cocaine connection icicle buttress bolts

[markwebster]

Hi,

I'm writing regarding the runout bolts on the 5.7 Cocaine Connection route on Icicle buttress. I tried to lead it this weekend and backed off halfway through the 30 foot runout past the third bolt. I've been focusing on cracks this season, and I'm rusty at friction.

What's really sick, and kind of sad is that I put that route up myself back around 1983 with Mike Beldin. Mike drilled about 2 of the bolts. (the guide book is wrong, and yes, Victor knows).

We led it from the ground up, no rappel cleaning or bolting or previewing. We carried a hand drill and a wire brush. We built it with 1/4 inch bolts, which have been replaced by someone, thank you.

 

My question for the climbing community at large is, should I add a few bolts (2 or three) to prevent a possible broken leg or worse? My understanding of retro-bolting is that the first ascensionist is the only one who can do it...and that's me.

 

I was talking to a young free solo artist and he said that my thinking is wrong. He said that the route has become a standard, and the runouts are accepted and that my adding bolts to it would be wrong.

 

It is true that the climber I was then, and the climber I am now are two different people. I was young, hot and bold back then. But if it's my choice, I say the route is dangerous.

 

My feeling is that there are far too many cliffs that have been basically destroyed by young primadonnas like I was back then. Look at the pinnacles, sunset slab, or Slender Thread, Cajun Queen at the top. So much excellent rock basically off limits to beginning climbers because they were put up with runnouts.

 

Can we have a little common sense here?

 

Any thoughts?

[G-spotter]

Hi,

 

My question for the climbing community at large is, should I add a few bolts (2 or three)..?

 

No

 

The route is not unduly runout for the grade and is not a problem for a 5.7 leader.

[Rad]

You put up the route so you should be allowed to make the call.

 

Icicle bolting practices are all over the map, and both your original route and a proposed better-protected route would be within the scope of styles in the area. This also suggests you should be justified in whatever you choose.

 

How long until Raindawg chimes in???

[Weekend_Climberz]

Maybe the usage of the namesake of said route dilluted your fears enough to allow you to send said route sans bolts. Maybe, now that you're a bit beyond that stage in your life it's a good idea to add a few bolts to prevent a possible injury. Is there a history of accidents on this route? I still think considering how long the route has existed in it's current state should definately be part of your equation on retro'n it, at least as much as safety. My $.02

[roboboy]

No

 

The route is not unduly runout for the grade and is not a problem for a 5.7 leader.

 

Agreed. I'm not a very bold leader and I don't have a problem leading that. Leave it alone. That's my vote anyway.

[counterfeitfake]

I haven't done the route in a while but I remember the line on the slab being pretty indistinct, and having the option of using some cracks or some bushes as supplements to the bolts. Anyone else have this experience?

 

Also, this was one of my very first trad leads and I don't remember being scared. Not saying that I think this is the final word on the topic...

Edited June 25, 2007 by counterfeitfake

[catbirdseat]

The problem with Cocaine Connection is that people are supposed to use it to access Cocaine Crack above, but instead they continue up R&D and create a jam up (at least that's the way I regard it. With more bolts, even more people will go that way and the first pitch of R&D, which is trad, will fall into near disuse. If indeed the idea is to access Cocaine Crack, 5.10a, then such people ought to be able to handle the run out.

[dmuja]

Whats the possibilities for trad pro on the route? If we're voting, I say no to more bolts as well. The pro aught to keep you from dying, not from getting hurt - I think anyway. Just add "R" in the guide book if its not already there.

[ken4ord]

For me I would say in the end it is your call though, personally I think the route should stay as it is for reasons stated above.

[rat]

it's simply not true that "many cliffs", like peshastin, have been "basically destroyed by young primadonnas". the peshastin routes you mention are respected classics and while not beginner routes are "safer" now than ever, thanks to the two freds' bolt replacement efforts. i would argue that there are far more well-protected easy routes now than ever.

 

runout climbing is a skill. obviously you once had that skill. why shit on the route simply because you've lost that skill and/or chosen not to take those risks anymore?

 

[mattp]

I too have been climbing this route for many years and I don’t really have a strong vote either way but I think the 25 year history of the route argues at least somewhat in favor of leaving it alone. There are other “comfortably” bolted 5.7 routes in the canyon now, and my guess is that adding bolts there would generate enough of a stir that it is not worth it.

