First Ascents - how to

[pink]

Question about first ascents. Do you climb with three people for safety, or just be daring with loose rocks and other dangers and climb with two?

 

This is a totally unknown crag about 2 hr drive from Portland. Columnar basalt, 2 footers. Very fine grained rock. I had to bail due to no pro/ beyond my "oh shit" factor.. I'm guessing 10b. Am bringing pitons next time. no cell phone coverage.

 

thanks,

rl

 

Rap in first bro. That is "how to".

[video:vimeo]6102968

 

 

look at ground up as a growth boundary, keeps greedy route setters as they call themselves from grid bolting the fuck out of cliffs. save some shit for the future generations.

 

[pink]

[video:youtube]c94wOZqr1xY

 

pretty big whippers on some of these sport climbs

Edited October 5, 2010 by pink

[ivan]

[video:youtube]c94wOZqr1xY

 

pretty big whippers on some of these sport climbs

haven't seen that many flying white folks since 9/11!

[pink]

 

truth!!!

[kevbone]

haven't seen that many flying white folks since 9/11!

 

[Off_White]

The funny thing in the sports porn vid is all the things with long slings and up to four quickdraws clipped together. You're putting up a sport route, you've top roped it, you know where it's going, it's just poor craftsmanship to put the bolt in the wrong place.

 

Well, unless you're on something like Goose Egg where the driving concern is where is the good rock that'll take a solid bolt.

 

Kev, ground up onsite first ascents are generally recognized as the best style, a long standing tradition in climbing. It doesn't always leave the best route behind, particularly in a climate and rock type that needs substantial cleaning, scrubbing, and loose rock removal. It is however the gold standard for new routes and quite worthy of respect.

 

 

[crimper]

...and when i have rapped in, i have cleaned each and every inch of every crack to sort for gear, no matter how small, before considering any bolts. that's the "arts and crafts" part of putting up a route top-down. just because you rapped in doesn't mean you are mindlessly committed to a g-rated route with bolts every body length.

 

i think the rock around portland is well suited for mixed routes like that, with bolts between the gear: young warriors, classic crack/red eye, superstition, gandalf's,and plenty of the routes at madrone (into the wild blue yonder, mind games, ant abuse, etc.) being great examples of routes that are mainly gear but are kept reasonable and repeatable by bolts here and there. it's kind of making lemonade out of lemons: we have choss and moss, but dilligent cleaning and judicious use of bolts can make for challenging but reasonable routes.

[kukuzka1]

Im all for rap-bolting in designated areas, how els could you put up 5.13 routes? not that id know

[billcoe]

There are many ethical and stylistic considerations which each individual takes into account. Certainly these can be read up on via an internet search as they've been heatedly debated for will over 40 years. They can and do change even for each individual based on each cliffs history and prevailing ethics. For me, a factor worth considering is how distant and remote it is. An area up in the mountains that you have to Hump into would be different than a place inside of town. Those remote areas should be better equipped and safer IMO.

 

Certainly there should be a thought given to all those who will follow, and sometimes it's nice to have a mix of it. Furthermore, if you are doing a big mountain it's a radically different thing than doing a 60' high cliff next to town.

[Peter_Puget]

Off I pretty much agree with you but would make one distinction relative to free climbing or routes which if clean could be readily free climbed. It seems like the ultimate in being a poser when someone claims the superiority of the “ground-up” style on relatively easy ground. (Ie A1/2/3 cracks) and climb up only to aid thru the cux because of dirt or even difficulty. There seems to be little difference between aiding and rapping except hypocrisy and vanity.

[kukuzka1]

I was thinking the opposite with more of an alpine feel for the more remote crags

There are many ethical and stylistic considerations which each individual takes into account. Certainly these can be read up on via an internet search as they've been heatedly debated for will over 40 years. They can and do change even for each individual based on each cliffs history and prevailing ethics. For me, a factor worth considering is how distant and remote it is. An area up in the mountains that you have to Hump into would be different than a place inside of town.

Those remote areas should be better equipped and safer IMO.

Certainly there should be a thought given to all those who will follow, and sometimes it's nice to have a mix of it. Furthermore, if you are doing a big mountain it's a radically different thing than doing a 60' high cliff next to town.

[billcoe]

I was thinking the opposite with more of an alpine feel for the more remote crags

 

Talking crags, not mountains here. Closely bolted safe leads can be had inside of any climbing gym inside of or near cities.

 

A crag where a rescue would be protracted, lengthy, (no cell service, long hike) and dangerous (steep rocky ground in a treed setting where no heli's can land) for the rescue crew is something worth considering. If someone spends half a day rapping down to top rope some line, after 4 laps in 3 days then does the "bold" lead, and expects that everyone else will celebrate this "boldness", does a disservice to the rest of us.

 

Close to town, someone boffs a runout route and eats dirt, a quick ambulance ride will fix them up. A different proposition than the remote one with the corresponding logistical nightmare for volunteers.

[Peter_Puget]

Close to town, someone boffs a runout route and eats dirt, a quick ambulance ride will fix them up.

 

Damn you guys are tough in Ore. I guess the guys who have fallen less than pitch off the deck at Index, Vantage or Squamish and died or had significant disabilites for the rest of their lives shouldn't have been climbing in the first place.

[JosephH]

Outcomes like those are enormously unfortunate, but in the end we are responsible for ourselves. Bottom line is folks shouldn't get on routes they aren't up for, or up to, and which are runout or have marginal pro.

 

For trad climbing to otherwise would be it's demise - when you start down the lowest common denominator path who's to say what the 'lowest' level of ability things should be 'made safe' for? And that brings up the paradox of 'safe climbing' one hand and the attempted wholesale conversion of climbing to risk-free entertainment for the masses on the other - both pretty sad trends from my perspective.

[TMO]

haven't seen that many flying white folks since 9/11!

 

 

Seriously lame attempt at humor. I know you like like to spray, but jesus chrylser put a frickin' filter on.

[justinp]

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

 

haven't seen that many flying white folks since 9/11!

 

 

Seriously lame attempt at humor. I know you like like to spray, but jesus chrylser put a frickin' filter on.

 

 

Interestingly enough one could point the same thing out bout you. Just saying

 

[TMO]

Touche`

[Peter_Puget]

Outcomes like those are enormously unfortunate, but in the end we are responsible for ourselves. Bottom line is folks shouldn't get on routes they aren't up for, or up to, and which are runout or have marginal pro.

 

For trad climbing to otherwise would be it's demise - when you start down the lowest common denominator path who's to say what the 'lowest' level of ability things should be 'made safe' for? And that brings up the paradox of 'safe climbing' one hand and the attempted wholesale conversion of climbing to risk-free entertainment for the masses on the other - both pretty sad trends from my perspective.

 

I was merely commenting on Bill's peculiar suggestion that grounders are typically fixed by a simple ambulance ride.

[kukuzka1]

when you start down the lowest common denominator path who's to say what the 'lowest' level of ability things should be 'made safe' for? And that brings up the paradox of 'safe climbing' one hand and the attempted wholesale conversion of climbing to risk-free entertainment for the masses on the other - both pretty sad --- well said josephH

[G-spotter]

Let's just put in via ferratas everywhere to totally eliminate risk, ? Ask Kurt Albert about that one if you have a Ouija board