kevbone Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Trip: Mt. Garfield - Infinate Bliss Date: 7/8/2007 Trip Report: Beaconben (Ben Priestly) and I climbed IB on Saturday. Man after all the talk……this is what I have to say…. The first 14 pitches are a great climb all in it self….then you wander up into a sea of loose granite with no bolts to lead you to where the anchors are. In other words we got lost. We belayed off stumps and shrubs sticking out of the wall. On the way down we did find the rappels but there is an anchor missing. Well….I don’t think it was ever installed……there is a 50 foot down climb on 5.4 terrain with 2000 feet of exposure under you. Yikes….. Question about the mandatory down climb: who would spend so much quality time drilling bolts and anchors…..just to not place one more for safety? We ended up making an extra two raps off branches sticking out of the wall….and its way more than 50 of down climbing……matter of fact I think the length of the rappels on the topo where way off. I would say were there was bolts they did a great job, but then you get way up on the route and there is about 600 of climbing with no bolts on not so good granite. You can supplement gear here and there. But the rock you are placing you cams behind sucks and would not hold the 50 foot fall you would take. I did notice 4 bolts on the first 5 pitches that where not necessary due to a crack being a coupe of feet from it. Other than that the route was very fun and well thought out. This was a very long day…..what it needs would be protection bolts on pitch 15-17 and another anchor on the rappel, which would eliminate the down climb. Oh yeah ……one more thing. Ben and I almost got hit with rock fall…..they came at us like bullets. That was nerve racking. Pictures to come. Gear Notes: 25 slings and draws, small rack Approach Notes: They say the approach is 45 mintues.....that sounds about right. It is in your face from the get go. Note: I changed title, PP Edited July 13, 2007 by Peter_Puget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high_on_rock Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Kev, what was your time car-to-car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share Posted July 8, 2007 Kev, what was your time car-to-car? We left the car at 5 am and returned at 6 pm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
512dude Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) I think I posted a similar comment here Prior Post My trip report is here. ________________________________________________ PRIOR POST Q1: Why were the lower pitches bolted so heavily? The first 5 pitches of this route follow some non-descript line up what is basically a dry waterfall for most of the year. The climbing is in the <5.5 range and is fairly straight forward but there seems to be a bolt every 4 to 10 feet! Why was it necessary to make a ladder up these pitches? I think this has aggravated some traditionalists to the point where some of the hangers have been hammered over in protest. I am not an advocate of unsafe climbing but the pattern of bolting seems ridiculous given the angle of the rock, the fall potential and the difficulty of climbing. Q2: Why are there so few bolts from pitch 13 to pitch 17? So whatever logic was used on the bolting for pitch 1-5 all went to hell on pitches 13 thru 17. Again the cimbing is all <5.5 and easy going but now there are huge stretches, 400+ feet, of shitty loose rock and very little to no pro. Although we unroped and solo'd this section for our own safety, I don't see how this is to be useful as part of a bolted 'sport climb'? The risk is greater with the poor rock quality that one might fall and if 1/2 of the bolts from pitches 1-5 were used on these upper pitches there would be minimized risk on the route for injury. Accidents impact more than the climbing party; costs of rescues and the time and effort involved are additional impacts and climbing related fatalities have their own broad reaching affects. A bolt every 50' to prevent ground fall would make the a huge difference. In addition to climbing up was the task of getting back down. We had to down climb these pitches until discovering the anchors somewhere around the 13th or 14th pitch. If we had to do this in the rain on wet rock or with an injured climber this would have increased the issues significantly. Edited July 8, 2007 by 512dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug_Hutchinson Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Bolting the non-bolted pitches with a few widely spaced bolts would keep everyone on the same path so that section would clean up a lot more. We rapped off a few small trees and bushes which resulted in very diagonal (skier's rightward) raps. Two thoughts of this much-discussed route that have not received enough mention: 1) Rockfall potential - your rope is going to dislodge rocks - it's like Beacon in that the rock on the route is solid but there is much gravel on the ledges that will never not be there. Try to do on a weekday to avoid others being on the route and wear a freaking helmet! (Party of three below us w/o helmets freaked me out). 