Static Point Bolts

[klar404]

I still think the best response to fear is to install chains all the way down climbs... just think you can clip anywhere and it will be easier to find the crags on those "wicked" approaches.

[Szyjakowski]

adding new bolts to exhisting roots is like hammering pitons in clean-aided cracks. if you do it please remember to wear your helmet 8days a week and watch out for the likes of eastside climbers...they i hear are kinda mean...

[allthumbs]

iceclimer said:

For those of you who actually gave good ethical answers to my question, thanks!!!!!!!! I agree that things should be left the way they are except for the extremely rusted out anchors. '

 

For those of you who added the typical "rock jock" flair about "don't climb there if you don't like it", you can kiss my ass. You are the ones who give other climbers a bad name by thinking you are better than everyone else. Why not try and help someone understand rather than jump to conclusions and tear them apart. As I stated before, I was information gathering. I understand.

 

Thanks to all of you who were honest and actually took time to help.

 

You're welcome dude, I always try to be helpful.

[DavidW]

Sorry to hear someone had an unpleasant experience at Static. It sounds like Ice Climber got a fairly clear consensus with regard to adding new bolts to routes up there however. While the prevailing ethic in North America has been that first ascent styles be preserved, every little thing that a couple of trad guys with a drill might have done doesnt automatically deserve "shrine" or protected status either. When a route has been climbed continuously for 20 years however, had pictures in calendars and "route of the month" pages in national mags it's probably safest to assume that a good number of people find the arrangement of the route and its bolts to be satisfactory.

 

I'd have to agree that the retro bolting done on Online was somewhat crude, but it did make the route something that many people have come to enjoy and the integrity of the original route was totally perserved. There are a number of other excellent routes at Static that could certainly use upgraded hardware and I've stated before that I'm willing to go and lend a hand in the process. Send me an email!

 

Iceclimber its not assholes saying "if you dont like it climb somewhere else" its just a broader view. Many people regularly rock climb all over the US and Canada and if they can't do a route, they dont change it..... they just move on to find something more to their taste. There's millions to choose from in every imaginable flavor!

 

I think the Thread has been pretty clear in that you don't alter the character of the existing climbs. I'd like to ad that if you are upgrading old gear use the highest quality you can afford..... stainless steel only please. Check out the hardware on Fuddhat or whats being installed in the Darrington area for a suggestion about what works in the washington drool.

 

Good to hear everyone's having a good time at The Point!

[erik]

dw

 

[Dave_Schuldt]

erik said:

dw

 

 

[Sloth_Man]

I think it's fair to say that there's some very fine routes in the country that have been 'ruined' by long run outs.

 

Look through the Yosemite free climbs book and you'll see many routes that might be doable by us mere mortals if there were more than one bolt on a pitch.

 

I appreciate the boldness of these first ascents, but I also suspect that many of these climbs are seldom if ever done anymore because of the known runout and the unknown nature of the route and bolts. I also think it's a little unfair for 5.12 valley climbing gods to put up 5.10's or 9's and leave out the bolts.

 

I'm not against a retro bolt or two on certain routes. When I did the South Face of Warlock Needle I was very glad to see a retro bolt on the headwall pitch. It was still pretty balsy above that but not deadly as it would have been without the bolt. This is an awsome line that really benefited by the bolt. You could argue that only a climber good enough to deal with it should have been there. I went there not knowing about the bolt, and would have done the ascent without it (since reversing the moves back to the pedestal would have been worse) and admitidedly the climbing past and above the bolt isn't hard. But I was glad it was there, and I think it's a hard enough line as it is. It's not like that one bolt is going to bring on the hordes of gumbies or ruin the whole route.

 

So I think there's room for discussion on the issue.

 

Some climbs are popular and 'set in stone' like those at Static and should not be changed. A runout slab is not unusual and if you want to climb slab you'll need to get used to it. It would ruin so many good climbs to bolt their slab sections into 'safety'.

 

Many of my greatest climbing memories are of moderate runouts at Lumpy Ridge. One or more bolts on these sections would have ruined the character of the climbs. However, these were not dangerous or deadly runouts, only 'thoughtfull'.

