JosephH

Well, it's a matter of preference I suppose. IMO C4's are basically junk north of their now beautiful thumb loop and the Link Cam's are about as fragile a thing as I've ever seen. But then I've never liked a single generation of the Camalots from the first one to the C4s. In general - as far as design, engineering, and all-round bombproof goes - Super Cams are basically art and damn hard to beat. And when it comes to any potential for taking serious dives they get my vote every time compared to the other two. That, and they're made by climbers here in the NW and US. But hey, that's just me and my prejudices. My new medium Super Cam is choice. Now they just need to make the large ones and two sizes above that.

I'm likely to be out there working on cleaning Flying Circus and Flying Swallow friday so swing by and maybe I'll be done when you get there...

Onozone...!

It's all about the judicious application of friction and lubrication - knowing when, where, and how much is just right is the name of the game. Premature echalkulation can and does happen when you simply can't control yourself and stay focused on matters in hand. Next thing you know, with one overly tight grip, it's slathered where you never intended it making a mess of everything. And for godsake try not to get the stuff in your eye, that does make it tough to get back on a fevered pitch.

I'm not totally opposed to chalk either - in the Valley, in the sun? Chalk. On Beacon in the sun on days over 85? Chalk. But hell, no one needs an ounce per pitch. In general on most days, and especially on cool days, Beacon needs no chalk. And when I do use chalk out there I use gray stuff that's available which works absolutely fine. And if you are leaving a rabbit trail of pure white, thick, full hand and fingerprints all over the place you are way, way over the top and kidding only yourself that you need anywhere remotely near that much. Folks might at least consider taking a day and climbing without the stuff or cutting way, way back on it and see how they do - you might just be surprised how well you do.

And just a reminder your republican president has created pretty much the most deliberately inefficient, incredibly intrusive big government in history - and deliberately f#cked our park system at every turn.

Just for comparison - here is a post put up today on Supertopo on the Yosemite Peregrine closures... ====================================================== Hey All, It’s that time of year, and people are getting hungry for the fine cracks of the Rostrum. I get at least five calls a week about it, folks bring it up at Climber's Coffee, and it’s the only thing all the YOSAR boys will speak to me about. I just talked to Jeff Mauer one of our Wildlife Biologists, and our main Peregrine Monitor. He told me he wants to stay consistent with the August 1st opening. The four chicks of the Rostrum aerie fledged around the end of June. They usually become independent and leave their natal area 4-6 weeks after fledging, so the August 1st date should give them enough time to leave the area full of life and vigor! Other Peregrine closures (Glacier Pt., Rhombus Wall, Fifi Buttress, and Kolana Rock in Hetchy) will also end on August 1st. Hopefully crowds of climbers will not be lining up on "opening day." If there are a couple parties already on the route maybe wait for the next day to give the young peregrines some time to adjust to the new vertically crawling creatures in their territory! I will still be checking out/monitoring the Rostrum between now and August 1st to make sure the closure is not being violated so please respect the final weeks of the closure! Cheers, Jesse McGahey Yos. Climbing Ranger jesse_mcgahey@nps.gov (209) 372-0360

Here's a description of what I do from a roped soloing thread on RC.com

In some cases that simply isn't possible. Tim Olsen comes to mind, he littered the place with an litany of trash placements and biner-breaking, heavy bronze angle-bracket hangers. He could make your claim - but I do not respect it nor do I respect a number of his routes.

Well said....all of it. Take that purists! We just went down this pathetically weak progression of logic on ST which is the typical represented by sport climbers as: 1) 'Just don't clip them' inanity... 2) 'Bolts vs. Bhopal' scope-shifting... 3) 'Those inconsiderate 5.11 bolters' inhumanity... 4) 'No one climbs it anymore' recycling... Geoff's is a classic attempt at argument #2 - scope shifting, as in: my god how can you worry about bolts after Chenobyl...?!?!?! This is simply weak as arguments go though admittedly a step up from "just don't clip them".

Well Cat, that's exactly what happened in CT - the locals organized against bolting. Then folks who could have climbed elsewhere or simply stayed in their own area deliberately came to CT to bolt to provoke the issue.

Kevin, You always start from a position of a right or entitlement to bolt - none exists. Bolt wars only exists because bolts do - don't bolt where they aren't wanted and no bolt wars will occur. Chopping is never the starting point, placing the bolts where they aren't welcome is always the starting point.

With regard to closure vs. defilement - Dishman was a perfect example of that. Had the cycle of vandalism there continued and the AF didn't back closure in such a situation than in my opinion they would be bankrupt relative to adopting an "access at any cost" mentality. I believe there are definitely circumstances where when all else fails closure should be the option preferred by the community. If we and AF take a stand that can't recognize that then we're really just another interest group exploiting resources and protecting our interests at any cost.

