Bolt placement

[Al_Pine]

I have a two specific bolting questions. Let us assume rap-bolted pitches. That is, nothing is hindering where we place a bolt other than our own aesthetic vision.

 

1. Assuming a reasonably clean fall, is it reasonable to place the bolt at the crux of the pitch far enough down so as to make it impossible to "cheat" using the bolt to pass the crux? Or does one have the responsibility to completely minimize the danger by placing the bolt as close to the crux as possible?

 

2. How do you feel about bolt ladders? Suppose many wonderful pitches can be linked in a row except for just a few majorly difficult sections (think Grand Wall or Lovin' Arms). Are bolt ladders justified? If so, is there a minimal grade difference between the rest of the route and the laddered section before such a ladder is justified?

[ryland_moore]

As to the first question, I would suggest that bolts be placed at a descent rest before the crux. If that occurs just below the crux or several moves below the crux, I think it is imaterial, unless an objective hazard or chance of a bad fall are possible. Then my opinion menas nothing.

[Sphinx]

Place one above and one below. Problem solved!

[Al_Pine]

Ryland, yes I would agree that a bolt should be placed at the very least at a good clipping stance. Suppose there is a good clipping stance just below the crux. Suppose I place the bolt at my knees instead of as high as could be clipped from that stance. I would do this so that the crux can't be aided through by using the bolt. Suppose my tactic it adds no huge obvious hazard like hitting a ledge.

Are you cool with this?

 

Sphinx,

I don't understand how your answer replies to either of my questions.

 

 

By the way, I am serious in my intent about asking these questions. I am not just trying to fan flames. I am possibly delving into the "evil" world of rap bolting and wonder how people feel about both of these issues.

[rbw1966]

Why the big concern about someone aiding through the crux? I personally have never cleaned a sport route: is this something that an FA really concerns himself with when establishing a new line?

[ryland_moore]

Al, I don't think it is so simple as to answer with a blanket statement. I guess it is all in the art of placing a bolt. If there is a descent clip say 5 ft. below the crux, place one there, then place one just after the crux, assuming the crux may only be a few moves. So that it may be a bit runout with bolts placed 15 ft. apart. All in all, your first thought should be safety, whether or not it can be aided or not. If they work together and you can have your cake and eat it too, I have no problems with your practices. If, on the other hand, you deliberately set bolts to make it impossible to aid, but lacked the effort to ensure that it was a clean fall or could cause serious injury, I wouldn't be surprised to see you bolts getting yanked and retro bolted. Be cautious and bold if possible! Have fun!

[snoboy]

Al_Pine said:

Ryland, yes I would agree that a bolt should be placed at the very least at a good clipping stance. Suppose there is a good clipping stance just below the crux. Suppose I place the bolt at my knees instead of as high as could be clipped from that stance. I would do this so that the crux can't be aided through by using the bolt. Suppose my tactic it adds no huge obvious hazard like hitting a ledge.

Are you cool with this?

 

I would be cool with this, but why bother???

 

Why would you want to keep people off your route, or force them to do it in a certain style? Especially on a multi pitch where the rest of the route is at a lower grade, it would be nice for people to be able to aid through the cruxes if neccesary.

 

Think: The Ultimate Everything in Squamish, 5.9+ for the most part, and an 11a crux pitch at the top. A couple of well placed bolts aloow the aiding of the crux pitch for those who wish to, and still allow it to be freed by those who can.

 

I usually try to have the bolt at an easy reach from a good stance.

[mattp]

Good questions for discussion, AlPine, but I don't think you'll get anything like definitive or even completely sensible answers because there are just too many variables and it is largely a matter of personal style - both yours and those who may follow you.

 

As to the placement of a bolt at a crux move, it depends not only on the fall potential at that particular spot but also on what the prevailing ethic is at that particular crag, how the bolt placement will affect rope drag, and all kinds of other factors. Is the move in question one where timid movement will make it more difficult - say a dyno-to-transition-hold followed by a bucket? (This might suggest to you it is more or less desireable to deliberately make it un-aidable, but at least you should think about this.) All other things being equal, I'd generally agree with Snoboy so I'd say it is contrived to go out of your way to place a pro bolt below where most climbers would want it just to make the move scarier or "uncheatable." If you are trying to minimize the number of bolts and thus decide not to put a bolt at every hard move, that would in my mind not be such a contrivance.