2) The quality of this climb is stellar! In all the ethical ramblings and discussion about the non-bolted pitches, I feel that the route's quality has been downplayed/gotten lost. The first five pitches are pure glacial polished granite friction perfection (not every one's thing but unlike any other granite slabs in WA), almost all the rock is clean and solid except the p13-17 stuff, the last four pitches would be a mega classic anywhere, and you top out on an exposed, cool summit. Props out to first ascentionists on the unbelievable amount of work they expended. If the access stuff can be resolved, this is the kind of route climbers will be coming from afar to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotly Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 All of the ethics arguements aside...the arguement that a bolt every 50 feet on 5.5 terrain would be good because it would prevent a ground fall doesn't make much sense to me. Is falling 100+ feet on 5.5 terrain going to be much better than a groundfall? I beleive if you're going to bolt it, at least make a fall between bolts survivable. I'm assuming there's no natural pro to be had? Not trying to arguementative, just trying to understand what considerations are being made when a route is being bolted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 more than anythign, i'd like to salute 512 dude for a consistent approach to using really fawking hot avatar images so sounds like IB is worth my time then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 I'm assuming there's no natural pro to be had? Not trying to arguementative, just trying to understand what considerations are being made when a route is being bolted. There is gear...but the rock around the gear is poor....I do not believe it would even hold your body weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 more than anythign, i'd like to salute 512 dude for a consistent approach to using really fawking hot avatar images so sounds like IB is worth my time then... Ivan....I would say it is worth anybody's time. This is and will be classic climb for a long time. Wear your helmet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I just climbed The Rash today on Three O'Clock Rock. From the belay it is 70 feet of 5.4 climbing to the first bolt. I felt like it was a free solo. Surprisingly, the worse part came after the bolt was clipped. It goes from 5.4 to 5.9 in a hurry. If you fall off before clipping the third bolt, you break your ankles on the knobs below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
512dude Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Spotly, Have you climbed the route? The current state is that if one falls in this choss section of the climb they can count on a high probability of going down 1800' or so to the ground. If I have the alternative of a bolt every 50' vs. not having any anchors at all I know where I want to be. Again the climbing isn't terribly difficult at most 5.5 and not consistent. If you consider someone needs to ascend 5.9/5.10 to get there I don't think they'll have an issue with technical ability but I see it more of an issue of chossy rock which is loose and unreliable and the fact that this also needs to be down climbed when descending. Think of the weather going to shit and having the rock wet or a climber with an injury and not having rap stations in just these sections. It makes the route seem incomplete. It's really a safety consideration and doesn't make sense when the rest of the route is equipped with anchors and the alternatives for pro are pretty much nil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
512dude Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Ivan, my latest squeeze fawk'in thanks you for your kind fawk'in words mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raindawg Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Props out to first ascentionists on the unbelievable amount of work they expended. If the access stuff can be resolved, this is the kind of route climbers will be coming from afar to do. Come down off your high, pal. No "props" to you or the "first ascensionist" [and are they "ascensionists" if they rap-bolted???] The route is a disgrace and in a wilderness area no less. There's no problem with access...you obviously had no problem gaining access to it...it's an ethical issue...for example, whether you can live with yourself for having endorsed this atrocity. Maybe you can brag to your buddies in the future that you were one of the relatively few that climbed it, because I've heard there are some that might take action, physical or legal, against this offense in the near future. Ivan....I would say it is worth anybody's time. This is and will be classic climb for a long time. Classic? You haven't been out much, have you. A long time? Very doubtful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilookeddown Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I guess we all know where this thread is heading but I thought add something before it gets out of hand. I was up there a few years ago and I didn't have a problem with the 15th pitch (5.0 with 2 bolts). At the top of the 15th we decided to just go strait up to the bottom of the 17th. I guess that area of route isn't bolted b/c it is 4th class so the climbing is very easy and there is not much solid rock in the area to place any bolts. (see picture below rapping off the 17th anchors). The only problem we encountered was we missed the anchors at the top of the 15th on the way down and ended up rapping off a few trees until we found the anchors at the top of the 13th. As for the down climb on the ramp, we played it safe and rappelled off trees but did end up missing those anchors. In that area is is very easy to get "lost" on the way down because the route does zig zag a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken4ord Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Pitches 15-17 could benefit from a single bolt if solid rock was found at the mid-point. As for adding bolt for protection, it is freaking 4th class terrain. Yeah lots of exposure but are you really going to fall on that terrain if you can climb 5.10?? If you are freaked by the exposure, belay out to the start of the 17th with two ropes. The same can be done on the descent lower out the inexperienced climber and pass the knot and then get a belay for the down climb (walk). