chucK Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Haven't done this in a while! Suppose we're talking a multipitch slab route, established long ago. It is climbed by people, but is not popular. The whole thing is sparsely bolted. Though easy, the first pitch takes a circuitous route to the anchors (probably to utilize available natural pro). Now say that a direct route straight up to the first anchors is not really that difficult, just proless. Say someone bolts that direct route to the first anchors. This new line in almost no fashion overlaps the original line. It's just a shorcut to the first anchors, though the number of pro bolts on this new first pitch equals or exceeds the number of pro bolts on the entire original multipitch. Would you consider this a case of retrobolting? Where would this land in your scale of ethical acceptance? I will not reveal whether or not this is "based on a true story". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Sounds like new routing to me but if the first pitch has way more bolts than the original route, might that not draw suckers into trouble when they expect the rest of the climb to have similar pro levels? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I am hardly a confirmed enemy of bolting, but if a leader who's competent at the route's overall grade could handle the first pitch without the bolts, and engaging in the bolting would substantially alter the character of the entire route, then that's two strikes against the potentially hypothetical bolts. The other factor to consider is whether having abundant bolting down low might lure in a leader who's likely to have his ass handed to him on the upper pitches. Heavy bolting also seems pretty contrary to the longstanding "ethic" of slab climbing, in which the mental fortitude required to run it out has been a much greater "part of the game" than in sport climbing, where for most of us the challenge is way more physical than mental most of the time. I like sport-climbing, but to me bolting the hell out of slabs is a lot like chipping jugs onto a sport route - in both cases you are eliminating the central challenge of the discipline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmace Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Ive climbed many routes with descriptions.."upper pitches are run out, dirty, never climbed, no pro.." If a leader gets his as handed to him next time he will look at pro availabilty before setting out..proly a good thing. The only problem is if your new bolts affect the original meandering pitch, if so you may have to leave the last bit to the anchors as pro decided by the FA team. In that case you have a mixed sport route which seem to be on the low end of peoples likes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 I think the rub here is single pitch versus the whole multipitch as a unit. With respect to single pitch, right off the ground to the first anchors, these would be two distinct pitches. "New routing" as G-spot offered. However, if considering the multipitch as a whole, as is JayB's take, then this may be adding fixed pro to the route. This intrepretation is muddled though since one would actually be following a different path for this small portion of the route. Surely one would cry "foul" if someone added bolts directly on the original path. Howeever, if you take a shortcut that is easier but only possible because you chose to use technology that the FA did not feel appropriate, does this cross the line to acceptability? I guess it might be analagous a pitch high on the classic route Epinephrine. The original pitch climbed a corner/crack/roof system (no bolts). Now there is a bolt protected path up the highly featured right wall of the book which bypasses the roof moves at which point one traverses back into the corner. If climbing via the original protectable corner, the bolts will not intersect your route. Is this "retrobolting"? Or a "variation"? Both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I am hardly a confirmed enemy of bolting, but if a leader who's competent at the route's overall grade could handle the first pitch without the bolts, and engaging in the bolting would substantially alter the character of the entire route, then that's two strikes against the potentially hypothetical bolts. The other factor to consider is whether having abundant bolting down low might lure in a leader who's likely to have his ass handed to him on the upper pitches. Heavy bolting also seems pretty contrary to the longstanding "ethic" of slab climbing, in which the mental fortitude required to run it out has been a much greater "part of the game" than in sport climbing, where for most of us the challenge is way more physical than mental most of the time. I like sport-climbing, but to me bolting the hell out of slabs is a lot like chipping jugs onto a sport route - in both cases you are eliminating the central challenge of the discipline. ___________________________________________________________ Good points. From my view, I'm all over the map on this, and mostly suspect that I'm not right in my views either. I had inadvertantly retrobolted one of the boldest leads done 20 years ago in this area: - which was also lead by me on FA which was just your basic semi-unprotected no pro pitch rated XXX cause if you fall you're just plain fucked route. Unrepeated for 13 years as far as I'm aware. I'd totally forgotten I'd FAed it, then but in some bolts and then Opdycke reminded me of the earlier crazy lead. Somebody was too Fuckin*g stupid (later determined by Moi to be Moi) to have brought a bolt kit I think was the final determination. Point is, nobody climbed it