 

As to the bolt ladder, my answer is largely the same. I don't think there is any magic number like if the climbing would be two numeric or letter grades harder it is not OK but if it would be three grades more difficult than the rest of the climb it is "acceptable." It depends on where you are contemplating this, what other climbs are nearby, whether the climbing area has been heavily bolted already and other factors. Of course, some of these factors might cut both ways: for example, if the area has been heavily bolted already one might argue that an additional bolt ladder will hurt nothing but they might just as well argue that the place should be protected from further abuse because it has already been overdone. No matter what else you say about the matter, bolt ladders are ugly and I'd go to great lengths to avoid installing one.

[glassgowkiss]

how about going to Smith and answer your own question?

[slothrop]

I agree with Ryland (in theory, as I've never placed a bolt). It seems more honorable to make the crux un-aidable when possible, safe always.

 

As to bolt ladders: even if the "majorly hard" section is utterly unprotectable with natural gear, I wouldn't place a bolt ladder just to link features in the most aesthetic way. Is there no other way to get between the interesting features in question? A pendulum, perhaps, or an less appealing traverse? How hard is majorly hard? Totally blank and overhanging, or just 5.13d? If it's climbable, but beyond your ability, then I'd say leave it to someone who can free it.

 

Just my thoughts, I've never done an FA.

[Al_Pine]

Interesting responses to question #1. With respect to my proposed method being contrived, I think one could consider climbing through a crux without using a quickdraw within easy reach to be contrived also. Bolt at the knee, the climb is contrived. Bolt above the head, the climbing is.

 

slothrop said:

As to bolt ladders: even if the "majorly hard" section is utterly unprotectable with natural gear, I wouldn't place a bolt ladder just to link features in the most aesthetic way. Is there no other way to get between the interesting features in question? A pendulum, perhaps, or an less appealing traverse? How hard is majorly hard? Totally blank and overhanging, or just 5.13d? If it's climbable, but beyond your ability, then I'd say leave it to someone who can free it.

 

So Slothy, looks like you disagree with the first bolt ladder on the Grand Wall (can be avoided by climbing Cruel Shoes at "only" 10d) and also the yarding bolt on Lovin' Arms. Continuing up the chimney just a ways then traversing greatly reduces the difficulty of the pitch. In fact, if you go the "yard on the bolt" way, the pitch is actually much harder! What do you think about that!

 

By the way, I would consider setting up a pendulum to be (climbing-wise) aesthetically equivalent to a bolt ladder.

[mattp]

Just to question the semantics, here, Slopthrop, let me ask you how it would be "more honorable" to deliberately make a move unaidable. It certainly changes the character of the climb, but if the guy who puts up the route is doing it on a toprope, it is in a way DIShonorable to put the bolt where those who follow will not have the benefit of close protection at the crux move in that he is forcing them to have an experience and view the climb in a way that is very different from that which he (or she) experienced it when they did it. Of course, it may make the move more exciting, and this could translate to making the climb more fun; it may also prevent someone from doing the route and claiming to have climbed it free when they did not do so, but is that a measure of "honorability" on the route-setter's part or on the part of that person who lies about what they did later?

[iain]

When I was looking up my next project I noticed White Wedding at Smith has a bolt placed specifically to work out the crux to avoid repeated whippers, then is usually skipped for the send. Not that Smith is a good place to turn to when answering bolting questions

[b-rock]

iain said:

I noticed White Wedding at Smith has a bolt placed specifically to work out the crux to avoid repeated whippers

 

Ha, yeah in fact Watts has it listed on the topo as 'dogging bolt'.

[slothrop]

Al_Pine said:

So Slothy, looks like you disagree with the first bolt ladder on the Grand Wall (can be avoided by climbing Cruel Shoes at "only" 10d) and also the yarding bolt on Lovin' Arms. Continuing up the chimney just a ways then traversing greatly reduces the difficulty of the pitch. In fact, if you go the "yard on the bolt" way, the pitch is actually much harder! What do you think about that!

