MudNCrud Forums
Climbing and ... Climbing => Masters of Mud -- Pinnacles => Topic started by: kylequeener on February 02, 2016, 12:18:50 PM
-
Hey guys,
I was asked for my opinion about rebolting Ranger Bolts this morning and wanted to open the discussion up to a wider audience for opinions, help and beta.
I'm going to paraphrase the conversation and address a few things specifically. I will list them and maybe we can weigh in with some thoughts and recourses to help out our newest Pinnacles steward.
First was rebolting some of or all of the free climbing bolts. For reference these are mostly wedge style anchors.
Secondly was dealing with the loose hold near the top of the route which is of a size big enough to create serious consequences to the belayer if it pulled out but if removed, would drastically change the character of the route.
Third was the relocation of the third bolt on the direct start variation.
Fourth was the removal and relocation of the anchors. The suggestion was to lower the first set of anchors down a bolt. And to remove the two bolt anchor near the lip completely. The second set of anchor bolts are not original to the FFA and subsequently placed by someone else. By removing those bolts you would have to climb to the tippy top and do the route as Yabo and Thornburg did during their FFA's.
Fifth was the removal of all the aid bolts.
Okay, I think that covers it all. Now please, weigh in on the topics. ;)
-
Hey Kyle, thanks for bringing this up! I think you addressed all the issues well.
I'd just add that the reasoning behind lowering the (first) mid anchor is that holds have broken in that zone, and now the route feels really awkward and has unnecessary hard clipping and rope-drag as a result. Maybe lowering the anchor is the best idea, though moving the bolt just before might fix the rope drag. I need to get on the route again to be certain.
I can't think of another route that is more of a mess in terms of old bolts and anchors all over the place. If you're free climbing the route it really detracts from the climbing.
My ideal solution would be to remove all the old bolts that aren't necessary for the free climb, and to put a new anchor just over the lip (an angle change, really) at the end of the hard climbing. The current (upper) lower off anchor is smack dab in the middle of the final crux, a spot Yabo fell off of about 20 times before finally sending. Clipping this anchor and calling it good is not Ranger Bolts, but rather the "Yabo Rolling over in his Grave" variation.
I think Chris Belizzi put that anchor there so that it would be possible to safely lower off with a 60m. A good idea in many ways, but now with 70m ropes being common there is zero reason to have that anchor there.
If there are people who are still passionate about the aid ladder, I would amend my solution above.
Its a beautiful wall with beautiful climbing. I'd love to see the crafting of the bolting match that beauty.
-
Jim and Kyle,
I'll share two thoughts:
1. The whole concept of moving bolts and anchors on a route "you" didn't establish seems weird. But it may not be all that weird in the specific case of Ranger Bolts. This route's history is different than most Pinnacles routes. It was established as a bolt ladder for practice. One might say that it was "created" more than it was "first ascended." Later, changes were made to it by the Pinnacles climbing community and it became a great and iconic free climb (it was "created" into a free climb by many members of the community).
This seems to me to be very different than a route put up by one team as a free climb to start with.
Perhaps another way to look at it is that, possibly more than any other Pinnacles climb, this one truly does "belong" to the whole climbing community.
2. I think that removing the aid ladder aspect of the climb would be completely unfair to other climbers, and, frankly, unfair to the route's history. Whatever rebolting is done should leave a climbable aid bolt ladder. "Climbable" as in a normal climber can ascend the route bolt to bolt on aid as was intended at the route's creation (this could be done even without leaving all of the old aid bolts in place, although leaving at least a "representative sample" of them would be nice).
I'd be OK with whatever rebolting (including some movement of bolt/anchor positions) people of your caliber (both of you) feel is appropriate (as long as an aid ladder can still be climbed).
-
First, I would like to preserve the aid-ability of the climb, in addition to the free climbing. No question. That was the FA. And there are few long good rock aid lines at Pinns.
That doesn't mean it needs to be a A0 bolt ladder, but not putting a bolt within distance of a t-off or high step clip means a hole, hookable edge, or rivet to clip. Putting a rivet inadvertently invites someone not familiar with the situation to "upgrade" it over time, unless there is mass education about why it is there. A hookable edge is a free edge and may disintegrate. A hole will like disintegrate too, absent the educated and diligent use of Removable Bolts (RBs). Leaving the hole count the same and then filled the holes with good bolts seems completely appropriate and consistent with existing ethical approaches (minus removing agreed extraneous anchors).
Second, about the first anchor. Not that I could free climb at the level past the first bolts anytime soon, but if the position of the first anchor is arbitrary, then dropping it down one, or moving it to reduce drag, seems to not be an issue in my mind, in that you can also get the benefit of upgrading that anchor when it is moved.
Third, about the second higher midway anchor. That seems to be unnecessary based on what Jim mentioned. I wouldn't mind it going. Put the anchors at the top so that a long TR can be rigged.
Last, whatever bolts go in, I would ask that a really good job of camouflaging is done and that the anchor be made durable (i.e. replaceable lower offs, or chain. The metal should match: hanger color to stone color, paint the heads of the bolts and chain.
Oh and get more folks to weigh hopefully. Looks like it is making the rounds on FB.
-
I'm strongly of the opinion that first does not mean best, and in the case of Ranger Bolts or any other bolt ladder at the Pinnacles, this route was first "created" in poor style. There are some aspects of history that just aren't worth preserving, and this is one of them in my opinion. If you want to climb a bolt ladder, do one that will never go free, such as Bridwell Bolts. I think that rebolting this in such a way that makes hooking necessary for aid parties would be particularly damaging, and unfair to people that want this free climb to stand the test of time.
I wouldn't say that the free climb was "created" in the same way that the bolt ladder was. The free line was dictated by the natural features that the rock presents, while the bolt ladder was not. I think that Jim (et al) didn't rebolt it then partially out of respect for the bolt ladder, but mostly out of convenience (not to put words in your mouth, Jim, that's just my impression). Now that this route is getting the traffic that it deserves, the shitshow of bolts on that route is getting unmanageable. One should be able to lead any free climb from the ground to the anchors while hanging draws. This is almost impossible on this route due to the museum of mank splattered all over this beautiful face.
Here's my comment that I posted to Facebook:
"Yep- Jim nailed it. If you want to climb a bolt ladder at the Pinns (why would you?), do Bridwell Bolts. You know… one that isn’t desecrating the best 5.13 in the Bay Area. The bolts that you use to free the route would be best climbed using twin ropes currently (Euros are psyched!). So much zigzagging, clipping and unclipping is required. It really detracts from the route. Furthermore, I think the only way to climb that route is to top it out. I’d pull the second anchor and forgo the anchor at the lip of the slab. It’s the Pinnacles- summits matter! Also, I would discretely reinforce the big lodestone with epoxy before it breaks off."
Maybe I'm being ignorant, but I just don't see the value (historical or otherwise) of a manky bolt ladder drilled up a beautiful free-climbable face. The quality and significance of this as a free climb is immense, and I think the free climb should dictate the bolt placement. Just as Astroman is no longer the Southeast Face of Washington Column, Ranger Bolts is not an aid climb.
-
Mark, thanks for quote from Book Face. Some of us dinosaurs (Jim excluded, apparently?) aren't on that site, and so I wouldn't otherwise have see what you said there.
Jim, why, oh why haven't you raised this issue on Supertopo? :P :P ;D ;D
-
...I wouldn't say that the free climb was "created" in the same way that the bolt ladder was.
Mark, if you're talking about "created" in the same sense that I was using it, that's not what I meant.
As I understand both routes' history, each was the product of multiple members of the climbing community over time more than the product of one "first ascent" team or person. In that sense each route is a little unusual in that it was "created" by the community.
-
I'm strongly of the opinion that first does not mean best, and in the case of Ranger Bolts or any other bolt ladder at the Pinnacles, this route was first "created" in poor style. There are some aspects of history that just aren't worth preserving, and this is one of them in my opinion. If you want to climb a bolt ladder, do one that will never go free, such as Bridwell Bolts. I think that rebolting this in such a way that makes hooking necessary for aid parties would be particularly damaging, and unfair to people that want this free climb to stand the test of time.