for 13 years. Even I was not so stupid to take another shot at it. After the bolts were in, it really is fun and it gets done fairly often now. Having an additional route there helps spread out the people too, so a good thing all the way around. (For THIS area and THIS route I'm saying) I still get stupidity and boldness mixed up to this day in my personal life. For instance, what is trying to swim across the Columbia river when you have not ever swum that far in your life, but think you should just try it anyway, although the water is a "bit" cold and moving a "bit" fast? Is that bold, or is that just F*ucking stupid? I'm leaning towards both right now. Sometimes I can't decide about routes like that either. For me, if your theroretical route was a rarely climbed route, where "the early pioneers" really did not want bolt as they could not find stances for 1/4 bolts and they were barely hanging on and heading to the next little piss poor crack which may or may not take a #2 RP and they are praying for survival, and the resulting piece of crap wandering poorly protected route was still there: basically unclimbed, getting dirty and avoided by rational people. I'd say, bolt your variation for sure. It's a variation, not rebolting "the actual" POS route. BUT, if it's a classic or popular climb, a bold and interesting route that will challenge any leader and make you think: that action would be wrong IMO and of course make some small semi-crazy faction call for Jihad on YOUR ass. Period. (not me I really don't give that much of a fuck) Nobody likes to be on the other end of a Fatwa, so I'd let sleeping dawgs just lie. Best to actually talk to the old timers who are most frequently inhabiting the area. Last time I accidentally "retro-bolted" a route (coincidence only 30 feet left of my earlier accidental rebolt) the bolts were whacked within a week and somebody issued a Fatwa. Really. I heard through the grapevine the retrobolters would be dead if they caught up with them. Technically, someone else put the bolts in and I led it (I actually thought it might go all natual). I'd been eying that line for 15 years, when my buddies said they were going to head out and do it they were kind enough to invite me in on the adventure. But evidently someone did the FA earlier that year, all natural, way runout and not repeated that I've seen without our bolts (which were gone after 4 ascents or so. Your call. I find it very confusing just thinking of my own shit like the storys I just recounted. I can't make a call on a theretical route some where I can't even identify. Who the hell really knows? I'll bet that theres plenty of crazy Fuckers up your way who may be pissed about it, but I'm just guessing of course based on what happens around here. Anyhow, ask the real old f*ucks in your area. Probably best. But I suspect you'd do a hell of a job and improve the damn thing big time is what I'm thinking. It may be safe to say that if you aske 20 climbers this kind of question you can expect to recieve 21 strident and different opinions of what is the correct course to persue. Someone will be pissed, even if they shouldn't be. "So be sure you're right, and then go ahead". (Fess Parker as Dave Crockett) Good luck Chuck K! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 bill, we can always count on you to bring a little dose of rockclimbing.com logic to the site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 If its totally unclimbed rock, bolt away! Be sure about it, then its up to you. Personally a dirty poorly unprotected runout slab that got done a hundred years ago by someone who did not have the tecnology or ethics to rap bolt, and never gets climbed. Is a waste of rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I guess it might be analagous a pitch high on the classic route Epinephrine. The original pitch climbed a corner/crack/roof system (no bolts). Now there is a bolt protected path up the highly featured right wall of the book which bypasses the roof moves at which point one traverses back into the corner. If climbing via the original protectable corner, the bolts will not intersect your route. Is this "retrobolting"? Or a "variation"? Both? Isn't it a variation? It deviates from the original path. Maybe I don't understand exactly what "retrobolting" means--help out the ignorant here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanman Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Perhaps a good scrub/clean on the natural (though meandering) first pitch might help to better ascertain the quality of the pitch. If infrequently done, it may be better than first (or second, or third) thought. Might be time well spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 bill, we can always count on you to bring a little dose of rockclimbing.com logic to the site You are welcome I'm sure! (spoken in a Steve Martin as 'Wild and Crazy Guy" voice) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Are you still thinking about your own shit, and confused? Try high fibre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Retrobolting definition? Still ignorant here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 To retro bolt a route means to add bolts to an existing route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Here's another hypothetical. Say a multipitch route was bolted and graded "X" by the FA team. When the FA team is interviewed, it turns out that they bolted it so sparingly because that was the total number of bolts that they had at the time. When someone comes along and asks for permission to retro-bolt it, giving the route an "R" rating, one member of the FA team says "Sure!" but his partner in