 

By the way, I would consider setting up a pendulum to be (climbing-wise) aesthetically equivalent to a bolt ladder.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't have placed a bolt ladder on the Grand Wall if the rest of the route can be reached at 10d. I've never climbed the Grand Wall, and I'm not trying to be Dwayner , but bypassing some 10d climbing with a bolt ladder seems like poor style.

 

All I know about Lovin' Arms is that it's at Index and I haven't climbed it.

 

Come to think of it, a pendulum is not great, but one or two bolts is less displeasing than a bolt ladder.

[snoboy]

slothrop said:Yeah, I wouldn't have placed a bolt ladder on the Grand Wall if the rest of the route can be reached at 10d. I've never climbed the Grand Wall, and I'm not trying to be Dwayner , but bypassing some 10d climbing with a bolt ladder seems like poor style.

 

The Grand Wall was climbed twenty years before Cruel Shoes... kinda complicates things don't it?

[iain]

there sure are some surly canadians on the board this afternoon

[Alpinfox]

slothrop said:

As to bolt ladders: even if the "majorly hard" section is utterly unprotectable with natural gear, I wouldn't place a bolt ladder just to link features in the most aesthetic way.

 

The Direct East Buttress on SEWS is a great example of this, and I think it works well. The route is 5.9 with the exception of two 5.11- sections which have bolt ladders. Most folks free climb the 5.11- sections, but I think it's cool that a 5.9 climber can do the route too. It's such a spectacular climb!

 

I heard some big-name climber talking about route development and he said something like, "avoid the temptation to 'clean' a line to make it climbable by you; it would be a shame to destroy tomorrow's 5.15 to make another 5.12c". The thing about bolt ladders is that they are optional; climb them free if you can, aid em if you can't. Of course, bolts are kinda ugly too, so it's a complicated issue. (aesthetics vs. equal-opportunity)

 

No answers here

 

 

Regarding question #1:

snoboy said:

Why would you want to keep people off your route? ... it would be nice for people to be able to aid through the cruxes if neccesary.

 

[slothrop]

mattp said:

Just to question the semantics, here, Slopthrop, let me ask you how it would be "more honorable" to deliberately make a move unaidable. It certainly changes the character of the climb, but if the guy who puts up the route is doing it on a toprope, it is in a way DIShonorable to put the bolt where those who follow will not have the benefit of close protection at the crux move in that he is forcing them to have an experience and view the climb in a way that is very different from that which he (or she) experienced it when they did it. Of course, it may make the move more exciting, and this could translate to making the climb more fun; it may also prevent someone from doing the route and claiming to have climbed it free when they did not do so, but is that a measure of "honorability" on the route-setter's part or on the part of that person who lies about what they did later?

 

Interesting point, Matt. I guess I was thinking of honor in terms of the rock itself, asking climbers to meet the route on its own terms and not aid past the hard part. Of course, I've pulled on gear before, but if the route is set up so that you can't aid the crux, there seems to be a certain aesthetic value in that.

 

I agree that safety is of more concern than aesthetic perfection, but there may be times when you can trade a little safety for greater aesthetic value. Again, I haven't done any FAs, so I'm just theorizing here.

 

It doesn't seem right to claim a free ascent if you haven't ever redpointed the whole route (and thus gained the ground-up leading experience even if you bolted the route on rap). There's some degree of pre-inspection, rehearsal, and cleaning with putting up a new route from above, right? So how can the FA's overall experience not be different than that of those who climb the cleaned, bolted route later? Is the FA's experience less honorable since he/she has studied the route in detail from above, while others will have to onsight it?

 

Or are you arguing that FAs from the ground up are more honorable than those done on rappel? Might not ground-up bolted routes suffer from less-than-ideal placements or unsafe runouts? There was some discussion a while back about retrobolted or rap-bolted routes providing more thoughtfully-protected climbing.

[slothrop]

snoboy said:

The Grand Wall was climbed twenty years before Cruel Shoes... kinda complicates things don't it?

 

Bah, shows how much I know!