I wouldn't say that the free climb was "created" in the same way that the bolt ladder was. The free line was dictated by the natural features that the rock presents, while the bolt ladder was not. I think that Jim (et al) didn't rebolt it then partially out of respect for the bolt ladder, but mostly out of convenience (not to put words in your mouth, Jim, that's just my impression). Now that this route is getting the traffic that it deserves, the shitshow of bolts on that route is getting unmanageable. One should be able to lead any free climb from the ground to the anchors while hanging draws. This is almost impossible on this route due to the museum of mank splattered all over this beautiful face.
Here's my comment that I posted to Facebook:
"Yep- Jim nailed it. If you want to climb a bolt ladder at the Pinns (why would you?), do Bridwell Bolts. You know… one that isn’t desecrating the best 5.13 in the Bay Area. The bolts that you use to free the route would be best climbed using twin ropes currently (Euros are psyched!). So much zigzagging, clipping and unclipping is required. It really detracts from the route. Furthermore, I think the only way to climb that route is to top it out. I’d pull the second anchor and forgo the anchor at the lip of the slab. It’s the Pinnacles- summits matter! Also, I would discretely reinforce the big lodestone with epoxy before it breaks off."
Maybe I'm being ignorant, but I just don't see the value (historical or otherwise) of a manky bolt ladder drilled up a beautiful free-climbable face. The quality and significance of this as a free climb is immense, and I think the free climb should dictate the bolt placement. Just as Astroman is no longer the Southeast Face of Washington Column, Ranger Bolts is not an aid climb.
At the risk of being seen in a bad light "If you don't like the extra aid bolts, don't clip them." Never thought I'd get to say that in context. LOL :)
Sorry Mudmittens, all snark on that one is meant in a light hearted way. :)
On the slightly more serious side, my thought on an approach to rebolting this climb is to focus the replacing effort with an eye to free climbing position. This will take time and multiple climbers at the grade should weigh in on which ones should be replaced. This is not a retro bolt session across the board, but a judicious replacement of resources to maximize how it is free climbed with input from all the climbing community, if possible. But at the same time preserve the ability to aid climb through it. Typically this means an extra point of aid here or there to make the reaches do-able by a competent aid climber. It does not mean a bolt every 2 feet. And it doesn't mean additional bolts or reducing the bolt count. It doesn't mean preservation of old mank gear. But it does mean preserving a way to aid through the sport clips. There's nothing incompatible with having both good sport clips and good aid reaches. In fact, they often overlap. And if there is a piece or two that aren't obviously close enough to clip some other solution can be devised.
Hope that helps allay Mudmitten's concerns and helps clarify generally.
-
Mark, if you're talking about "created" in the same sense that I was using it, that's not what I meant.
As I understand both routes' history, each was the product of multiple members of the climbing community over time more than the product of one "first ascent" team or person. In that sense each route is a little unusual in that it was "created" by the community.
Gotcha. I was more interpreting what you said as creating a route in the way that Cesare Maestri created the Compressor Route. The party that freed Ranger Bolts simply applied themselves to the natural challenge that the features presented. Of course, free climbing the route wasn't reasonable at the time the bolt ladder was drilled. But you're right, both routes were collaborative efforts involving entire communities.
If you recall, a few years ago Adam Long and I tactfully convinced a party to stop drilling another bolt ladder up the face to the right of Bridwell Bolts. A few bolts remain there today. This is all to say that I think that the era of drilling bolt ladders up faces should be over. There's just no sense to it. The relic bolt ladders that haven't been free climbed can remain, but let's not let an ancient practice ladder interfere with the quality of a great rock climb.
-
I think the free climbing bolts are all in good places and I climb this route while hanging my own draws frequently. Bringing a couple extendable slings takes care of the rope drag. See Jim's photo of me on Ranger Bolts in the California Climber Magazine and you'll see my use of extendable slings. Why would you climb this route with two ropes when all you need are two shoulder length slings? The bolts follow the natural free climbing line. Replace them but don't move them. I know there is one bolt that I skip every time down low that is an upgraded wedge bolt.
I'd say take the first set of anchors completely out and move the additional retro-added anchors just above the lip, keeping the final moves over the lip in play but making it convenient to top rope while using a 70m. And if you want to go to the top by all means just keep going the last 15 feet of 5.6 slab.
I think the aid bolts are unsightly but I'm also a proponent of persevering history whether its good or bad.
I would also support reinforcing the suspect hold IF it could be done in an aesthetic and clean manner.
-
At the risk of being seen in a bad light "If you don't like the extra aid bolts, don't clip them." Never thought I'd get to say that in context. LOL :)
Sorry Mudmittens, all snark on that one is meant in a light hearted way. :)
On the slightly more serious side, my thought on an approach to rebolting this climb is to focus the replacing effort with an eye to free climbing position. This will take time and multiple climbers at the grade should weigh in on which ones should be replaced. This is not a retro bolt session across the board, but a judicious replacement of resources to maximize how it is free climbed with input from all the climbing community, if possible. But at the same time preserve the ability to aid climb through it. Typically this means an extra point of aid here or there to make the reaches do-able by a competent aid climber. It does not mean a bolt every 2 feet. And it doesn't mean additional bolts or reducing the bolt count. It doesn't mean preservation of old mank gear. But it does mean preserving a way to aid through the sport clips. There's nothing incompatible with having both good sport clips and good aid reaches. In fact, they often overlap. And if there is a piece or two that aren't obviously close enough to clip some other solution can be devised.
Hope that helps allay Mudmitten's concerns and helps clarify generally.
I think that it could be rebolted in a such a way that you could still aid up it, but to make Ranger Bolts make sense as a free climb, one would have to pull many bolts and add new holes more in line with the free climbing. Simply replacing bolts won't work here. Would it be acceptable to do this and add buttonhead rivets in between the bolts for aid climbers? It won't be the original line that the bolt ladder took but do people care about that?
-
I think the free climbing bolts are all in good places and I climb this route while hanging my own draws frequently. Bringing a couple extendable slings takes care of the rope drag. See Jim's photo of me on Ranger Bolts in the California Climber Magazine and you'll see my use of extendable slings. Why would you climb this route with two ropes when all you need are two shoulder length slings? The bolts follow the natural free climbing line. Replace them but don't move them. I know there is one bolt that I skip every time down low that is an upgraded wedge bolt.
I'd say take the first set of anchors completely out and move the additional retro-added anchors just above the lip, keeping the final moves over the lip in play but making it convenient to top rope while using a 70m. And if you want to go to the top by all means just keep going the last 15 feet of 5.6 slab.
I think the aid bolts are unsightly but I'm also a proponent of persevering history whether its good or bad.
I would also support reinforcing the suspect hold IF it could be done in an aesthetic and clean manner.
*While hanging draws onsite is what I meant. This would be a very difficult onsite not because of the climbing, but because of the bolt job.
-
*While hanging draws onsite is what I meant. This would be a very difficult onsite not because of the climbing, but because of the bolt job.
I've seen people attempt onsights on this route while extending slings on the correct bolts. It just adds to the challenge. You have to bring more to the table than just gym strength. While the plethora of hardware up there could be confusing to some it's sort of obvious what's a manky 1/4" and whats a replaced or retobolted 3/8" used for the free climb. The two bolts that need to be extended are #6 and #8, btw.
-
I've seen people attempt onsights on this route while extending slings on the correct bolts. It just adds to the challenge. You have to bring more to the table than just gym strength. While the plethora of hardware up there could be confusing to some it's sort of obvious what's a manky 1/4" and whats a replaced or retobolted 3/8" used for the free climb. The two bolts that need to be extended are #6 and #8, btw.
