Bolt placement

[Al_Pine]

Now.

 

It does seem like most of you favor making sure the crux is bolted as safely as possible. I think this puts us squarely back into question #2, the bolt ladder question.

 

Suppose this crux is continuous. Suppose it "guards" lots of climbing above. Are you cool with a sequence of bolts close enough together that you can clip one while locking off on the one below? Or should I bolt it the "dangerous" way a la #1, and require people to make the moves?

[mattp]

Pope is correct that you can not always (I' can't) correctly read a pitch while on a top rope and you can't completely tell where the subsequent leader is going to want/need pro, but I think that on multipitch climbs, just as many or more mistakes will be made by developeing from the ground up. They'll be different types of "mistakes," though: unnecessary hanging belays, half-pitches heading in the wrong direction only to force an awkward traverse to get to the next pitch, bolts placed where there was a good stance and the climbing looked intimidating immediately above but turns out to be easy, or bolts placed next to a crack which was filled with filth and invisible to the first ascent party, etc.

 

As to the bolt ladder, it is not a choice of putting the bolts so close together that you can lock off on one and reach the next or putting them so far apart that you have to make the moves. For an example of this, try a Layton Kor bolt ladder some time. If subsequent parties aren't using those stupid stiffy dogbone draws, they can stand in their slings and use tension if needed as they stand up and reach a bolt that may be over 6 feet overhead - much too high to reach from being "locked off."

[slothrop]

Fern, I agree that leaders bolting on lead will certainly be focused on getting good gear, for obvious reasons, but I know that I don't always make the best route-finding or gear-placement decisions when onsighting something. Maybe you're mistaking survival instinct for thoughtfulness. Matt brings up some ways in which ground-up onsight bolting might leave you with a less well-thought-out route. When pre-inspecting a route, you gain some larger perspective that could be useful in placing bolts more judiciously.

 

Establishing a bolted route ground-up and climbing such a route are completely different experiences. The first ascentionists are creating something, and spend much more time, thought, and effort protecting the route. All the followers have to do is clip the bolts, not place them or think much about where they are. They don't have a choice, since the first ascentionists (not the rock itself, to anthropomorphize some more) have decided where you can place gear! If someone's going to bolt a route, they might as well take the time and effort to create a climb that's got thoughtful protection, since they're already mediating between the rock and the climber (contriving) and thus taking away from the purity of the experience.

 

I'll agree with Matt that it's odd to contrive bolt placements in order to force the crux to be freed. But if you can do it, say by placing a bolt at a nice stance three feet lower, and the crux is not a one-move wonder that will have outmatched parties winging on the bolt year after year, why not force the move? I think it's interesting to be faced with such a challenge.

 

That's what I mean by being "honorable" -- facing up to a challenge that forces you to be bold. But I can see that there are more questions to consider when bolting a route, since the effects of your choices last as long as the bolts in the rock.

 

Edited September 27, 2003 by slothrop

[slothrop]

pope said:

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.

 

Gee, pope, isn't it up to the first ascentionist to decide what their climb "is all about"? Isn't it still bold to face a 30-foot runout, even if you've done the route before, on TR or otherwise? Wouldn't you prefer a climb that requires some boldness and uses fewer bolts?

 

pope said:

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.

 

Has anyone been sued yet for their bolt-placing decisions? I betcha Fred Beckey would be in some deep shit for all those 1/4" buttonheads and rusty pitons...

[mattp]

Slop, I more or less agree with Pope on this boldness thing. It is not nearly as bold to lead that 30 foot runout after you have preinspected/rehearsed/cleaned and bolted the pitch on rappel. Whether you want public badass recognition or just your own sense of accomplishment at having been truly bold, you really gotta do it from ground up. You can only proclaim yourself partly bold if you made the redpoint after rehearsing or preinspecting a climb.

 

As to the liability question, I am aware of nobody who has ever been even named in such a suit, let alone successfully sued for wrongful bolt placement. Thus far, I think, it has been assumed that rock climbing is so clearly and obviously dangerous that anybody who starts up a climb has assumed responsibility for taking that risk. The only contrary case that I remember is the Black Diamond harness nearly 20 years ago. There may have been one or two others, but even in the case of accidents on guided climbs I don't think it is easy to hold the guide service, whose job it is to safeguard their clients, responsible. Lets hope this doesn't change, because otherwise we'll all be lining up to sue each other every time there is an accident - and we'll be suing not only the first ascent party, but the Forest Service who didn't keep us from going there in the first place, our belayer who should have hopped as he caught us, and the party in front of us who recommened we skip that troublesome clip or who should have warned us about that loose block. We'd then have to purchase liability insurance and be prepared to show "proof of insurance" to the climbing ranger in order to go climbing.

[slothrop]

I wasn't referring to the boldness of the first ascentionist, but to the boldness that the climb requires. Again, the experience of the FA is going to be totally different, and who can say if the FA really didn't hang on a hook when placing each bolt, etc. blah blah blah. I guess I'm thinking of the climb as a creation rather than as the experience of the FA. You can tell all the stories you want about how bold you are, but the climb will be there longer than you.

[mattp]

Sorry Slop. I misunderstood. You ask a good question that is closely related to Chuck's initial queery: what do folks think about deliberately trying to make a climb bold (i.e. scary)?

[pope]

Sloth Boy said:

Gee, pope, isn't it up to the first ascentionist to decide what their climb "is all about"?

 

Pope pops off: Sure, why not? I'm just responding to the question of whether a bolt should be deliberately placed several feet below the crux, in case anybody cares to listen.

 

Isn't it still bold to face a 30-foot runout, even if you've done the route before, on TR or otherwise?

 

Pope pops off: Not nearly as bold as dealing with it on sight and on the lead, especially if you are drilling as you go. Who said anything about a 30 foot run-out in the first place?

 

Wouldn't you prefer a climb that requires some boldness and uses fewer bolts?

 

Pope pops off: I didn't understand that we were discussing the issue of how many bolts belong on a pitch. I thought we were considering the question of whether a bolt should be rap-placed deliberately below the crux to prevent aiding/cheating, or to create an artificial element of boldness in a rap-bolted sport route. My answer is that I think that is even more contrived than rap bolting in the first place. If you've decided to protect the crux with a bolt, and you're going to do it on rap, I think the bolt is perfectly placed if it can be clipped from a fairly secure/relaxed stance that is as close as possible to the crux. In the long run, it makes for a safer climb. I've heard of bolts shearing after several years of protecting redpoint attempts at Smith. Why abuse the equipment and take a chance on your life, if you're going to practice a style of climbing that is completely bolt-dependent, a style that encourages pushing your limits by jumping on something which you know will spit you off? These kind of climbs, while I think it's a shame that they exist, should keep with the tradition of simulating the kind of climbing one may experience down at the gym.

[/b]