Bolt Nazis

[selkirk]

If all beta was perfect and everyone had climbed the route in the "ideal" fashion the bolts wouldn't be needed at all. It must be nice living in a perfect world.

 

Seeing as that isn't the case, and seeing as they do still get used by people who don't realize that there is a gear belay above (is it 15m or 15 ft? That's a huge difference, and is the gear belay piece specific or is it reasonable to be able to build a belay there with whatever is left over from the previous 5.8 dihedral / 5.7 face pitch?).

 

And just because It's been climbed countless times how it is now, doesn't mean that belaying from those bolts is safe or that they should be left. People get away with all kinds of unsafe practices in climbing because 95% of the time all of our ropes and gear is purely backup, and is never tested. God forbid those things should take a direct fall.

 

Oh, and I'd love to know how replacing 2 bad bolts with 2 good bolts qualifies as "connecting the silver dots". Doesn't Orbit effectively connect the trees for the first half of the route anyway? Would you like me to paint them so they're not shiny

 

I have yet to be convinced that

Snowcreek wall doesn't attract inexperienced climbers. That inexperienced climbers (myself included) don't end up using those bolts. That pulling the bolts entirely or leaving them as they are is sufficiently safe. Or that replacing the bolts with good hardware in any way changes the experience of the route.

[mattp]

Do you think those bolts are in a good location for a belay?

[selkirk]

Those bolts are probably 45 m out from the bucket/tree above the 5.9 finger cracks above a slightly runnout face. On a 50m rope, that's about where I'm starting to look for a good belay. If the next belay ledge is reachable with a 50m rope, and is protectable, with what would be left over from a stanard rack, after protecting the preceeding pitch then the bolts aren't necessary.

 

I don't think it's safe to belay from those bolts, and no one seems to contest that. It's certainly not the most comfortable place for a belayy, and may not be the "ideal" place. However the reality is that there is a reasonable amount of beta pointing towards using those bolts as a belay, and even without beta, a completely reasonable set of decisions leads to belaying from those bolts. Further people are using them to belay from as they aren't aware that there is (may be?) a better location 15 ft above. I know the beta the folks in my party had last year pointed to those bolts, and we had a pretty broad range of experience levels, and had done a reasonable amount of reading.

 

Until you've been on a route, beta is often less the clear, so I dont' know about you, but I always take it with a grain of salt and try to make sure that the path I'm taking, and the decisions i'm making are a reasonable, in addition to hopefully following the beta.

 

(I don't actually remember seeing the better ledge immediately above, as at that point I had just left the previous (marginal) belay, and was focused on moving upwards).

 

Do I think they're in a good place for a belay? Maybe not.

Will I use them in the future? No. Like Pope, I'll take/preserve the appropriate gear for the next belay, and hope it's only 15 ft above.

Does that mean that people won't continue to belay from them out of lack of knowledge about the route? Nope

[ScottP]

You obviously don't like them, but you don't seem to like the idea of no belay in that spot either.

Are you going to remove them?

Are you going to replace them?

[selkirk]

My preference would be to replace them. They may not be ideal, and they may not be needed by anyone who's read the "ideal" beta and/or climbed the route before.

 

However, I'd really hate to see somebody get fucked expecting to find bolts, and instead finding a blank corner above a slightly runnout face with marginal pro, not having the appropriate gear for a belay at the stance above. (If their rope reaches that far).

[kevbone]

replacing existing anchors is not a climbing crime. I cant imagine folks being pissed about it. All the climbers who bitch about it on the ground would for sure use them and clip them.

My vote, replace them. It would be a service to the climbing community.

 

We are talking about anchors, right?

[selkirk]

Yep. Two belay bolts. (Was at the end of 3rd or 4th pitch depending on how you break it up).

 

The argument seems to be whether they are necessary for a belay. If you knew to look for it, and knew to save right gear, there is supposed to be a gear bealy 15 ft (or meters?) higher. (I can't personally verify the belay and don't know whether a 50m rope would stretch to it).

 

Part of the problem is that there's quite a variety of beta floating around and some of it points to using those bolts as the belay.

[catbirdseat]

Selkirk, I suggest that you go climb that route again and then see what you think.

[G-spotter]

I haven't climbed this route for 8 years but I'm gonna give you my opinion anyway. I did not belay on any rickety old bolts and I did not take 3 #2 Camalots and yet I survived and built safe gear belays. If the shitty old bolts get chopped then fewer people will make the same mistake that Selkirk made and if they are left in more people will make the same mistake.

[chucK]

Pope endorses bolts!

 

G-spotter agrees with Mattp!

 

What next? Fairweather chiming in to praise the Enchantments quota system?

 

Truly a breakthrough thread! No staying the course here.

 

And there's a good belay about 10 feet below those bolts.

[mattp]

I don’t think we’ll likely all agree here because the standard reasons for/against bolting get particularly complicated in this case. A devotion to maintaining the style of the first ascent might dictate that we keep the bolts in the same location as they were originally installed, but most of us here agree that location is not optimal. A desire to keep bolting to a minimum on a "trad" climb might suggest we simply pull them because they are not necessary, but many here feel that even if they personally don’t need them somebody else might and for safety’s sake we should have those bolts. A standard for safe and sane bolt belays might appeal to some but will drive others to call for chopping.

 

I’d say that we should go up there as a group, string fixed lines from bottom to top, and talk about it. No doubt, clear heads will prevail.