The fact that the bolting just "adds to the challenge" is proof of how contrived the difficulty is. Furthermore, onsiting this route even if it wasn't bolted like shit would require more than just "gym strength". Let's let the challenge come from the rock, not the aid climbers.
-
Here is my .02
This and Hot Lava were my dream routes for years. I have attempted Ranger Bolts dozens of times. Perhaps I will get back to strength enough to give them ago once again. This is at my very upper limit hence I have not gotten it clean yet. On lead I have gotten to the upper chains with a couple of hangs at the crux. I have only gotten the crux clean on TR but never clean from the bottom. I still think I can do the route but perhaps that is just my ego speaking. This is my point of reference.
I have no problem leading with the bolts in the current locations up to the first set of chains and when I have managed to get the second set of anchors the bolt locations were not the limiting factor. When I was working it regularly I skipped a couple of bolts to save time and to try and be more efficient. The mid anchor I would just move to the left a bit. I kind of like the character of that last clip before the midpoint anchor, it is always a challenge to pull through the bulge make that clip ( which is strenuous ) then go up into the moves for the dyno. Of course if your Karl you avoid the bulge and just go straight up to the chains ( He tried to talk me through the sequence but I am a mere mortal ).
I have no issue removing the upper anchor even though I see myself lowering off there more often than not. Typically I am against reinforcing but if this can be done very discreetly I might get kind of soft ;)
The aid line. I have spent a lot of time looking at this and thinking of alternatives. What if those bolts were hand painted so they were very camo. Having bolts between bolts on the free line I think is a worse solution. That one spot where the free line goes out right and the aid line goes out left does look rather unsightly.
Here is what I put on FB:
The bolts on Cataract do not need to be moved. This is one of my hardest leads and the bolts where they are worked fine. ( adding here, all you guys climb way harder than me so I am the lowest common denominator).
The bolt that protects the crux climbing on Future Shock really needs to be replaced.
-
I like carrots ;D
-
Here's another question to ask, would it be ok to move the bolts on another aid climb at Pinns to make clips easier? What about making it easier to clip when the 2 aid bolts had long since been freed at 5.7? There are several of these at Pinns. In that case, even though it is contrived to clip the aid bolt, the climbing is well within my grasp at 5.7, but not for the 5.5 leader. Couldn't the 5.14 climber similarly make the clips without effort on an existing line? Or are strong climbers special and specially deserving? I don't buy that, but I also don't care if a couple bolts are moved a couple inches in the process of replacing older bolts.
In other words, let's try to universalize the idea of this type of rebolting (i.e. with some moved bolts to ease clipping). Does it still stand as reasonable?
My recommendation is someone should post a pic with the existing bolt positions and where the new bolts should go, then we can go through them one by one and if it really must be moved, and not appeal to ideological bases.
No making 'perfect clips' on 'all' clips. Its not necessary. Move some hard ones that are awkward at bad fall potential spots, let's look at it.
Not a fan of the reinforcing, mostly because it will be used as an example to do it elsewhere and is probably illegal under common interpretations of the USC.
-
Here's another question to ask, would it be ok to move the bolts on another aid climb at Pinns to make clips easier? What about making it easier to clip when the 2 aid bolts had long since been freed at 5.7? There are several of these at Pinns. In that case, even though it is contrived to clip the aid bolt, the climbing is well within my grasp at 5.7, but not for the 5.5 leader. Couldn't the 5.14 climber similarly make the clips without effort on an existing line? Or are strong climbers special and specially deserving? I don't buy that, but I also don't care if a couple bolts are moved a couple inches in the process of replacing older bolts.
In other words, let's try to universalize the idea of this type of rebolting (i.e. with some moved bolts to ease clipping). Does it still stand as reasonable?
My recommendation is someone should post a pic with the existing bolt positions and where the new bolts should go, then we can go through them one by one and if it really must be moved, and not appeal to ideological bases.
No making 'perfect clips' on 'all' clips. Its not necessary. Move some hard ones that are awkward at bad fall potential spots, let's look at it.
Not a fan of the reinforcing, mostly because it will be used as an example to do it elsewhere and is probably illegal under common interpretations of the USC.
Ignoring the ridiculousness of someone drilling a bolt ladder up a 5.7, and the unlikeliness of someone being able to lead 5.5 and not 5.7, I would say yes, it is reasonable to move bolts on a bolt ladder once it is climbed in better style (regardless of the grade).
The end product, aesthetics, and impact are my primary concerns. Ground-up climbing became the style at the Pinns for a few reasons: adventure, uncertainty, natural lines, and natural clipping positions (where a stance or hook offers them). This style lets the rock dictate the line. The bolt ladder has none of these: it's not adventurous, you'll certainly summit, and no natural weakness was followed. This isn't about making "perfect clips" or fulfilling some kind of hard-climber prophesy. It's about not letting past mistakes mar good quality lines (there aren't many). I don't see how reinforcing a hold would be considered illegal when that entire face is littered with 50+ year old trash!
-
What are the dimensions of the loose hold? Is it a cobble/loadstone? I have ideas about reinforcing it that are complicated but would not be noticeable.
-
So do we agree or not about moving bolts on a climb like this?
-
So do we agree or not about moving bolts on a climb like this?
Bolts don't need to be moved for free climbing in my opinion. I've never heard any comments about the bolts being in bad spots until today and I've been around for over a decade now. I've seen countless friends on this thing too and they just extend on a couple of the bolts. I'm surprised you're open to the idea, too.
-
If there are climbers actively climbing Ranger Bolts as an aid ladder (and Kyle assures me that there are) I'll concede they should stay. I do feel strongly that overall the wall is a mess of poorly positioned and extraneous bolts. Kyle, maybe you can convince me otherwise if we go there together. I disagree that just because some stronger climber can make all the clips and deal with the rope drag that that means the bolts are in the best places. I don't understand the arguments for not putting the bolts in the best possible spots.
How about this as a solution:
The aid ladder stays.
Let's have a climbing party on Ranger Bolts to come up with a consensus on the best spots for the free climbing bolts and anchors. Let's replace all the free climbing bolts with SS glue-in eye bolts and once those dry let's take out and patch all the old bolts (both aid and free climbing, if any) that are extraneous.
Basically, let's clean the face up as best we can, enhancing the free climbing experience and aesthetics while preserving the aid climbing experience.
-
I like carrots ;D
This is a traditional Mudn'Crud post, but it's meaning may only be known to those who are frequently on the site. Interpreting it for those who aren't on the site that often: "I'm reading this and I'm interested in the subject, but I don't have anything I want to say on point for now"
At least that's how I interpret it ::)
And to add my opinion on "reinforcing" holds: I think it sets a terrible, terrible precedent and that it should always be avoided. "Always" as in it should never be done.
It's Pinnacles; holds have a certain life expectancy, and then they fall off. Deal with it as our ancestors always did.
-
If there are climbers actively climbing Ranger Bolts as an aid ladder (and Kyle assures me that there are) I'll concede they should stay. I do feel strongly that overall the wall is a mess of poorly positioned and extraneous bolts. Kyle, maybe you can convince me otherwise if we go there together. I disagree that just because some stronger climber can make all the clips and deal with the rope drag that that means the bolts are in the best places. I don't understand the arguments for not putting the bolts in the best possible spots.
How about this as a solution:
The aid ladder stays.
Let's have a climbing party on Ranger Bolts to come up with a consensus on the best spots for the free climbing bolts and anchors. Let's replace all the free climbing bolts with SS glue-in eye bolts and once those dry let's take out and patch all the old bolts (both aid and free climbing, if any) that are extraneous.
Basically, let's clean the face up as best we can, enhancing the free climbing experience and aesthetics while preserving the aid climbing experience.
I trust you Jim to move things around. But still, I've never felt like I've had rope drag on that pitch. Ever. I know you'll do it right though. I'd help if I wasn't temporarily out of the area this season.
-
It's Pinnacles; holds have a certain life expectancy, and then they fall off. Deal with it as our ancestors always did.
How far back? Let's see if I can kill my dinner with this stone that came off the mountain. I like meat with my carrots.
