium decay in granite and moss / algae power for basalt. "StrobeBolt: if you drill it, green-fill™ it ."

I keep meaning to start that solar-powered strobe hanger company that works off an active RFID badge you wear. As you clip one hanger, the next one starts strobing to insure you don't get lost. The premium version strobes faster and in red the more runout the next clip is and also has a badge control that will strobe the entire route at the push of a button. Never seem to quite get around to it though, maybe I should ask the dawg if he's interested in some startup action: "Remember, at the StrobeBolt Company, we're blinded by your stardom..."

Not really, just telling how it went down and what Opdycke and I were thinking when we did it.

I thought - as per the Unidawg manifesto - you must either do the route "as is", top-rope it, or "leave it alone" - not add a bolt. Really had nothing to do with ethics - it had to do with a really bad guide book rating suckering people onto one of the few 5.9s at Beacon. Again, it's about the only place at Beacon you could get suckered in that way and deck. The bolt was about folks crossing over from sport not being able to claim a route is obviously and irresponsibly dangerous compared to it's recommendation in Olson's guide in the event of an accident. No other route is so accessible, highly rated, and poorly protected [and mediocre].

That's good advice RuMR. He got his answer.

That's pretty pointless for a guy that wants to bolt all the lines up to Jensen Ridge. I'd say you'd bolt the shit out of Beacon left to your own devices.