[fern]

slothrop said:

I guess I was thinking of honor in terms of the rock

itself, asking climbers to meet the route on its own terms<snip>

Might not ground-up bolted routes suffer from less-than-ideal

placements or unsafe runouts? There was some discussion a

while back about retrobolted or rap-bolted routes providing

more thoughtfully-protected climbing.

 

Are not the concepts touched on in these two sentences

contradictory?

 

I would argue that the person making a first ascent, ground-up

on-sight, drilling on lead was in a position of having to put

a LOT of thought into how they were protecting their climbing.

Especially if they were using a hand-drill and choosing to

not employ aid techniques (hanging from a hook). Likely they

will have been forced into limiting their bolting

options to only places where they had a reasonably handsfree

stance, stances that - in the anthropomorphic terms you have

introduced - the rock offered to them. I am certain that while

they were climbing through the intervening potentially

run-out sections they were similarily being very thoughtful.

 

Isn't this meeting the route on it's own terms? And isn't the

choice of whether or not to employ this approach to climbing

an new route the choice of the first ascentionist, and not those

who follow?

 

 

[mattp]

slothrop said:

So how can the FA's overall experience not be different than that of those who climb the cleaned, bolted route later? Is the FA's experience less honorable since he/she has studied the route in detail from above, while others will have to onsight it?

 

Of course the subsequent parties will have a different experience than the party who installs a route on rappel.

 

"Honorable" is an odd term here, but what I meant was that it seems more than a little contrived for somebody to hang on a rappel line and put a bolt in what amounts to an unnatural place just to be sure that subsequent parties cannot cheat a move. If you put a bolt at knee level when you could just as easily put it at arm's reach overhead, just about everybody who follows is going to stand there wondering "why did he put that bolt at knee level?" and very few of them are going to thank you because you allowed or forced them to make the move on their own. It is "dishonorable" in the respect that you are to a certain extent coercing them into experiencing something that wouldn't be there if you had just put the bolt in what almost everybody woud think was the sensible location, and unless you are wanting them to stand there and curse you, you must be hoping that they will overlook what you did to them.

 

You may think it will make your route more exciting to put the bolt at knee-height, but it is hard for me to understand how that could be said to be "honorable." If you want to leave a legacy that will be exciting and challenging, the honorable thing to do would be to put fewer bolts in the rock in the first place - and leave more natural excitement and challenge in the route in a more "natural" manner.

 

The ground-up first ascent may be thought more honorable if you emphasize the element of boldness that is often associated with the traditional use of the word, "honor" (think knights and stuff). However, the word also carries a very strong element of doing the right thing. If you are seeking to do the right thing by future climbers, it may well be more honorable to carefully craft a climb after preinspecting it and carefully planning every bolt placement. For the most part, you can much better do this if you are rap bolting. If you are seeking to do the right thing by the rock in that your goal is not to despoil it with unnecessary bolts, the question of whether you rap-bolted it or placed your bolts on lead seems kind of unimportant. Six bolts is six bolts and the number of bolts is more likely to increase to sixteen when you are using a power drill as opposed to a hand drill, rather than when you switch from ground-up to top-down ethics. Indeed, most of us would be quicker to resort to the use of a bolt ladder if drilling on the lead, and recently I felt compelled to place a bolt next to what turned out to be a crack when I was leading and wasn't able to garden away the moss sufficiently to find the nut placement. Thus, we may well opt for fewer bolts if we rap-bolt (again, this is assuming we're using the same drilling technology; it is also assuming that our goal is to use as few bolts as possible -- and many who rap bolt new climbs do not have this goal very hign on their list of priorities). I'm not quite sure how this relates to Fern's discussion of climbing the rock "on its' own terms."

[pope]

"Let us assume rap-bolted pitches. " Once you've elected such a strategy, there's a good chance you've also top-roped the life out of the pitch, and at that point, your ability to anticipate both the physical and mental states of an on-sight leader become impaired. This is to say, your ability to really appreciate where a future leader is going to need and want a bolt is jeopardized.

