MudNCrud Forums
Climbing and ... Climbing => Masters of Mud -- Pinnacles => Topic started by: JC w KC redux on January 31, 2017, 03:17:37 PM
-
I led Erectile Dysfunction on Saturday and someone had removed the nut, washer and hanger on the last bolt.
It is now a bare stud.
Maybe they thought that was appropriate, given the name of the climb and the formation?
I also noticed that someone had taken the nuts and washers off the Highline anchor at the top of Big Bad West.
-
>:D
-
I led Erectile Dysfunction on Saturday and someone had removed the nut, washer and hanger on the last bolt.
It is now a bare stud.
Maybe they thought that was appropriate, given the name of the climb and the formation?
I also noticed that someone had taken the nuts and washers off the Highline anchor at the top of Big Bad West.
To summarize, I am saying that it will take a couple pairs of big nuts to highline and you will have to wrap the bare stud on ED with some additional protection if you want to be safe from/on the Unmentionable. :lol: :crazy: :arf:
-
that route shouldn't be there, but that is just me.
-
I believe that's the one that is within an arm's reach of the regular, yes?
Not surprised its gone. AROCA membership grows with each passing year.
-
I believe that's the one that is within an arm's reach of the regular, yes?
Not surprised its gone. AROCA membership grows with each passing year.
I'll put a Leeper and a nut on it with Red Loctite. That'll teach 'em :devildevil:
-
what is AROCA?
-
what is AROCA?
I'm guessing Arm's Reach of Climbing Anarchists?
Internet says Alfa Romeo Owners Club of Australia
Bruce told me last year that someone in Colorado came to a stud bolt with a loose hanger and nut and they didn't have a wrench. Instead of hand tightening it and reporting it, they removed the nut and hanger because they thought it was unsafe.
Noal told me he has seen multiple reports of the same thing over the years.
I bought a mini adjustable wrench a long time ago. It is only 4 inches long but has jaws that open big enough to work on the gate of a half inch screw link. It stays on my harness on a short cord with a drilled quarter for checking the thickness of SMC death hangers and a leaver screwlink with double aluminum rap rings. Best $10 I ever spent.
The dilemma for me on this climb is replacement. I don't feel like I should use ASCA replacement hardware for something someone took for whatever reason. If I do end up putting a hanger back on it at some point I will use red loctite and torque the nut to spec.
-
Do not replace that bolt. It was anathema to begin with. And especially do not use ASCA gear for ethically questionable bolts to begin with.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=18063&msg=18084#msg18084
-
Do not replace that bolt. It was anathema to begin with. And especially do not use ASCA gear for ethically questionable bolts to begin with.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=18063&msg=18084#msg18084
American RunOut Climbing Association
Not sure this applies here. The 5.9 line was never R.
That last bolt wasn't added to a runout, but I do agree that the route is an abomination at Pinnacles since it was bolted on rappel. I swore I would never climb it but we were over there so the gals could get their lead on and I felt like leading something new. Never say never.
There is a separate issue with that bolt. It is drilled just above a small overhang of rock. The position of the bolt is less than a bolt length above the edge. This is a recipe for failure per manufacturers location regarding close to an edge specs. I suspect that if someone did take a hard fall onto that bolt, it might break out. The moves above that bolt are also quite contrived. The description says if the bolt line is followed closely, a 5.9 mantle is necessary to pass that section. I once had someone tell me that you can't direct climbers. The climbing from that bolt does not require a mantle if you follow the Line Of Least Resistance from the clipping stance, and the bolt on the 5.5 route is located close enough to protect those moves.
-
no bolt needed. soloed it.
-
American RunOut Climbing Association
Not sure this applies here. The 5.9 line was never R.
That last bolt wasn't added to a runout, but I do agree that the route is an abomination at Pinnacles since it was bolted on rappel. I swore I would never climb it but we were over there so the gals could get their lead on and I felt like leading something new. Never say never.