 

Some routes have a reputation for danger and are part of a 'hard mans' repertoire and should not be changed either.

 

But I still think there may be many routes that could use a little retro bolting, but only to bring a fabulous line from deadly down to survivable. It would have to be done with consultation from people who have actually done the route and with consensus from other local climbers.

 

It does seem that we need to get beyond the blanket statement that routes cannot be changed except by the first ascentionists. I'm not convinced that they have a right to dictate the nature of a climb on public land. If it's a classic and the runouts are part of that like Bacher Yarian or such then they must stay as they are. But if they are a forgoten line that could be classic with addition of a few bolts per pitch I think that should be open to consideration.

[Gaston_Lagaffe]

Sloth_Man said:It does seem that we need to get beyond the blanket statement that routes cannot be changed except by the first ascentionists. I'm not convinced that they have a right to dictate the nature of a climb on public land. If it's a classic and the runouts are part of that like Bacher Yarian or such then they must stay as they are. But if they are a forgoten line that could be classic with addition of a few bolts per pitch I think that should be open to consideration.

 

I hate being a pessimist, but I don't think there will ever be a consensus on this. I consider myself a fairly conservative climber, when it comes to safety. I was ok on Online until I got off route on the 5.10 pitch, but felt quite alright on the runout on all the other pitches. However, it does bother my when there are runouts that would result in a serious accident if one were to take a fall. I too wonder what gives the FA's the right to dictate how many bolts are on a climb. They certainly can't proclaim ownership over the piece of rock.

 

A friend of mine was talking to me about the problem that the east coast is having. Bolts on many routes are completely rusted, but the e.coast ethics says you can't re-bolt without permission from the FA's and many of them are long dead. Now how stupid is that!

 

On the other hand, I can totally picture some gumby going up Online and placing bolts every 8 feet. Now, if THAT were to happen I would chop them myself. So where do we draw the line? Bolts every 10, 15, 20, 40 feet at minimum? I certainly don't have the answer. I would like a bolt at least at every crux (matching the rating of the climb), providing I can't place gear.

 

[Fence_Sitter]

theres a problem with deoing that even...some routes are jsut f-in hard the whole way and som ehave cruxes very often. There isno easy way about this... in an ideal world, we could all trust each other to bolt respectably... the current system (which gives FA party final say) is teh best thing we have to go on. We assume that if a god route is put up, there is greater chance taht they know what they are doing. The problem in this is where poeple are puuting up some of the aforementioned tuolomne death routes... but i guess it is best that we climb what we can and admire those that can climb the rest... c'est la vie...

[Dave_Schuldt]

Static point is one of my favorite places, please don't add any more bolts, just replace the old ones. If established routes are to be altered it should only be done after checking with those who put it up. The runouuts keep the masses away, (maybe the hike helps too). Save grid bolting for Little Si and Exit 38. If something is too run out for my taste I just say "Someday when I am better I will lead it".

[Gaston_Lagaffe]

Dave_Schuldt said:

Static point is one of my favorite places, please don't add any more bolts, just replace the old ones. If established routes are to be altered it should only be done after checking with those who put it up. The runouuts keep the masses away, (maybe the hike helps too). Save grid bolting for Little Si and Exit 38. If something is too run out for my taste I just say "Someday when I am better I will lead it".

 

Again, what if the FA's are dead? Who decides then?

 

No way I'm going to add bolts to Static, for after replacing bolts a fall would only hurt, and not kill (though some fool will probably prove me wrong). I think the discussion is more about why you can't add bolts to a line to make it safer, as in: it won't kill you. Right? As an extreme case, what if someone free solos a 5.11 up to 50ft, adds a bolt for the fun of if, then proclaims to be the FA. Now imagine the guy doing FA's like this all over the place, leaving no new climbs "safe." And please don't point out how ridiculous that scenario is, it's meant to be that.

 

 

[JayB]

It's a point worth considering, and the best compromise I've found is to let local ethics prevail.