 

For this reason, you should not assume that what seems like a reasonable run-out to you will seem reasonable to a leader attempting to on-sight your route. Furthermore, the very act of rap bolting is an admission that adventure/bold leads are not for you. Why pretend you're a bold climber and create a run-out through the crux? If you had wanted a bold route, you would have bolted it on lead. You say you want to create a bold route for those who follow in your steps? Buddy, that ain't what sport climbing is all about. Sport climbing is about difficult, gymnastically demanding moves made in complete safety. Stop pretending. Just put the bolt right in the middle of the crux. You guys who are arguing about whether the bolt should be at the knees or by the hip.......well, in my opinion, there is very little real difference.

 

Now, if you don't put the bolt by the crux, if the bolt is situated so that parties routinely wing off with the bolt below their feet there's a chance it will endure many more falls and stresses, possibly rendering it weak due to work hardening. If you intentionally engineer a route in this manner, perhaps you'd be liable in case of an accident. Maybe MattP can comment on this concern.

 

Now, I don't give a shit whether somebody cheats and aids through the crux of a difficult free climb, using the chicken bolt. He is only cheating himself. He may spray to me about it, but I probably won't listen in the first place. On the other hand, I'd hate to face multiple parties rapping off a route just because the rap-placed bolts made for too much of a run-out.

 

 

 

[Cairns]

fern said:

slothrop said:

I guess I was thinking of honor in terms of the rock

itself, asking climbers to meet the route on its own terms<snip>

Might not ground-up bolted routes suffer from less-than-ideal

placements or unsafe runouts? There was some discussion a

while back about retrobolted or rap-bolted routes providing

more thoughtfully-protected climbing.

 

Are not the concepts touched on in these two sentences

contradictory?

 

I would argue that the person making a first ascent, ground-up

on-sight, drilling on lead was in a position of having to put

a LOT of thought into how they were protecting their climbing.

Especially if they were using a hand-drill and choosing to

not employ aid techniques (hanging from a hook). Likely they

will have been forced into limiting their bolting

options to only places where they had a reasonably handsfree

stance, stances that - in the anthropomorphic terms you have

introduced - the rock offered to them. I am certain that while

they were climbing through the intervening potentially

run-out sections they were similarily being very thoughtful.

 

Isn't this meeting the route on it's own terms? And isn't the

choice of whether or not to employ this approach to climbing

an new route the choice of the first ascentionist, and not those

who follow?

 

 

Anyone done Sunday Whites or p1 of Genius Loci at Squamish? I think they were bolted on lead. Last bolt on Genius Loci has no hanger and is not placed for comfort, either. How it was put in on lead is a mystery to me, but maybe the missing hanger tells a story. The rest of the pitch is well equipped.

[Al_Pine]

Thank you all for your replies. They definitely give me some ideas to chew on.

 

A couple comments:

 

My idea does not have the intention of making the move more scary (though it undoubtably would) but of making it a "mandatory" free move. The reason I would do this is because, from the perspective of climbing, I value these routes. Ascending any route with gear right at the cruxes is basically a done deal before you even start (once you get over the totally contrived convention of never yarding on your gear) You're gonna ascend it, the question is only in what style. Mandatory free climbing makes it more of a challengem, the outcome uncertain.

 

Of course, this would be a bit silly for single-pitch sport climbs, since really noone cares about "ascending" or reaching the chains, the style is more important there. If you said this sounded like a stupid idea while envisioning single-pitch, then I totally agree with you. I'm still not so sure on a big multipitch linkup, or something with a summit involved.

 

Many comments were to the effect that a bolt being lower than perhaps "natural" would be contrived. That is a good point; however, I do feel that once you start talking about rap-bolt protected free climbing, you're already pretty damn deep into the "contrived" neighborhood. As I stated in a previous post, my proposed strategy would just shift the contrivance solely to the bolter, and remove the contrivance from the climbing.

 

Comments on "why keep people off of your route" are valid too. If this crux was the hardest move on the entire route (by even a single letter grade) , I don't think I'd intentionally employ this strategy. Well, maybe I would if it was basically the end of the climb.

 

Pope's comment on the bolt taking a bunch of falls got me thinking. As I implied above, I wouldn't want to make this point a "stopper" for upward progress, but if it indeed turned out that way, not only would you have a lot of people winging on it, you'd also have people lowering or rapping off of it .