-
I'm surprised you're open to the idea, too.
Me too. :) Kind of why I was wondering if Mark was getting what I was saying.
But I look at it like this, right now we're all just talking online in a vacuum for the most part. The principle of rebolting and using good bolts guides us. The principle of rebolting using the existing hole, when possible guides us. But we know that wedgies are going to be hard to pull and make the hole bad. <--sounds funny
If we have to redrill they'll get moved anyways, and it mostly is a free climb these days, so some movement makes sense and is a compromise that may prevent a bad clip inducing injury (RB is a sport climb so getting hurt doesn't make sense on something like that).
Now with that said, I'm still pretty firm on the idea of keeping the aidability there. The Bay Area has few aid climbs. Aid climbing is a legitimate form of climbing. The FA was done as an aid climb. And I don't think the two concepts of 'some movement of the bolt for a free climb' and 'retaining a sustainable aid climb' are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps we'll find a tricky bolt on it that proves it is neither a good aid bolt position, nor a good free clip, I'm not sure. But let's bust out some topos and pics and see which ones are actually problematic and get opinions to see if an extendo is easier on 2 bolts, than redoing a bunch of them if the bolts are otherwise solid. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still at work without my book.
To update my thought on that first anchor. I like keeping it somewhere where I have a chance of freeing up to it, but would go with consensus. :)
-
This is a traditional Mudn'Crud post, but it's meaning may only be known to those who are frequently on the site. Interpreting it for those who aren't on the site that often: "I'm reading this and I'm interested in the subject, but I don't have anything I want to say on point for now"
At least that's how I interpret it ::)
Random non sequiter response to what would otherwise be random non sequiter posts.
I think random is redumbnant with non sequiter.
Signing off,
M
-
If there are climbers actively climbing Ranger Bolts as an aid ladder (and Kyle assures me that there are) I'll concede they should stay. I do feel strongly that overall the wall is a mess of poorly positioned and extraneous bolts. Kyle, maybe you can convince me otherwise if we go there together. I disagree that just because some stronger climber can make all the clips and deal with the rope drag that that means the bolts are in the best places. I don't understand the arguments for not putting the bolts in the best possible spots.
How about this as a solution:
The aid ladder stays.
Let's have a climbing party on Ranger Bolts to come up with a consensus on the best spots for the free climbing bolts and anchors. Let's replace all the free climbing bolts with SS glue-in eye bolts and once those dry let's take out and patch all the old bolts (both aid and free climbing, if any) that are extraneous.
Basically, let's clean the face up as best we can, enhancing the free climbing experience and aesthetics while preserving the aid climbing experience.
Jim, I am probably one of the least strongest climber to get on this climb and I have never had a problem with rope drag. The only clip I ever had a problem with was clipping the first anchor. That was always a PITA. I realize I never got it clean but I could consistently get to the first anchor. I could get to the second anchor with hangs, that dyno is just a bear.
I do think that the wall could probably be cleaned up but I do not understand why folks think the free version is so badly bolted.
-
Jim, sounds good. Lets look at the bolts on paper. Who else has climbed it to the top free?
-
Jody Langford started a thread last September on "Pinnacles NM Climbing, 60's and 70's, (Photos)"
One of the photos was of Ranger bolts, the following was the caption.
1973-Doug Cardinal and partner on FA of "Ranger Bolts" on The Monolith. Originally 5.6 A1, was freed in 1989 by John Yablonski, Jim Thornburg, and Scott Frye at 5.13a.
Whether as individuals we spend our leisure time after duties or play browsing guidebooks, comic books, history books, climbing magazines and it seems possibly even Vogue and People, the discussion is enlightening. Today's fad , tomorrows classic? It is entertaining to hear the "this is how we do things now in the big peoples world", but is so important to not sit idle and to leave realizations for future generations to scratch their heads about.
If the original line and intent of the bolt ladder is nixed, out of undo as it may be respect for the First unAestheticalists please change the name to something more appropriate.
-
...the principle of rebolting using the existing hole, when possible guides us. But we know that wedgies are going to be hard to pull and make the hole bad. <--sounds funny
If we have to redrill they'll get moved anyways, and it mostly is a free climb these days, so some movement makes sense [emphasis added].
This type of bolt movement is, in my opinion, close to inevitable when re-bolting.
More skilled re-bolters (Bruce, Clint and J.C.) are occasionally able to re-use old holes. I know Jim McCon has reused old holes when going from 1/4 inch or 3/8 inch to 1/2 inch bolts. But I've never had much luck in re-using the old hole.
Such movement of bolt locations (specifically when rebolting bolt ladders) has been discussed on this site. For example, I posted about moving aid bolts on the route Icarus on the Icarus thread on this site. I moved one bolt over a foot because I simply couldn't find good enough rock to drill in. And then I re-positioned other bolts above that to maintain the continuity of the ladder (and this part of Icarus is still an aid ladder - it hasn't gone free).
So what Jim is proposing isn't unheard of. Add to the calculation also Ranger Bolt's somewhat unique history (at least in my opinion, per my comment above).
EDITED: After more communications with Bruce and Clint, it became clear to me that I'd misinterpreted their comments about how they rebolted Resurrection Wall. So I removed my comments about that re-bolting from this post. I then re-worded my last comment slightly.
-
Secondly was dealing with the loose hold near the top of the route which is of a size big enough to create serious consequences to the belayer if it pulled out but if removed, would drastically change the character of the route.
Machete Direct has a similar issue, or did 10 years ago.
-
This discussion seems important so i will exit my hiding spot for a moment
Ranger Bolts was one the first climbs I witnessed at pinnacles. In fact it was first day that I ever climbed outside I watched Pete King at nearly 50 years old cruise all the way to the lip putting the draws on as a warmup. Watching that left a big impression. A year or two later Ranger Bolts was my first aid climb. Which was awesome. I loved pulling on all those old bolts. And I learned a lot that day about mank.
1. I don't think any of the old aid bolts should be removed. This is an important part of pinnacles history for myself and many people. I'd like to see those bolts stay exactly how they are with out replacing. Honestly I'm kind of bummed that every route at pinnacles no matter how obscure is getting rebolted,then the bolts just go hang in Bruce or Clint's garages. Sometimes I want to see the historical stuff I'd hate to see it all gone.
2. Fully in support of a rebolting effort on the free climb. I would prefer to see the bolts in same holes or very nearby. Except for the 3rd or 4th boot which is hard to clip if you end up doing the little traverse to the right. When I started working the route I used extendable slings where Kyle suggests. But after a while I noticed it didn't see to make much of a difference and that how I led the route with just normal length draws in those spots. I also have not had a problems putting the draws on while leading. But if I was onsighting I would be psyched to follow a line of new bolts as to not get confused.
3. I would be happy to see all the current anchors removed. Based on how the clipping hold has continuously morphed at the first anchor I think the first pitch isn't really a route anymore. The anchors before the lip should be removed too. The line goes to the top. I'm disgusted by the huge amount of chain up at that top anchor that was placed a few years ago. Basically the most unsightly thing I've ever seen at pinnacles. I agree with kyle that the anchor would be best placed before the final rollover just topping onto the summit. I think there have been a lot of visions that have led to the creation of the route but I see all the anchors in the current locations as destroying the purity of the route. Removing those as suggested would improve the route IMHO.
4. Gluing the hold is a sticky situation. It was a very important rest stop for me when I did the route. If it goes the route would likely be an 8a at that point. So it would officially be considered a hard sport route by euro standards. It would be awesome to see it stay. But that would be an experiment and since that hold is a polished knob that is loose and its doubtful gkue would hold it on for very long anyways unless you encase a few of the edges of the knob in it. I'm not a pro but I've seen the best in the world glue stuff on or reinforce and I can say no one on this forum has the skills to do it right, not even myself. Given the nature of the rock I doubt a fix would last more than 15 years even given the European techniques that are well established using Sika anchor fix. I've seen many routes in Europe where a hold is glued from behind then breaks off anyways. Then you end up crimping on glue. I'm going to go with what Kelly Rich told me years ago, "if you want to do something hard at pinnacles, you better do it now..." So the hold might break but that will be part of the evolution of the route. I think it will still be climbable once the hold is gone.