Well, Ken is a bit of a paradox no doubt. I climbed with him a bit during the two years I lived in NH and in fact made off with his young protege Marco Fedrizzi when I left. And let's be clear about a few things - like Ken was fairly eccentric before the bolt wars started - but he was also a incredibly talented climber, put up a string of endless badass routes, and prolifically chronicled CT climbing AAC-published guide for CT. He went way out of his way to put out the word far and wide that bolting wasn't welcome in CT and he wasn't alone in that sentiment by a long shot. The inital war was ignited when Ken was repeatedly provoked by folks coming in from out of state and bolting. Now I'm not going to defend his behavior in response other than to say that folks who knew Ken should have known better than to prod him in such a deliberate manner. Ken being Ken all hell broke loose and in all the clusterf#ck which ensued Ken is far from innocent with regards to failing to communicate, beligerent and violent behavior, and an overreaching response. BUT, he was one person who decided to take an unequivocal stand against unconstrained bolting, and even though I don't agree with many of his methods and behaviors, I have nothing but respect for his intent and motives at that time. What was and is unfortunate is his continuing inability and unwillingness to communicate by any other means than a hammer. There were other means and options, but make no mistake, the insuing twenty years of relentless bolting speak for itself, and while you may consider it progress and or evolution, many of viewed then and still view it as a lowest common denominator activity. And today's prevailing attitude may be that once a bolt makes it into rock it is somehow sacrosanct many - including myself - will never accept such a view regardless of how minority our status has become. There are still circumstances where I would have no compunction whatsoever about chopping, but I would be excrutiatingly clear about communicating my intent and I would ask they be voluntarily removed before acting. Bolt wars are never a one-sided affair and they always start when bolts appear, not when they disappear. P.S. He is also a fair photographer and took what I consider one of the photos that best represented the spirit of the times - of Jim Adair on Maine's sea cliffs. Adair was another brilliant soul who like many others was lost to us far too early.

SFOG - another question if you don't mind. Were you placing pro, clipping, moving through, or resting on a piece when you fell? And was the fall completely unexpected or did you know something was afoot? Just trying to get a better idea of the circumstances. Thanks...

Good to hear from you directly as to what went on and glad to hear you'll mend up alright.

Best wishes for healing all the way around...

Picky, picky, picky... Pink_chalk - will be in N.M. tues night - thurs night. Not sure about getting out before I leave. Will let you know... Iain, my pleasure.

So, got the word today from John. It was a 45yo PDX local who was on the rightside of FFA. He was carried out to the climbers' trailhead, then driven to a field next to a school on a loop road just West of Beacon. He was wearing a helmet and fell on his side. He is not in the ICU and though banged up badly he should recover. Ditto on Kevin's FFA rightside comment above...

Jim said Kyle said it was a fellow from La Grande who had never been out before and fell out of the 5.8 side of the pillar start to ffa. If I picture it right that would have the potential for a fairly nasty fall. Sorry to hear such tidings... Edit: Oops - just saw your post Cobra. Well, there you have it from several folks...

I'm pretty sure this is a guy named Chris who I bought a rope from a couple of weeks ago. He had the ball and wedge nuts and I told him to list the Aliens as pre-recall. He lives out on the street that turns off at the Goodwill on Powell out by 82nd...

It's entirely situational and unique to every anchor, especially ones in shitty terrain - but common sense ideas around pro and movable features basically revolve around stabilizing or stopping such movements. For example, in the case of something that moves and also has a crack in the direction of the movement then it's unlikely you'll stabilize it with a cam on one or both sides because cams will allow the feature to keep moving enough for one then the other cam to pull. In such an instance you're better off with a stopper / hex on the side it's trying to move to, or even a rock or stick - anything solid to keep it from moving in that direction. The problem with cams in an anchor in any such feature is they basically require constant. equal pressure to stick which is hard to guarantee when you are shifting around in a hanging belay. Behind fixed, but expanding flakes the idea is generally to either tread incredibly likely and hope all your shit doesn't simply fall out or to force the expansion (pre-expand) to some [theoretical] limit where you can then gingerly place gear hoping the flake's expansion really has stopped or paused. Both situations essentially suck as anchor components, but I'd rather use something I could chock on both sides than just one if it came down to it. But again, if there was any way to stop short or climb further for a better anchor you'd be better off doing that 9 times out of 10.

Cat - good advice on the egss and expando flakes, but: Works just as well in the reverse - This sort of preferencing is just what I'm referring to above - fairly peculiar at best. When you get to an anchor you should eyeball the next pitch and let what you see or beta you know in advance or from previous ascents determine what you should attempt to reserve for climbing it.

In general, preset preferences for either active or passive gear in just about any situation is misguided thinking at best - they're both simply tools and the best tool for any given task at hand is what should be used. Ditto for "favorite" sizes of gear which is hopefully saying either you like to climb certain size cracks or the rock where you climb exhibits that size of placement more often than not - otherwise it amounts to a peculiar association with a specific size of gear. That all said, the distinquishing attribute of the scenario you propose is "hanging", which implies you'll likely be unavoidably moving around on this anchor to some degree. In such circumstances you want to be careful any cams used in the anchor aren't going to walk as a result of those movements or from being [partially] weighted and unweighted. Other than that, the combination of individual placements and the basic task at hand should dictate what pro is used, not preconcieved preferences for gear. Many young climbers today are what I describe as "cam-happy" and first try to use a cam at every placement. It's odd, if not painful, behavior to watch at times. There are as many times when a stopper is the obvious choice as there are ones where cams fit that bill. And keep in mind that for a lot of older folks, all the things that make cams wonderful (springs and moving parts) also often make them quite often suspect in some placements as well - it typically doesn't get much more brain-dead simple than a chunk of aluminum in a constriction. Develop the skills and eye for both active and passive pro and such preferences tend to disappear fairly quickly. [ Note: Also, don't get in the habit of not slinging cams when a placement calls for it - cams being cams does not obviate the need to sling adequately... ]

Uhmmm, now I'm confused. You're saying you want the anchors to go or to stay? I'm personally hesitant to pull anchors which have been around a long time and that folks are used to using - particularly on the various mainstay SW and SE routes everyone does. I know a lot of folks just like to go up to the perch on ffa and rap - I do it all the time roped soloing when I'm pressed for time.