[mattp]

By the way, while were at it, let's create that great beta that Selkirk thinks might solve all of this.

 

I've added Orbit to my MaryJane topo, using a photo I found on Eric and Lucie's bus trip and my memory of this climb from having done it years ago. It gets a little complicated around where I show that second belay, and I can't quite remember exactly where the bolts in question are. I think they are up where I show face climbing, after stepping right under a roof - are they not?

 

(If you want to maintain the adventure associated with this classic climb, look away.)

 

[kevbone]

Did the FA put the bolted anchor in? IF so, then replacing them would be fine. And there would be no mistake in belaying there. Either way, its all good.

[chucK]

A lot of people are assuming that it is a bolted ANCHOR. I don't think that is the case. I think it's two protection bolts.

 

I haven't done the route in a while either, but I doubt the bolts are closer than 5' to each other. Someone on this thread indicated that too. Sounds like you've been up there lately Selkirk. About how close together are these two bolts?

 

My two Kramar guidebooks depict the bolts as protection bolts, not together. My two Whitelaw guides (Brooks and Whitelaw and the Weekend one) depict the bolts right next to each other, like a belay. I think they goofed, but I could be wrong.

 

I don't have the latest Kramar, the Smoot book, and don't have the Nelson-Potterfield with me. Anybody with access to these want to chime in? Does Kearney have Orbit in it?

 

We really should go climb this soon to end controversy!

 

And here's the definitive Orbit route description.

[kevbone]

If you want to replace them, just go do it! Definately dont ask about it here. To many different opinions.

[Mos_Chillin]

Yes! Just blast out there and do what the voices in your head tell you to

Besides, opinions just confuse us simple folk

[bwrts]

Huh? smoke another one girl. I never drew a topo, but I am sure FB drew several 44 years ago (on napkins, etc.)

I don't smoke.

I never assumed you were even capable of drawing a topo.

Now go to the Social Security office, pick up your check, and let the kids argue about bolts.

Bite:

 

Yeah, right on the crack.

 

so, why do you think I am old? Because I have rock climbed for 15yrs...omfg. perhaps I started at a young age.

[bwrts]

A lot of people are assuming that it is a bolted ANCHOR. I don't think that is the case. I think it's two protection bolts.

 

I haven't done the route in a while either, but I doubt the bolts are closer than 5' to each other.

 

I believe you are right. Based on when the route was climbed and the distance between the bolts. The misconseption is the bolts are an anchor cuz they are somewhat close to each other. Yank the bolts and end this blabber.

But, really, the bolts should just be yanked without upgrading... modern widgets will keep you safe up there, honestly its not even the crux. Smoot says the crux is fitting more than two people here (if you belay here).

 

Selkirk, I am not saying SCW is not an inexperienced climber attraction...F'n A its the most obviously significant feature and w/outerspace attraction of course people of all egos/experience flock there. However, I would never recommend orbit to a moderate leader before outerspace. Orbit is harder overall and the "old" bolts add to the spice, but if this socalled community of climbers is in agreement, Selkirk, go pull the bolts and put some nice painted ones in for your pleasure. IN the old holes cuz the new bolt will be bigger. Dang, why don't you even put 1/2" bolts in so, the future climbers can forever climb "safely."

[chucK]

If I remember correctly, the only protection at the tree behind the block belay is slinging those trees. I think that if you're up there with the bolt-sinking hardware, you oughta sink a station in by those trees, cause what would happen if some guy was up there with just dogbone draws. No slings, no anchor. It's an invitation to tragedy.

[selkirk]

If I remember correctly, the only protection at the tree behind the block belay is slinging those trees. I think that if you're up there with the bolt-sinking hardware, you oughta sink a station in by those trees, cause what would happen if some guy was up there with just dogbone draws. No slings, no anchor. It's an invitation to tragedy.

 

Do you really want to get into the the "Is it better to sling and damage a tree, than throw in 2 bolts for an anchor discussion?" I can go there if you'd really like to

[catbirdseat]

If I remember correctly, the only protection at the tree behind the block belay is slinging those trees. I think that if you're up there with the bolt-sinking hardware, you oughta sink a station in by those trees, cause what would happen if some guy was up there with just dogbone draws. No slings, no anchor. It's an invitation to tragedy.

I detect just a hint of sarcasm here.

[hawkeye69]

if there are existing 1/4"ers on the route, why not replace the EXISTING ones with 3/8"ers?

 

oh sorry, this is about wanting to rant about bolts. not about making any sense out of things...

[selkirk]

if there are existing 1/4"ers on the route, why not replace the EXISTING ones with 3/8"ers?

 

That's a very insightful question.

[G-spotter]

if there are existing 1/4"ers on the route, why not replace the EXISTING ones with 3/8"ers?

 

oh sorry, this is about wanting to rant about bolts. not about making any sense out of things...

 

if you read the thread, you'd know it's cause the existing bolts are trash in the wrong place. better to remove than to replace and compound the original mistake.

[selkirk]

"compound the original mistake"

 

First off, how dare you question Fred's choice of bolt locations! That's sacrilage, and calls for immediate bannination!!

 

Second, compounds implies that it makes the problem worse. Which it doesn't. It would solve the problem of a an unsafe belay, with minimal impact. It would still serve as a bottleneck if multiple parties were on the route. Solving that would take another bolt or two