I'm glad this discussion is happening. And happy it was posted up on facebook
I hope everyone is well. I'll have much free time starting March. I'll be in the region for a bit. Would be willing to devote some time to the process. And FYI I'm not looking back at what I just wrote for errors because gotta get to work. So Brad be easy on me.
-
This discussion seems important so i will exit my hiding spot for a moment
We're honored.
4. Gluing the hold is a sticky situation.
Groan :lol:
So Brad be easy on me.
Unfair request - it's not possible.
-
The problem with many reinforcing jobs is how they look and perform. There is a method that would outlast the USA and wouldn't look like North Korean craftsmanship without using power tools and be undetectable if the hold is a typical Monolith type.
-
This type of bolt movement is, in my opinion, close to inevitable when re-bolting.
More skilled re-bolters (Bruce, Clint and J.C.) are occasionally able to re-use old holes. I know Jim McCon has reused old holes when going from 1/4 inch or 3/8 inch to 1/2 inch bolts. But I've never had much luck in re-using the old hole.
Such movement of bolt locations (specifically when rebolting bolt ladders) has been discussed on this site. For example, I posted about moving aid bolts on the route Icarus on the Icarus thread on this site. I moved one bolt over a foot because I simply couldn't find good enough rock to drill in. And then I re-positioned other bolts above that to maintain the continuity of the ladder (and this part of Icarus is still an aid ladder - it hasn't gone free).
Bruce and Clint did the same thing a few months ago when replacing bolts on Resurrection Wall (and Clint was smart enough to plan ahead about this). While making new holes for re-bolts, they moved bolts (as I understand it) on the now-free bolt ladder, so that they were actually clip-able without massive stretching to the left. This was discussed on the re-bolting thread on this site. I think I recall requests for and approval of such re-postioning in that discussion (maybe on page 6 of that thread?). I don't recall whether I posted my thoughts about those actions then, but I certainly thought they did the right thing.
So what Jim is proposing isn't unheard of - especially given Ranger Bolt's somewhat unique history.
When we rebolted Lava Falls and Shake and Bake we managed to redrill almost all the holes. Most of those went from 3/8 to 1/2 x 6" glue ins and this was all done by hand. Clint did most of the pulling and a lot of drilling. I just drilled. Well I did try and pull one bolt and my results were sub-optimal.
-
Interjection: for reference, here is the link to the Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/zacharias.gustav/posts/952842509120
One needs to have the right permission/connections on Facebook to see the content, which is exactly why I feel ok to post the link here.
Someone had trouble registering. Here are the expected answers to the questions on Reg page:
(http://www.mudncrud.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=71056&g2_serialNumber=1)
Carry on...
-
Finally got on here.
so it seems like most people are ok with the top anchors being removed and the free version to get rebolted and possibly adjusted to better position. And it also seems like people are ok with reinforcing the cobble if it can be done in a sightly manner.
It seems like the bolt ladder is gonna stay because 2-3 people in the world still use it every 2-3 years. whatever i guess.. its about to rust off anyway.
this leaves a couple deals left.. should we move the midway anchor down a bolt so that it becomes a more popular route to do?
and do we think its worth actually having an anchor just above the first lip past the last and final redpoint crux? my thoughts are that it isnt necessary as i wouldnt mind top roping from the summit anchors if i were to top rope the route.
thanks for the great input so far folks.
-
mutemudder,
I'm glad to see another new poster here. I'm glad to see all new posters here. I hope you'll stay around after this thread sinks down the page too (after all, you must climb at Pinns a fair amount, or you wouldn't be interested enough to post here in the first place).
But your post bothers me. Here's why. I have no idea who you are, and I don't wish to pick an unnecessary fight, but your comments about the bolt ladder seem snotty:
It seems like the bolt ladder is gonna stay because 2-3 people in the world still use it every 2-3 years. whatever i guess.. its about to rust off anyway.
Did you intend your comments to make you sound too good for aid climbing? To sound better than other climbers? Did you intend to sound so utterly elite that those who want to practice a technique that is still alive and well are just beneath you?
That's the passive/aggressive message you're sending. And I don't care if you're so strong that you can onsight Ranger Bolts as a free climb, you're just another climber. People who want to aid the route are as legitimate and are as good as you.
It might be better for you to post like Kyle and Jim (two great climbers for sure); in a way that recognizes others desires, abilities and achievements for what they are: as important as your own.
Sorry, your comment really rubbed me the wrong way. Tell me if I read it incorrectly, or if I'm wrong and if you convince me I'll apologize. Otherwise you ought to consider changing your post or apologizing yourself.
Also, as to reinforcing/gluing the weak hold, "people" aren't OK with that if by "people" you really meant to imply that there's a consensus to do that. There isn't a consensus for that, although there's probably a majority (and, having said my peace on that subject I intend to leave it alone and let Jim and other learned, conscientious climbers who do any of this work decide what to do on this issue too).
-
The aid ladder stays.
Let's have a climbing party on Ranger Bolts to come up with a consensus on the best spots for the free climbing bolts and anchors. Let's replace all the free climbing bolts with SS glue-in eye bolts and once those dry let's take out and patch all the old bolts (both aid and free climbing, if any) that are extraneous.
Basically, let's clean the face up as best we can, enhancing the free climbing experience and aesthetics while preserving the aid climbing experience.
This seems to be the best of both worlds, the most concise explanation and the best long term solution.
All that is left is to set a date and get on with the work.
I agree with Brad - that reinforcing holds is strictly taboo. If the route is destined to evolve - so be it.
-
I do not necessarily agree with moving the bolts on the free variation. As I stated earlier I am by no means strong and have lead most of this route without issue with the bolts the way they are. Also reading what Kyle and Adam wrote it seemed they thought the same holes should be used. When climbing outside the bolts are not necessarily right where you want them.
I would like the lower chains to be above the bulge to preserve the original nature of that lead. I have been on this thing way to many times to remember and having it easier would definitely be of a benefit to a person like me. With that said, it is a hard climb and that is just the way it is.
I will be down there this weekend and will take some pics and get on the route then post up what I think after refreshing my memory.
-
This seems to be the best of both worlds, the most concise explanation and the best long term solution.
All that is left is to set a date and get on with the work.
I agree with Brad - that reinforcing holds is strictly taboo. If the route is destined to evolve - so be it.
Still much to do. Details and carrots.
-
I apologize to come off abrasive. I guess i'm very forward with my feelings. If you get to know me, you will find im a pretty nice guy. Im not here to try to imperialize. My sole purpose for caring about RB is to minimize the impact on the wall and refreshen and match the free climbing with an excellent bolt job which would be enjoyed by many for years to come. I am not impulsive about my ways and would only act on my feelings when they were moderated by multiple respected RB stewards.
a bit of background on my part, I am an RN. im 30 years old. I have been passionately traveling for climbing for 10 or more years. Ive had a lot of experience bolting new routes in humboldt county, tennessee and yosemite. I have aided in rebolting projects in humboldt county. I consider myself a well rounded climber with experience on the the small butt dragger boulders to spending multiple days on walls "aid climbing" to clipping sport bolts on both the best stone in the world to the chossiest stone. I worked with the Yosemite Search and Rescue 2011-2012. Im a strong climber looking to improve at the game but far from the best. I have been in and out of santa cruz for the past 10 years but have only made it my permanent home in the last 2 years. and I consider pinnacles a great place in terms of quality and proximity.
After having said all that, Im sure everyone else here has impressive and respected qualities. I would be curious to hear about the backgrounds of everyone on here and not that it really matters in terms of fixing ranger bolts its nice to know that its not just some "yeehaw" thats taking on the pinnacles by storm.