 

That said, I think we should recognize that the discussion here is probably not reflective of what most climbers actually think. Yes, a 5.7 climber can lead that route - when it is dry - but I’d be willing to guess that if you stood by with a clipboard, you would have found more than half who have climbed that route over the last 20 years said it was a bit scary and they would not have objected to another bolt or two. I bet the number is 80% (wink) if you asked them immediately upon reaching the belay instead of when they are comfortably behind a keyboard and given an opportunity to show how “pure” they are in a forum where to suggest you would like to see any more bolts in this world is going to draw snickers or worse. This doesn't answer the question whether there should be more bolts, but along with the history of the route and the answers you get here I think it is part of the mix.

[Otto]

That brings up the funny scenario of a route author adding more and more bolts to his route as he gets up into his 60's, 70's and even 80's! He still wants to climb it, but just doesn't think it's quite safe enough any more, so bang bang bang!

[mattp]

There was another "funny scenario" a few years back, Otto, where somebody was quoted in a newspaper article, complaining about the proliferation of bolts on a Washington crag. I climbed one of the routes in question a few years later, recognized the bolting style, asked him about it; he confirmed that it was HE who had added the bolts. I said "Dude!" We both got a good chuckle out of it.

 

 

[AR_Guy]

Having recently been up that slab, my newbie 2 cents is that it's ok as is. I thought the climbing and pro was reasonable for the grade.

 

That being said, I agree with the general premise that the FA has the final call on changes to the route.

[Jim]

I'd have to say a big no. I went back to this last year, 18 yrs after first leading it. It can make you think a bit, but isn't that what it's all about? But the logic you mention then when John Bachar turns 60 he'll have to go back to the needles and retro-bolt those 40 ft runouts. Seriously though, I think it stands to your abilities at that time and that is just fine. It's not outrageous.

[roboboy]

I would also add that since the normal start to R&D to the left of cocaine connection is available to do the R&D route at a grade easier(5.6) with excellent natural pro, no one is obligated to use cocaine connection to do R&D. As far as runout routes, I've seen lots of others more runout at harder grades elsewhere that see lots of ascents and are even "classics".

[mattp]

In effort to further stir the pot here, I'm curious what folks would say if he wrote that he was considering moving a bolt or two rather than adding one.

 

What would you folks think if an FA of this or some other route were to say "you know, it seems to me that we put a couple of bolts in funny positions and they could be better located. I think I can do a clean job of removing a bolt, patching the hole, and reinstalling it in a better location."

[Jim]

I think I need a beer to get into sufficient detail on this.

[roboboy]

It depends on whether you are allowed to use the original bolts to climb the route in order to do the job and whether, after successfully arriving at the top, you are still interested enough to want to bother spending any more time with it

[G-spotter]

If he had wrote that he wanted to remove bolts my answer would be the same. Don't fuck around trying to "improve" a popular 25 year old route.

[Rad]

My answer also would not change: first ascentionist has final say and is to be lauded for soliciting the opinion of the community before making a decision or taking action.

[glm]

I have to give credit to the first ascensionist for taking the trouble to solicit opinions before taking any action. That's way beyond what many would do, especially in an active and passionate forum such as this one. A thick hide is oftentimes more essential here than on runout slab.

[Weekend_Climberz]

I have to give credit to the first ascensionist for taking the trouble to solicit opinions before taking any action. That's way beyond what many would do, especially in an active and passionate forum such as this one. A thick hide is oftentimes more essential here than on runout slab.

 

:tup:

[mattp]

If he had wrote that he wanted to remove bolts my answer would be the same. Don't fuck around trying to "improve" a popular 25 year old route.

 

Even if the original bolt is in the wrong place?

 

There is a climb where the FA placed a rivet, stood in stirrups, and drilled a bolt hole. Climbers cannot reach the bolt from the stance below it. Most climbers use what amounts to a CHIPPED HOLD, sticking their finger in the rivet hole, to hang on long enough to make the desperate clip. When rebolted with modern hardware, they maintained the original configuration. Good or bad?

 

I can think of another climb where the FA placed some of the bolts while hanging from a hook. These bolts are next to good hook placements but not really in the best locations for the free climber. The bolts are 20 years old and if the FA goes to replace them, should he refuse to consider the possibility that moving one or two of them a few feet from their present location might make the clips easier, reduce rope drag, or better protect a crux?

 

In another location there were two routes with two belay stations about ten or twelve feet apart. One station consisted of five quarter inchers. The other had four. The FA of the four-bolt station removed it, and replaced the five-bolt station with two new bolts. This in fact turns out to be a more sensible belay location for his route as well. Was this an "ill advised" improvement?

 

Another route has a bolt next to a crack. On first ascent, that crack did not offer pro. The gear there is just fine. Should that bolt remain sacrosanct?

[G-spotter]

This isn't one of those climbs. The bolts are in the right places and there are enough of them. The climbs you are describing, on the other hand, are not classics with bolts in good places. Do you see the difference?