There is a separate issue with that bolt. It is drilled just above a small overhang of rock. The position of the bolt is less than a bolt length above the edge. This is a recipe for failure per manufacturers location regarding close to an edge specs. I suspect that if someone did take a hard fall onto that bolt, it might break out. The moves above that bolt are also quite contrived. The description says if the bolt line is followed closely, a 5.9 mantle is necessary to pass that section. I once had someone tell me that you can't direct climbers. The climbing from that bolt does not require a mantle if you follow the Line Of Least Resistance from the clipping stance, and the bolt on the 5.5 route is located close enough to protect those moves.
You might be missing the point of AROCA. "Runout" is not meant to force runouts on every climb.
The route went in top down to begin with. It was just a matter of time before the whole thing got erased.
You are correct, the last clip is obviated by the regular route.
-
American RunOut Climbing Association
Not sure this applies here. The 5.9 line was never R.
That last bolt wasn't added to a runout, but I do agree that the route is an abomination at Pinnacles since it was bolted on rappel. I swore I would never climb it but we were over there so the gals could get their lead on and I felt like leading something new. Never say never.
There is a separate issue with that bolt. It is drilled just above a small overhang of rock. The position of the bolt is less than a bolt length above the edge. This is a recipe for failure per manufacturers location regarding close to an edge specs. I suspect that if someone did take a hard fall onto that bolt, it might break out. The moves above that bolt are also quite contrived. The description says if the bolt line is followed closely, a 5.9 mantle is necessary to pass that section. I once had someone tell me that you can't direct climbers. The climbing from that bolt does not require a mantle if you follow the Line Of Least Resistance from the clipping stance, and the bolt on the 5.5 route is located close enough to protect those moves.
On lead if you can clip the bolts then you are on route. If you climb out of the line of bolts then climb back in you are on route ( try leading Future Shock ). Leading outside is not leading in the gym or bouldering. Climbing the route of least resistance is the defacto standard and is how countless hard climbs have ended up being down graded. Stating "you have climb in line with the bolts because that is how it is bolted" or "that is the only way it gets the correct rating" does not make sense.
I do not consider that a bad route because it is rap bolted, I consider it a bad route for other reasons.
I have put up bad routes, I know a bad route when I see one. 8)
-
On lead if you can clip the bolts then you are on route. If you climb out of the line of bolts then climb back in you are on route ( try leading Future Shock ). Leading outside is not leading in the gym or bouldering. Climbing the route of least resistance is the defacto standard and is how countless hard climbs have ended up being down graded. Stating "you have climb in line with the bolts because that is how it is bolted" or "that is the only way it gets the correct rating" does not make sense.
I do not consider that a bad route because it is rap bolted, I consider it a bad route for other reasons.
I have put up bad routes, I know a bad route when I see one. 8)
Agreed. As I was once told - you can't direct climbers. I was also taught that when in doubt, follow the line of least resistance. There are a lot of routes where wandering beyond the bolt line is prudent. I follow the features, not the bolts. That being said, I thought some of the hardest moves were right off the ground on ED. There are some moves before the third bolt too that are at the grade imo. KC and beanolar did not think the climb was 5.9 when they followed it. They thought it was harder.
It is unfortunate that the bolts were placed in an unethical fashion. There are perfectly good stances for drilling.
The line climbs okay but is definitely not star worthy (if you believe in the stars :lol:).
What is it you don't like Mud?
-
It is squeezed in next to another line and it has no aesthetics. Well no good aesthetics. It looks like they put the line in just to put the line in. Not because it seems like it could be a good route. I do not have a problem with really crappy rock, that can be fun, but I think a route should hold its own. That line does not hold its own.
-
It is squeezed in next to another line and it has no aesthetics. Well no good aesthetics. It looks like they put the line in just to put the line in. Not because it seems like it could be a good route. I do not have a problem with really crappy rock, that can be fun, but I think a route should hold its own. That line does not hold its own.