After discussing with Jim about the various ideas it does seem like we can come to terms on a lot of issues.
as far as moving the bolts, the only bolt i think that could be in a better place is the 3rd bolt. if we dropped it down while maintain the line, we could clip off of the sidepull and it would protect the traverse over to the right which is path of least resistance and seems like it is the beta most people use. It is not so much a runout as it is confusing for the onsight climber. I understand why "it doesnt feel so bad" but I believe that headpointing techniques in order to mediate funk is not a great way to have a route.
Right before the last bolt before the intermediate anchors there is a rest position and a great clipping stance and ending to the first part of the route the next few moves to the anchor are reachy and bewildering until you have the move figured out. I doubt someone shorter than 5'8" could even do the move. that being said, it is hard and I would encourage people to do it but ending the midway anchors before that move would make it a recommendable lead for a 5.11 climber.
-
I apologize to come off abrasive.
Thanks for the apology mutemudder - I think we're off to a much better start with your second post and I'm glad to have you on here and to have your input!
My sole purpose for caring about RB is to minimize the impact on the wall and refreshen and match the free climbing with an excellent bolt job which would be enjoyed by many for years to come. I am not impulsive about my ways and would only act on my feelings when they were moderated by multiple respected RB stewards.
Yes, I think we all share these concerns and this passion. And I think we can come up with acceptable solutions by these discussions.
a bit of background on my part, I am an RN. im 30 years old. I have been passionately traveling for climbing for 10 or more years. Ive had a lot of experience bolting new routes in humboldt county, tennessee and yosemite. I have aided in rebolting projects in humboldt county. I consider myself a well rounded climber with experience on the the small butt dragger boulders to spending multiple days on walls "aid climbing" to clipping sport bolts on both the best stone in the world to the chossiest stone. I worked with the Yosemite Search and Rescue 2011-2012. Im a strong climber looking to improve at the game but far from the best. I have been in and out of santa cruz for the past 10 years but have only made it my permanent home in the last 2 years. and I consider pinnacles a great place in terms of quality and proximity.
Thanks for the further introduction. I guess if you've climbed up on the north coast you've got plenty of choss under your belt? And are well qualified and trained to climb at Pinns ;D It does my heart a lot of good to see the words "quality" and "Pinnacles" used in the same sentence.
I hope to hear from you more. And maybe to see you (although you won't see me on Ranger Bolts!).
Sincerely,
Brad
-
I am one of the few losers who first climbed this route as and aid route and will never forget clipping into those manky bolts and wondering if they were going to blow. That route will give anyone a great history lesson in Pinnacles bolting hardware. It was great fun the first time and every other time I have aided the route. I am a little surprised at how this conversation is moving along. The the last route I was on at Pinnacles was the Balconies Regular Route which happens to be a bolt ladder. Could we be having this same discussion about the Balconies Regular Route in the future?
I will not name names but one first accessionist at Pinnacles blew every bolt he ever placed at Pinnacles in respect to placement, ascetics and functionally. This guy destroyed lines that could have been really good. Does this mean that by group decree we can decide to erase and re-establish?
Someone once told me that you do not need to respect the people involved in the FA but you do need to respect the route. Out of respect for the route I think Ranger Bolts should stay as bolt ladder and that moving bolts based on convenience, aesthetics, etc. is a really bad idea. I am all for making the route safe and if and when bolts need to be replaced, replace out of necessity. Let is stand as an example of how not bolt a climb.
-
So pink colored hangers for the ladder?
-
No pink hangers at that spot, just camo. and besides pink hangers are for full retrobolts. The ladder placements are essentially original, so replacing them isn't retro, it is rebolting.
I'm ready to rebolt Balconies, with a couple changes for the free route. THough they have nothing to do with the bolts, just the bat guano being moved. :)
-
Aaron McDonald wrote:
"Let (the route) stand as an example of how not to bolt a route"
Can you expand on this thought Aaron? How should the route have been bolted?
The present state of Ranger Bolts arose via a conglomeration of different visions and different styles done over different eras on what is arguably one of the nicest and most alluring walls at The Pinnacles. I don't think anyone will argue that most of the current interest in the route is for free climbing. That trend will only increase in the future. It's a natural progression that people climbing the route today are going to notice the absolute shit-show of bolts everywhere and wonder if something could be done to make it better.
I've agreed not to mess with the aid bolts. But does there really need to be five bolts in a one square meter area at the mid-anchor? Should us free climbers accept an additional retro-anchor smack dab in the middle of the upper crux? I placed the (27-year-old) free climbing bolts on the upper half of the route, if I go to replace those and find that there is a better spot for any of those bolts are you telling me I shouldn't use my discretion to relocate them to a better spot that will enhance the experience for future free ascents?
I would love it if Ranger Bolts the free climb had only a perfectly-crafted line of free climbing bolts with a single top anchor in the proper spot. Ahhh, that would be SO nice! That's my personal vision for the climb. But I can't push my vision over yours. All I can do is ask the question how can we make this better? Even bolt-ladder enthusiasts can appreciate not having extraneous bolts all over the place.
I say instead of leaving this beautiful wall as "an example of how not to bolt a route" let's do our best to leave an example of the best way for an aid-ladder and free climb to coexist.
-
Maybe we should ask Mr Davis for his opinion?
-
Maybe we should ask Mr Davis for his opinion?
We should...
He has a good eye for matters like this....
-
Jim, I think you are fine relocating the free bolts to optimum placements. If a aid bolt is used for pro try to place the rebolt in a manner that still works for the aid ladder. If someone rebolts the aid ladder use a different colored hanger for "aid only". This would make the clips when freeing obvious.
What type of bolt are you thinking of using?
As far as keeping to the hole count, the plethora of bolts should make that easy. Sounds like there will be less bolts in the end.
Did a young Sloan place the midway anchor?
-
Wow, a lot of thoughtful discussion on this thread. There seems to be a great balance of considerate attention to balancing history, safety, and aesthetics on this route.
I think I am more or less in the same boat as Mr. Mud... I'm no 5.13 climber, but I've cranked through the 1st pitch of Ranger Bolts (still not quite clean), and stumbled through the 2nd pitch on TR with takes. I don't feel like I've had major rope drag issues on the 1st pitch, but I'm certainly supportive of thoughtful ideas on rebolting the free line that Jim, Kyle, and others mention.
Personally, I don't think the lower anchor should be completely eliminated, as it gives 5.11+ climbers a chance to test themselves on lead even if they can't make it through the top pitch, which has some substantially harder sequences. I'm mixed in my thoughts about changing the location of the lower anchor... At one level I'd welcome it, and at another level I like the fact that the hardest moves on the 1st pitch are right near the anchor, and your really have to earn the free lead. I guess I need to get back on that route and see how it feels again!
At any rate, not much more to add that hasn't already been said, but I definitely like the open discussion!
-
^^^ :)
Is the last move to the first anchor the crux of the first section?
Felt like it to me on TR.
-
^^^ :)
Is the last move to the first anchor the crux of the first section?
Felt like it to me on TR.
For me clipping the anchor has always been the crux, which for me made the route what it is. Removing that aspect completely changes the character of the route.
I went down there yesterday and took some pics from up above. I will say from the trail almost all of the bolts are near invisible with the exception of the chains on top. The two doubled screw gates on top of West of the Sun stand out more than any bolt on Ranger Bolts. Upper anchor is visible but you have to look for it. The lead bolts and aid bolts are barely visible.
As far as the aid bolts go on the upper part of Ranger Bolts I will say I have seen quite a number of people that were working the route pull through using the aid bolts to get to the next lead bolt. When I think of it I see it as kind of funny, "Free climbers" probably use the aid bolts way more than any "aid climbers".
I did not have a chance to get on the route since the project we were working on took longer than anticipated. Will post a link to the pictures soon.
-
The pictures did not come out as well as I had hoped. They do allow a general view of what the wall looks like from the trail. Chalk and chains are much more noticeable than bolts.
http://www.mudncrud.com/MudGallery/index.php?/category/2
-
Hard to shoot into the dark pit with the way it runs relative to the sun.