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 The same can be done on the descent lower out the inexperienced climber and pass the knot and then get a belay for the down climb (walk). That is a lot of work when there should have been an anchor in the first place. We ended up making two extra raps of stumps in the wall.....if I ever climb it again....I will bring a hand drill and place an anchor a couple of lead bolts. On lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Props out to first ascentionists on the unbelievable amount of work they expended. If the access stuff can be resolved, this is the kind of route climbers will be coming from afar to do. Come down off your high, pal. No "props" to you or the "first ascensionist" [and are they "ascensionists" if they rap-bolted???] The route is a disgrace and in a wilderness area no less. There's no problem with access...you obviously had no problem gaining access to it...it's an ethical issue...for example, whether you can live with yourself for having endorsed this atrocity. Maybe you can brag to your buddies in the future that you were one of the relatively few that climbed it, because I've heard there are some that might take action, physical or legal, against this offense in the near future. Ivan....I would say it is worth anybody's time. This is and will be classic climb for a long time. Classic? You haven't been out much, have you. A long time? Very doubtful. Rain.....why dont you go climb the route....the first 14 pitches are quite stellar.....super solid granite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 (edited) Rain.....why dont you go climb the route....the first 14 pitches are quite stellar.....super solid granite. You are sadly only waving a red flag in front of a bull here Kevin. Nice TR but was your camera broken? BTW, what was your car to car time? __________________________________________________________________ Opps, asked and answered! Damn, thats a long route. Didn't Ben just climb the Grade 6 West Face of El Cap in 13 hours with Avitrip? Were you slowing him down:-0 Edited July 9, 2007 by billcoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Ivan, my latest squeeze fawk'in thanks you for your kind fawk'in words mate. word - when she's done seeing through your bullshit send'er'along to me for summa'mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Ivan, my latest squeeze fawk'in thanks you for your kind fawk'in words mate. Hot damn, these are real wemmon your trading around on? Sorry to gawk open mouth, been married for 27 years now to the same beautiful woman. I was scanning a pic of her last month from back when she graduated from college, my 17 year old boy says, damn, mom WAS hot when she was young. Not that I'm holding up any better, 2 different people have seen our wedding pic and asked her who the first husband was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Rain.....why dont you go climb the route....the first 14 pitches are quite stellar.....super solid granite. You are sadly only waving a red flag in front of a bull here Kevin. Nice TR but was your camera broken? BTW, what was your car to car time? __________________________________________________________________ Opps, asked and answered! Damn, thats a long route. Didn't Ben just climb the Grade 6 West Face of El Cap in 13 hours with Avitrip? Were you slowing him down:-0 Bill it took at least 3 to 4 hours to rappel. I hate rappelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I'd like to remind folks that generally speaking, we don't Spray shit all over people's TR's. Friendly banter, fine, discussions about the protection or line or rock, fine, but if you want to rant about the validity of the route please just provide links to the numerous threads already in existence here about this, the Muir on Saturday of rock routes in Washington. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but TR's are different from Spray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tradclimbguy Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 This is so funny. This argument comes up every year it seems like. Definitely go look at some of the spray on it from the past. Good TR by the way. Anyway, I think it's been beat into the ground that the climb is "so so" and probably worth an outing if you can handle the mass bolting scene. As for pitch 16/17 I remember this being brought up about 3-4yrs ago when somebody here said the same thing and ripped on Leland for the crap job on those pitches. Basically stupid pitches on crap rock with no bolts but that person got bashed for being some sporto noob or some usual cc.com garbage which is funny cause they weren't. Some people say run it out, others say grid bolt it. Either way you look at it you have 5 million freaking bolts slammed into the bottom 15 pitches, even pitches with single bolts on 5.1 and then almost 300ft of no bolts and not even any anchors to rap off. Just imagine doing those pitches in the rain. I can say the mandatory down climb can be quite exciting or should I stay stupid. I've heard stories as well about why it was bolted that way too, but you don't want to hear that one. So... Back to the same old bitching and whining as usual. Please continue its fun to read for the 12th time, hahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Thanks…..I did the TR because I have discussed this route so much without even climbing it…..so now that I have had first hand experience…..I feel my thoughts are more valid. If I ever do it again….I will bring a hand bolt kit and fix the problem of no anchor. That was just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tradclimbguy Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Thanks…..I did the TR because I have discussed this route so much without even climbing it…..so now that I have had first hand experience…..I feel my thoughts are more valid. If I ever do it again….I will bring a hand bolt kit and fix the problem of no anchor. That was just ridiculous. I said the same thing after doing it a few years ago. It's not even a question of running it out, its common sense to have at a minimum anchors 200ft apart so you can actually rappel the freaking climb. Rappelling that much really sucks but it's surely worse when you have to unrope on the way down, pull your rope and then wander down 50-80ft to hit an anchor again. Ask MountainMatt about his last run up it. I think he pulled a watermelon size rock off while pulling his rope that nearly hit him while untied at that stupid pitch. 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.