Agreed. Squeezed and along the rappel line makes a good argument for leaving as a TR (crap! did I just say that :lol:)
The name certainly is well chosen and appropriate. Inappropriate Touching would work too :lol: :yesnod: :thumbup: :biggrin:
-
hold its own means what? what are the criteria for, presumably, an independent line?
Hawaiian Tango?
Arms reach is too close?
6feet as an objective measure?
A lot of people I know bitch about lines must be independent, but then they haven't really thought about what it means to be independent.
Think of the example of an arête. If your hands are in the same place, but there is no way to reach around the corner without falling off, and you would clip away from the edge of the arête, and yet still if the bolts were within 6' of each other, are they still independent climbs? Should neither be bolted, or only one?
-
I did not state it had to be and independent line. I stated it had to hold its own. I do agree that this is subjective in nature and I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about it.
I think most people would agree that Hawaiian Tango holds it own. I personally think coming up with hard numbers like 6 feet can make for even more contrived lines.
-
hard numbers like 6 feet can make for even more contrived lines.
how can a minimum distance force a contrivance? it either fits in or doesn't with a measurement test.
Btw, not harping on you or your lines, just reflecting other discussions I've had.
On bigwall free lines, a lot of effort, depending on the climber has gone into keeping free bolts out of arms reach from aid placements on an existing line. It seems a reasonable starting point.
if you can reach the clip on one line from the clip on another line, its squeezey.
what of routes that intentionally intersect, and share a clip. I think that bolsters your point about 'independence' not being the sine qua non of squeeze.
Rappel line isn't dispositive. Look at Burgundy Dome.
I think ED is a ok line, it just needs to join the regular route. But then I don't have problems with variations on existing lines usually. Someone think that variations that are bolted are squeeze jobs by definition.
-
I do not care to much about variations. Like all routes some are good, some not so much. Rap bolting for me is the same, some are good, some not so much. I do think that climbers should respect an area, for instance the Pinnacles is by hand and ground up. I am ok with that. There are areas in the Sierra and up here where climbers do not really care how the routes go in. I am fine with that approach.
Sharing a clip, rappel lines ( we put in Volcanic Panic ) for me it is the route and does it hold it own. Which for me is a complex statement. I think Volcanic Panic holds it own. I saw it rapping off that wall, I am fairly sure Clint had seen it before I had. I had one person suggest I should not bolt it since I had rapped it. After rapping it I thought that was nuts since it was a killer looking line. Technically it was previewed, but I just could not see walking away from something like that.
Noal has mentioned the word heat to me. I think that helps to describe what I think of as holding its own. In many ways just about everything can be bolted or climbed. But, for me, the question is does the route hold its own? Does it have some heat? So the line is 6.5 feet away, it might be quite nice, it might just be a contrived piece of crap. For me Deck Chairs is a bit contrived. But, I really like it and it is fun. I think it holds it own.
For me it is a matter of looking at the thing and thinking alright, if 100 climbers walk by this and look at it what will they think? That is a dangerous question since there are so many different types of climbers. In asking myself that question I have to look at the line from multiple points of view. I also do not mind if people criticize my routes. I learn from that. Some of my routes at this time I probably would not do them and some others i would do differently.
-
Just to comment on the freeing of aid lines. That is a real hard one for me. There are some very bold aid lines that could be free and freed in a way where they are very bold. But, they do require adding bolts. Where is this limit and it goes to what I said "what if 100 climbers look at it". There is no simple or easy answer and most likely no answer that works for the parties involved. I find this is unfortunate, I love bold hard lines and one of my regrets is that I was too limited in this arena.
It is likely some of the free lines never happen in our lifetimes. Whether this is good or bad I have no answer.
-
Cop out approach. :)
What principles can we appeal to as a prescriptive guide?
-
personal responsibility.
-
c'mon, personal responsibility is about how it is the individual's responsibility to implement principles. It is not a criteria of the principle itself. Thus it is a fall back to subjectivism, and is not an appeal to objective criteria. Therefore I get to pull your routes out. >:D
Ok, I'll go first.