-
Someone once told me that you do not need to respect the people involved in the FA but you do need to respect the route. Out of respect for the route I think Ranger Bolts should stay as bolt ladder and that moving bolts based on convenience, aesthetics, etc. is a really bad idea. I am all for making the route safe and if and when bolts need to be replaced, replace out of necessity. Let is stand as an example of how not bolt a climb.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The ROUTE is not a bolt ladder. The ROUTE is a beautiful, obvious line of weakness allowing you to free climb an impressively steep wall. Out of respect for the real route, the bolt ladder seems unnecessary.
(Sorry for the late response, and for resurrecting this thread.)
-
Well actually the route is a bolt ladder and always has been. It just happened to be freed. What I do not understand is the desire to move the free bolts on the lower section. these are not part of the aid ladder. This is how the lower part of the route was established and in my opinion climbs just fine. I do not see anything wrong with moving the lower anchor a bit but we need to keep in mind clipping integrity is maintained for climbers going straight up to avoid the bulge finish out to the left.
I brought up a similar discussion with Machete Direct. The free line was put in because the aid line was dangerous, but I ( and others ) have freed the aid line. As far as I am concerned the only new bolt that is really needed is the first bolt in the new free version because without that a failure on the traverse results in a nasty fall on less than optimal gear. But when I brought up removing the bolts from the free variation there was not a lot of positive feedback. Having the two lines does not really bother me, the way it is there are two 5.11's instead of one.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. The ROUTE is not a bolt ladder. The ROUTE is a beautiful, obvious line of weakness allowing you to free climb an impressively steep wall. Out of respect for the real route, the bolt ladder seems unnecessary.
(Sorry for the late response, and for resurrecting this thread.)
Maybe I did not make myself clear. The "Route" is the line established by the FA party. That line is not always the most obvious line of weakness nor the best possible placement of protection. That FA line is what you respect.
-
Aaron McDonald wrote:
"Let (the route) stand as an example of how not to bolt a route"
Can you expand on this thought Aaron? How should the route have been bolted?
The present state of Ranger Bolts arose via a conglomeration of different visions and different styles done over different eras on what is arguably one of the nicest and most alluring walls at The Pinnacles. I don't think anyone will argue that most of the current interest in the route is for free climbing. That trend will only increase in the future. It's a natural progression that people climbing the route today are going to notice the absolute shit-show of bolts everywhere and wonder if something could be done to make it better.
I've agreed not to mess with the aid bolts. But does there really need to be five bolts in a one square meter area at the mid-anchor? Should us free climbers accept an additional retro-anchor smack dab in the middle of the upper crux? I placed the (27-year-old) free climbing bolts on the upper half of the route, if I go to replace those and find that there is a better spot for any of those bolts are you telling me I shouldn't use my discretion to relocate them to a better spot that will enhance the experience for future free ascents?
I would love it if Ranger Bolts the free climb had only a perfectly-crafted line of free climbing bolts with a single top anchor in the proper spot. Ahhh, that would be SO nice! That's my personal vision for the climb. But I can't push my vision over yours. All I can do is ask the question how can we make this better? Even bolt-ladder enthusiasts can appreciate not having extraneous bolts all over the place.
I say instead of leaving this beautiful wall as "an example of how not to bolt a route" let's do our best to leave an example of the best way for an aid-ladder and free climb to coexist.
Jim,
You are correct that climbing is evolving and people are climbing harder and harder free routes. There is plenty of evidence all over California that the aid climbers of yesterday probably did not even think about the impact their decisions would have on future generations of climbers. It is possible to erase some of those bad early aid climbing decisions and sometimes it is not. The question is should we change the route based on today's latest climbing disciplines? What about the future? Will the climbers of tomorrow even need bolts? What if removable bolts become the new protection?
If you re-read my post I said "I am all for making the route safe and if and when bolts need to be replaced, replace out of necessity." This usually means placing a bolt as close to the original as you can safely. Replacing bolts is completely different than moving things around based on aesthetics.
I agree with you that best free line was not chosen when the route was established. There are many beautiful and alluring walls at pinnacles that suffer similar fates. The "shit show of bolts" is part of our history as climbers and an important part of the history of Pinnacles.
-
are there some categories we could use to summarize our collective positions for the lead bolts at least?
1. Strict replacement only.
2. Replacement, but if hole fails ok to move within short distance of less than a foot. [Typically this comes with 'use best judgement' caveat if it doesn't fit within a short distance because rock quality is bad]
3. Replace bad existing (aid or free) bolts, and retro (add) bolt(s) are ok, if necessary, to protect otherwise dangerous clips
4. Replace bad existing (aid or free) bolts, and a couple retro free (add) bolt(s) are preferred/desired.
5. Remove bad existing aid bolts, and replace free bolts within short distance of less than a foot.
6. Remove bad existing aid bolts, and replace free bolts and retro a couple bolts, if necessary, to protect otherwise dangerous clips
7. Remove bad existing aid bolts, and retro or replace free bolts to optimize clips for free climbing movement/stances.
8. Leave some bad, or existing, aid bolts, and replace free bolts within short distance of less than a foot.
9. Leave some bad, or existing, aid bolts, and replace free bolts and retro a couple bolts, if necessary, to protect otherwise dangerous clips
10. Leave some bad, or existing, aid bolts, and retro or replace free bolts to optimize clips for free climbing movement/stances.
For my part, 1 and 2 are not controversial given Pinns history/ethics overall, unless executed poorly and in bad faith. 3. is flexible in my mind if the free bolts went in top down. We may not know this history? Jim or Brad, can you add thoughts? Preserving bad and originally top down bolt positions isn't a worthy goal in my mind. 4. I have difficulty with also, unless they are only strictly top down established sections. Then retros are fine in that section.
For 5 through 7, removing the aid line doesn't seem viable with those that have posted up so far.
For 8 through 9, some combination of these is what is being discussed, as I understand it. 8 being like 1 and 2 above seems not controversial. 9 and 10 are more at issue.
As for anchors, moving an anchor that went in top down seems non-controversial to my mind since it was a bit or artifice to put it in the first place. I just don't know the history well enough to know if any anchors are top down. Can you anyone confirm the history on the anchors?
If the anchors were established as part of the FA, then I think the position should stay where it is, unless it needs to be moved because they are in bad rock or in bad condition.
Ultimately we only have a handful of responses so far.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. The ROUTE is not a bolt ladder. The ROUTE is a beautiful, obvious line of weakness allowing you to free climb an impressively steep wall. Out of respect for the real route, the bolt ladder seems unnecessary.
I see no reason that the bolts from the "original route" aid route should be removed. They never got in my way when working the route and I frequently pulled through on some to get the draws on... god forbid putting the draws on top down... The way it is now is just confusing, thats all. If new shiny bolts are put in much of the confusion would be negated. Leave those things in, keep the history. I feel that none of the current bolt positions are bad. What are we trying to do, just hand things to people? and make it as easy as possible? Part of climbing is using your brain and by the time you get to 5.13 I would hope you would know when to put on a long draw or runner. Come on... are we trying to dumb this thing down?
IMHO the fear that Brad always has of Pinnacles being turned into a climbing gym is actually coming true due to all the cool old bolts being replaced and all the kinks being aligned and justified by what theory seems right. But nothing will ever make Pinnacles safe... not even solid bolts... what a delusion that is... ASCA values seems kind of ironic in the context of the loose nature of The Pinnacles and the inherent risks and problems of placing bolts perfectly and where we want.
And Munge, you're way too serious. Maybe everyone one is too serious. It's pretty obvious which bolts are for free climbing, they should be replaced if they seem sketchy.
-
Part of climbing is using your brain
We have a sage in our midst. Damnit, I knew I was missing something. Nice
a climbing gym is actually coming true due to all the cool old bolts being replaced
What I have seen of the bolt replacement is that the crappy old bolts are being replaced and the cool bolts are being left.