 

Most places sporting long "thought provoking" run-outs and various other frightening aspects tend to be a bit on the remote side. They also tend to have serious reputations, which, along with the long approaches, tend to keep folks who aren't up to climbing such routes from getting in over their heads. Crags like this are the ideal place for R/X stuff. Anyone who climbs there will likely be looking for more serious routes, and a sparsely bolted route that is in character with the routes around it will most likely not suffer from a lack of traffic and hence be "innacessible" to most folks who climb in the area.

 

At the same time, I think that anyone who deliberately puts up dangerously bolted routes at popular crags (especially on rappel) sucks, as the route will be both seldom climbed and perhaps even a danger to new climbers who may not realize what they are getting themselves into. I'm cool with lots of bolts at popular sport climbing areas, but think that places with a different ethic should be left alone.

 

So if there is a route that's dangerously bolted at a place like Vantage or 38 and someone adds a new bolt there, I could care less. If someone were to add bolts to a place like Static, I'd pitch in for the crowbar.

 

Respecting the local ethic, like respecting the style of the FA, is less than perfect, but it's the best way that I know to keep the bolt wars at bay.

[Szyjakowski]

man, there is so much stone out there... expand your horizons and go find your own lines...

style is what climbing is about.

if you don't like a FA's style go climb another route.

why does humans always have to change their environment to suit their own fears.

get a grip and go climb a rock.

sheesh.

[Fence_Sitter]

Szyjakowski said:

man, there is so much stone out there... expand your horizons and go find your own lines...

style is what climbing is about.

if you don't like a FA's style go climb another route.

why does humans always have to change their environment to suit their own fears.

get a grip and go climb a rock.

sheesh.

 

well said...

[ctuller]

expand your horizons and go find your own lines...

style is what climbing is about.

[chucK]

Good post JayB.

 

The Static Point bolts are fine for the most part. I hadn't noticed the belay below the crux pitch as being scary. I know there are still 1/4"ers in some of those belays but with the exception of the top station aren't all the rest augmented with at least one stainless 3/8"er.

 

The runout on the 3rd pitch makes that pitch classic. If you get scared, you can deviate right over to an area with holds and a good piton, then curve back onto the mainline.

 

A slab fall probably won't kill you IF you wear a helmet and take care not to get your feet caught in the rope. Might end up with some road rash though, but heck, you can get that from sliding into second base.

 

If someone really wants to improve the Static Point experience, I would advocate bringing a shovel and/or prybar and modifying some of the smaller waterbars so that one could ride a bike on that initial road without having to dismount every 50 feet. That would rule!

 

[chucK]

JayB said:

At the same time, I think that anyone who deliberately puts up dangerously bolted routes at popular crags (especially on rappel) sucks, as the route will be both seldom climbed and perhaps even a danger to new climbers who may not realize what they are getting themselves into.

 

This was stated on another thread, but I think it applies here. I think a very good way to bolt a crux move is to have the bolt as close to the crux as possible, but low enough so as to be impossible to use it to cheat through the crux. The KDR pitch at Static is like this. So JayB, do you think this sucks because it is deliberately making the moves more dangerous than they need be?

 

(BTW If the crux of the pitch is not really representative of the rest of the route, like say, a 5.11 move or two, with the rest of the route being sustained 5.9, then I think it's cool if the bolt there allows one to cheat.)

[mattp]

Good points, JayB and ChucK. What it boils down to, I think, is a few relatively simple points that lend themselves to complex thinking when applied:

 

1. Bolts are ugly. Their mere presence on the rock should be minimized for aesthetic reasons.

 

2. Bolting causes environmental impacts associated with not only the hole and the metal in that hole, but the increased traffic that bolted routes usually generate. This is another reason to minimize bolt usage.

 

3. Most people want to feel safe when they are climbing crags, but everyone has different comfort levels when it comes to leading and some people prefer to climb routes with some or even a high degree of scare to them. If there is room for sport bolted routes in some locations, it does not follow that every climb should be bolted that way and indeed the opposite is true: if sport climbs exist in some locations, that is specifically a reason why other crags or other routes on the same crags should NOT be bolted that way.