Nobody but nobody can put in a new route unless they are over 40 years old.
Nobody but nobody can put in a new route unless it is less than 6 feet away from an existing line. I like my routes close together so I don't have to walk around and it focuses the climber impacts in a smaller area.
-
We commonly apply subject criteria to create objective constraints.
Obviously that number is over 50.
-
Constraint is the action of prevention, not the principle to which we appeal to justify the constraint. Sure, you can use subjective criteria, but then one can also be a loofa face shit gibbon. ;D Doesn't make it true or right to use a subjective opinion.
For example, a squeeze job can go in within 4 feet of an existing line, if the protection is all clean and not fixed. Then the objective experience of the climb isn't modified by the FA author.
A bolt placed within an arms reach of another bolt is prima facie understood to be squeeze, unless the holds dictate a movement that prevents the climber from being able to reach the other holds on the other climbs, unless they can be linked via moves of the same or lesser difficulty.
Doesn't mean that someone wouldn't create an intersection of a climb to another climb, breaking that principle, so we would need an exception to the principle for routes that intersect or another principle that says the intersecting route shouldn't bolt next to the bolt on the first line; perhaps in a way that would mislead a climber on the first line.
-
Dude! My head is spinning! Time for a beer :lol: :yesnod: :thumbup: :biggrin:
-
Not encroaching on another line is ultimately just a subjective call. Not bolting a preexisting line is a subjective call. We take these as hard limits but ultimately they are just rules we apply to a game. I personally think that most games need rules, but most rules are just subjective calls we take as facts. This is why I do not really have a hard time making subjective calls on what constitutes whether or not a route stands on it own. Most rules are arbitrary, if you breath water without coming up for air you drown, that is not subjective.
-
I'd recommend looking at Nagel. Objective principles aren't physical facts in the world. The objective view is a view from no one single place. Its not omniscient, not meta physical per se. But it is reasoned.
When most players of a game adhere to the rules, that's not pure subjective call making.
-
But the point I was trying to make remains, most rules are arbitrary, and many rules are there because of a vocal minority not a rule of the majority or some defined limit. Not bolting a preexisting line to me is arbitrary, it may make sense, but it is arbitrary in nature. They are decisions made up by individuals or groups because that is what they think the rules should be. Sometimes they are more reasoned than others. I am not arguing that there should not be rules or that rules should largely be ignored. I am just stating that they are not based on hard limits.
Also my understanding, the definition of subjective is that it is based on feelings or opinion. Objective means it is based on a defined object. Rocks are harder than marsh mellows is an objective statement. The Pinnacles is the best climbing on the planet is objective. Munge is a punter is subjective.
-
But the point I was trying to make remains, most rules are arbitrary, and many rules are there because of a vocal minority not a rule of the majority or some defined limit. Not bolting a preexisting line to me is arbitrary, it may make sense, but it is arbitrary in nature. They are decisions made up by individuals or groups because that is what they think the rules should be. Sometimes they are more reasoned than others. I am not arguing that there should not be rules or that rules should largely be ignored. I am just stating that they are not based on hard limits.
Also my understanding, the definition of subjective is that it is based on feelings or opinion. Objective means it is based on a defined object. Rocks are harder than marsh mellows is an objective statement. The Pinnacles is the best climbing on the planet is objective. Munge is a punter is subjective.
A rule set isn't arbitrary when there is evidence to suggest the opposite is true. An exception to the behavior is not an argument to say the rule is arbitrary. Are the laws of the United States arbitrary?
They are not. They are the result of politics and have a history. Yes, they could be otherwise, given the right circumstances and changes in the law, but the rule itself is not merely arbitrary. Arbitrary is me picking between to equally good choices. It is when something could be equivocally chosen between. I don't think the choice of retro bolting or leaving it alone are equivocal options.