Pinnacles being turned into a climbing gym
Should the original bolts on Foreplay, POD, Can"t Elope Death(hardcore sport for sure) and Lard Butt be left(or had been) because 5.15 climbers abilities make them secure enough to climb them as is?
Climbing, a lifelong pursuit.
Or , really YOU SHOULD GIVE IT UP brau, because that bolt you need for protection isn't necessary for a REAL CLIMBER and you are ruining their playground just being here.
Climbing? Bouldering on the coast or taking my grandson to Castle, pulling plastic at the gym, throwing the hexes in and some of the cams out for a High Sierra route. Reminiscing with old partners and making plans with them and more recent partners for a 35th year ahead. Making progress on a multi pitch and year FA that we gained 70ft on in 2015 or working the moves 10 ft higher on over a bulge that I really should be belaying Gavin, Kyle or Atomizer on. Contemplating whether to let Geoff or Aaron talk me into a Yosemite wall this year when there is always next. Praying that Cook doesn't crater again. The happy realization that some of my acquaintances are the finest people and I am privileged to call them friends and berate them on occasion.
Anyway, them bitches would never call me Mudmittens because I ain't worried about getting my M'er F'ing hands dirty! :)
-
Cheers Atom!
If by serious, you mean analytical, sure. :)
If by seriously meaning to go to a party to talk about upgrading bad bolts and get a burn on RB, yep. I'm in. :)
And bolts that get hammerjacked with falls, lets beef those up.
-
With the passing of Scalia, I can't help but think of the analogy of climbing ethics debates to the debates over "originalism" vs. a "living" Constitution. The perfect tension between the past and future.
-
Adam Long wrote:
IMHO the fear that Brad always has of Pinnacles being turned into a climbing gym is actually coming true due to all the cool old bolts being replaced and all the kinks being aligned and justified by what theory seems right. But nothing will ever make Pinnacles safe... not even solid bolts... what a delusion that is... ASCA values seems kind of ironic in the context of the loose nature of The Pinnacles and the inherent risks and problems of placing bolts perfectly and where we want.
As one of the people who does a lot of rebolting at the Pinnacles for the ASCA I feel a need to reply to this comment.
When I replace bolts I try as hard as possible to put the bolt in the same hole or as close to it as possible given the sketchy quality of rock there can sometimes be at the Pinnacles. I don't know how the rumour that we are moving bolts got started but it just isn't true. If anyone ever has any questions on a rebolting project that I have done please feel free to contact me. Please don't start unsubstantiated rumours.
-
I have a question. In both of the old Rubine guides there is a 12d variation that goes out left of the 13a dyno. How many people have done this?
-
Here is what I posted on the Rebolting thread when asked what Clint and I were going to do about the bolts on the 2nd pitch aid ladder of Resurrection Wall.
Have no fear we have Clint on the case! On his notes about the route he has the bolts where you climb away from the ladder marked. That's bolts #1,3,5,9, and 12 if you are keeping score at home. We are keeping the bolts as close to the original locations as possible. Some of the rock up there is a bit sketchy!
-
Yeah! let us normal folks have a chance at the route....put them bolts where they should be.
And soft brush the holds as well.
-
Mynameismud the "12d" variation was climbed by Dave Schultz because he couldn't get the dyno. I can't remember if he redpointed the route that way or just worked out the moves. Either way, going that way seemed just as hard or harder than the dyno way, so I'd guess the left variation is 5.13 also.
-
Mynameismud the "12d" variation was climbed by Dave Schultz because he couldn't get the dyno. I can't remember if he redpointed the route that way or just worked out the moves. Either way, going that way seemed just as hard or harder than the dyno way, so I'd guess the left variation is 5.13 also.
Do you know where it goes out left? I would like to give it a try.
-
When I replace bolts I try as hard as possible to put the bolt in the same hole or as close to it as possible given the sketchy quality of rock there can sometimes be at the Pinnacles. I don't know how the rumour that we are moving bolts got started but it just isn't true. If anyone ever has any questions on a rebolting project that I have done please feel free to contact me. Please don't start unsubstantiated rumours.
As for Brad Young's comments upthread about Clint and I moving bolts on the second pitch of Resurrection Wall to improve clipping...that is simply not true. We tried to put the bolts as close to the original holes as possible. I told Brad that Clint had a topo that indicated the critical bolts on the 2nd pitch and since we were not sure we were going to replace all the bolts we at least wanted to replace the critical ones. Maybe he misunderstood what I said. BTW, we ended up replacing all the bolts in the aid ladder.
Bruce my comments about straightening out kinks weren't aimed towards you. I have absolute respect for what you, Clint and others do with rebolting. My concern is that everything at The Pinns gets rebolted and a lot of history is lost. But maybe that's just a stupid view on my part because I tend to be safety conscious and I sure love those new stainless bolts when i find them. Good work on the Resurrection Wall, I would have liked to see the last bolt to the right a foot or two but, what the hell, there are new bolts now so there is no longer a mental picture of all the bolts pulling for a leader.
-
I always thought the easiest way to deal with Ranger Bolts was to replace all or most of the free climbing bolts that are necessary to safely free climb it and remove any others. I'm not sure that you have to move any bolts, because I never had a problem with drag as I didn't clip every bolt and I extended one along the way. If a hole can't be reused, then the bolt should be placed close but in a more optimal position for free climbing.
I'd then look at the aid line. When you have them right on top of each other, I'd remove the worst ones as they don't need to be any closer than about 3 or 4 feet apart. After that, if there is a section that can't be safely aided by using the aid bolts for progression and the free bolts for protection, then I'd look to replace an aid bolt with something that we'd feel comfortable falling on. That bolt and hanger could be painted darker than the free bolts to avoid confusion.
As for anchors, I don't really have an opinion as much a observations:
The halfway anchor has history and people seem to love that bottom section as a climb. If it needs moving up a little bit, then that is probably as arbitrary as the place that it currently is.
The upper anchor is nice to lower off from, but cheats the climber. I don't think that you could put it any higher as most of the rock over that lip is quite hollow and brittle.
The chain anchor on the very top shares with "West of the Sun", so that should stay.
-
Adam,
here is what I wrote regarding your concern about replacing old bolts when it was raised in the Rebolting thread:
"I think the crux of the issue is what you think of the quality of the bolts that were put in during the FA. If you feel that the bolts people placed when they were putting up routes back in the day were good at the time they were placed then all we are doing is maintaining the 'good' nature of the bolts. Future climbers should not have to deal with bad bolts because they have decayed over time.
If you feel that the bolts which were put in during the FA were crap and have always been crap then, yes, you have a valid argument that we are changing the nature of the climbs by replacing the crap with good bolts.
When Tom Higgins was doing the FFA of Resurrection Wall he grabbed the belay knob at the top of the 2nd pitch, but couldn't pull up resulting in a 30 foot fall on a 1/4" x1" Red Head bolt. I doubt that, 38 years later, that bolt would have held that same fall."
-
4. Gluing the hold is a sticky situation. It was a very important rest stop for me when I did the route. If it goes the route would likely be an 8a at that point. So it would officially be considered a hard sport route by euro standards. It would be awesome to see it stay. But that would be an experiment and since that hold is a polished knob that is loose and its doubtful gkue would hold it on for very long anyways unless you encase a few of the edges of the knob in it. I'm not a pro but I've seen the best in the world glue stuff on or reinforce and I can say no one on this forum has the skills to do it right, not even myself. Given the nature of the rock I doubt a fix would last more than 15 years even given the European techniques that are well established using Sika anchor fix. I've seen many routes in Europe where a hold is glued from behind then breaks off anyways. Then you end up crimping on glue. I'm going to go with what Kelly Rich told me years ago, "if you want to do something hard at pinnacles, you better do it now..." So the hold might break but that will be part of the evolution of the route. I think it will still be climbable once the hold is gone.
Just go bolt that hold on to the wall if it's so important to the route