history says "HELL NO!" Do you need both member's permission to add bolts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Lebowski Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Whoever lead the horrorshow decides, Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Whoever lead the horrorshow decides, Man. And here is a second-hand quote regarding retrobolting at Darrnington, from a climber of committing slab routes: "I have to add this point. Duane Constantino told via email and a telephone call several years ago that he did condone replacing his original 1/4 inch bolts on all old climbs BUT he felt the commitment should be there and not to ADD other bolts to the climbs HE personally drilled and led. I discussed this with DW, but he felt a safety factor must be added so the "new" climbers would come to Darrington and climb. This safety factor idea was spawned by MP and DW so the forest service would see user numbers and keep the road open. Any one can say I am not being truthful but a call or email to Duane will tell it like it is. He is all for keeping the lines original and bolt replacement only at or near the original placement. Duane and I climbed together for a long time and I know the commitment his is willing to submit himself to and I also know the commitment others are not willing to take. Sisu" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 You want to change a X for and R? Nobody owns the rock, not you, not them, it would me best to try your damnest to get both to approve, but in the end its real up to you. If the FA did not do a resposible bolting job, Fuck em. As long as you are fucking with the route, you might as well do it right, no X, R, or PG 13 routes. Its just a waist of rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I disagree Kevbone, FA sanctity is a long standing custom in climbing. If you want to put up well protected bolted routes, that's your right, but altering an existing route is not a case of "do what you want." Retrobolting without FA party consent and widespread community support is a clear path to bolt wars, and then we all lose. ChucK's original question was not about retrobolting though, rather it was the establishment of an alternate bolt protected first pitch. Personally, I think Bill Coe's musings were pretty spot on. It would be worth scrubbing up the original line and considering it's merits before adding an alternate (which will no doubt become more popular). The new line however, would not be the same thing as retrobolting. The issue of "sandwiching" routes might be more the question here. Certainly the nobility and nature of the original line plays a role in this consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvallisclimb Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 You want to change a X for and R? Nobody owns the rock, not you, not them, it would me best to try your damnest to get both to approve, but in the end its real up to you. If the FA did not do a resposible bolting job, Fuck em. As long as you are fucking with the route, you might as well do it right, no X, R, or PG 13 routes. Its just a waist of rock. kevbone- i see you post a bit regarding the safety of routes, and how "dangerous" run out routes are just stupid.... there are plenty of extremely well protected climbs out there that you can do. just cuz they scare you doesnt mean they are wrong. run out x rated climbs are not a waste they are the testpeices and adventure climbs that some of us strive for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Lebowski Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Pretty sweet troll, though. Ya gotta admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 I agree it is an adventure climbing poorly protected routes, I personaly would never touch another persons route, even though I want to and have thought about it. I still think a bad bolting job is a waste of rock considering it might be a great climb with great moves, but it does not protect and the risk of falling and getting hurt so you cant climb anymore, makes it a shitty climb. And it gets overgrown and nobody climbs and it becomes wasted rock. This is the case with several climbs in my area. I believe it is the responsibility of the FA to think about other climbers who will follow in there footsteps and climb the route who might not be as good or dont have a topo or beta. Putting up routes is a big deal and carries a huge responsibility. Doing a shitty job is unsatifatory in my book. Its all about having fun and lying in a hospital beacause you took a bad fall on a poorly protected climb is not having fun. I have put up over a dozen climbs and the I like to think I think about the other climbers who will climb this route after I have left the area. I like to focus on the movement of the climb with out having to fret about falling into a ledge because I was to lazy to add pro. This of course is my opinion! And we all have our own reasons for climbing. I am aware that I dont have to climb the runout climb and chances are I wont. I still think it is a waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 I like to focus on the movement of the climb with out having to fret about falling into a ledge because I was to lazy to add pro. I like to focus on the movement of a slab climb without having to stop to clip, or trip over, closely contrived bolts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 (edited) G-spotter, no one is forcing you to clip all the bolts, remember the bolts are place there for one reason, to keep you from decking. If you get hurt, you dont climb, end of story. Edited June 11, 2006 by kevbone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.