The limits are what we are trying to define by talking about the criteria, conditions of success, what is necessary vs. what is sufficient.
thoughts?
arbitrary
ADJECTIVE
1.based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system:
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms: capricious · whimsical · random · chance · unpredictable · casual ·
[more]
•(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority:
"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"
synonyms: autocratic · dictatorial · autarchic · undemocratic · despotic ·
[more]
•
mathematics
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
-
All I know is when I read mungie's comments on this discussion I go "huh?" :idea: and when I read Mr Mud's I laugh :lol:
-
Munge=Spock
-
My reply to Phil asking "Do you know where you are going?"
"Phil, lost I fear."
Could anyone give me a brief description of what exactly IS Objectivism? (self.Objectivism)
submitted 4 years ago by KayMan17
I have always heard about his philosophy, Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, etc. But I would like to know what exactly it is. One of my favorite people, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, is a self identified Objectivist, so I was curious to what exactly the core of the philosophy is.
DISCLAIMER: not a seasoned objectivist or philosopher.
Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth.
That's the one liner you might be looking for but to convey what that means more clearly I find it helps to look at what Rand said when answering a similar question.
If you take the following 4 things to be true you have a full system (philosophy) for navigating everything else that being alive involves.
Reality is objective: your wishing, dreaming and hoping will not change the world i.e. "the world" is independent from your consciousness of it and is the same for everyone.
Reason is your means of knowledge. To work out stuff about the objective world you could use lots of tools (emotion, magic, reason) but reason is the only worthwhile one. To know facts, proper unarguable truths, you have to use reason.
Man is an end unto himself. Meaning that since you are alive on Earth your main concern should be your happiness and rational self interest. Not self-sabotaging your happiness or anyone else's.
Because of 3 laissez-faire capitalism is the ideal / only / best way of dealing with other people. Government and economics should be split entirely.
So Objectivism holds some things to be wholly true while living on this planet. You can work out the answer to really abstract stuff like "is this painting any good?" by using the above.
Objectivism is a philosophy and getting your head around philosophy and individual philosophies is hard but there's loads of free Objectivism "beginner" material online.
The core of objectivism is that it's a metaphysical philosophy that describes reality.
It can be summarised as A = A.
Does you accept that axiom that A=A is true? Is that a correct statement to you?
If you accept that it is correct, then you accept that there is something called truth. And if you accept that it is, then you accept using reason and logic can determine truth.
That's really it. It's simple to grasp and hard to disprove. But the implications of A = A can really unravel society.
If you are still confused, just think of Spock. When he makes his decisions, there is no subjectivity in them, he deducts completely from objective logic. That's what is being an Objectivist is all about. Of course, he is a fictional character and humans have emotions that can affect their decisions. But I'm sure you get the idea.
Now, everything about the ego, capitalism and everything else Rand is heavily hated for is not objectivism. Those are Rand's conclusion that stem from objectivism - those can be attacked. But the A = A axiom cannot be attacked without leaving reality.
:)
-
I'm definitely not talking about Rand.
A=A when there is a shared understanding of A's meaning.
Really JC? I'm arguing from the analytical tradition. Usually I argue from the post modern side that questions narratives that purport to claim Objective (with capitalO) legitimacy.
-
Really JC? I'm arguing from the analytical tradition. Usually I argue from the post modern side that questions narratives that purport to claim Objective (with capitalO) legitimacy.
Really. Unless by JC you mean clink.
I tried to learn some stuff about philosophy once but it didn't take.
Same experience with physics.
I couldn't understand the logic portion of the GRE either.
I am however familiar with the greatest living philostopher on Earth - Quentin Robert DeNameland
signed,
Greggery Peccary :biggrin:
-
-
Spock meets the Flintstones :biggrin:
Just think - if we move to outer space we'll never have a negative gravity day climbing :lol:
-
Need a 20 minute comical/musical distraction?
If you can tolerate the dissonant sountrack-like nature of Frankie's tuneage the story is pretty funny.