 

4. The person who puts up a route, whether a ground-up first ascent or top-down engineered sport climb, should think about what they are doing and consider what they are leaving behind for other climbers. The impacts are very different (see above) but it is equally self-indulgent to go out and make a statement about how bad-ass we are by leading a bunch of run-out horror shows and expecting everybody else to honor that as it is to build a sport climbing area and expect everyone else to value that "creation."

 

5. The person who takes it upon theirself to alter a route, whether replacing old bolts or adding or removing bolts, has an even greater obligation to consider their impact on other climbers than does the first ascensionist. Whether you think the historical rights or deference we give to first ascensionists are sensible or not, we as a climbing community have generally accept the idea that those who put up a route DO have certain authority that others do not when it comes to subsequent alterations. And in the case of removing bolts that one may feel have been wrongly added by someone other than the first ascent party, the "correction" may in some cases cause as much harm (physical or political) as the prior "wrong."

 

In my way of thinking, much of it boils down to the need to protect diversity. I like the fact that we have crags with so many different personalities within an easy day-trip of Seattle: North Bend, Leavenworth, Index, Darrington, Static Point and others.... If you can't find a crag that you like, and climbs that you like, you just don't like rock climbing.

[Alex]

chucK said:

but with the exception of the top station aren't all the rest augmented with at least one stainless 3/8"er?

 

The bolts themselves are stainless, however someone decided to go cheap and use non-stainless hangers and nuts.

[JayB]

So JayB, do you think this sucks because it is deliberately making the moves more dangerous than they need be?

 

Yeah- pretty much. The word that comes to mind is contrived. It seems like most of the run-out routes out there were put up in that fashion for a variety of genuine reasons, e.g. the bolts were going in by hand, or on lead, it was getting dark, a storm was rolling in, the route was too remote to drag in a hilti, etc. - or that was just how things were done in that time/and or place. This certainly does not apply to all such routes, but in the places that I am most familiar with the last thing on the FA's mind was intentionally making a route that would be excessively dangerous, even if that is how the routes turned out in the end.

 

Putting up death routes on rappell in the middle of a popular sport-climbing area is just as lame as putting up a grid-bolted cruiser at an area with a bolt-free ethic.

[mattp]

Again, it has been noted that there is a difference between scary and dangerous and I think inconvenient or awkward is yet another thing. Yes, it may be a "contrivance" to deliberately put a bolt low or off to the side instead of right in front of a hard move, but that doesn't make the move any more dangerous unless the result is that you are creating an unnecessary potential to hit something during a fall. I pretty much agree with you, JayB, that to deliberately rap-bolt something so as to be dangerous would be irresponsible, at best, but I've never heard of anyone trying to do this or advocating that anybody else do so.

 

Sometimes, even with a great amount of care and effort, bolted pitches come out funny whether they were established on lead or on rappel, however. I could be wrong, but I don't think the awkward placements on Kill da Wabbit were done so deliberately so much as they were trying to somewhat minimize the number of placements and that is how it came out (and notwithstanding the fact that I think it is oddly bolted, I think it is one of the better pitches on Static Point).

[JayB]

I think that I am pretty much with you on this one Matt - what I am talking about not so much the placement of individual bolts as it rap-bolting an R/X line with serious groundfall potential for no other reason than stroking one's own ego. Not a very common phenomenon, and when it does occur it is rarely, if ever done at a popular crag with a sport ethic.

[chucK]

JayB said:

I think that I am pretty much with you on this one Matt - what I am talking about not so much the placement of individual bolts as it rap-bolting an R/X line with serious groundfall potential for no other reason than stroking one's own ego. Not a very common phenomenon, and when it does occur it is rarely, if ever done at a popular crag with a sport ethic.

 

Do you have examples of where this was ever done, or is this just a straw man?

[fern]

the latest R&I has a profile on some east coast crankster

who has done this ... Tim Kemple I think?

 

 

 

[mattp]

Interesting. What was Mr. Kemple trying to do, exactly? Did it say?