Author Topic: New route on right side of Discovery Wall? (Read 19943359 times)

joe · « **Reply #60 on:** December 06, 2011, 08:39:32 AM »

congratulations Eric!

squiddo · « **Reply #61 on:** December 06, 2011, 09:14:23 AM »

Quote from: Poppy on December 05, 2011, 07:03:31 PM

I have never climbed Roof, but have eyed it for years. It is on my "list" and have looked forward to leading it.

I have to say, I'm not drawn to the original route with the anchors there. I value the classic, historical, natural line FAR more than another bolted face and anchors that now define the climb(s).

The anchors have effectively removed the original route. I say the anchors need to go.

Appreciate the perspective. Curious- I've only done the original (and now the new). Does the route actually continue up the mungie crack? Thought I'd heard that but perhaps it's a (bad) variation.

mynameismud · « **Reply #62 on:** December 06, 2011, 11:27:25 AM »

Yes, you traverse out the Roof to the belay. From there you go up the crack/chimney. After a bit, if I remember correctly, there is a short headwall to the top.

Poppy · « **Reply #63 on:** December 06, 2011, 02:41:26 PM »

The reasons stated for keeping the anchors sound a lot like "you don't have to clip them if you don't like them."

mynameismud · « **Reply #64 on:** December 06, 2011, 03:02:41 PM »

Poppy, I agree. I do not think the if you do not like them do not clip them is a good argument for having bolts in the middle of an existing route.

squiddo · « **Reply #65 on:** December 06, 2011, 03:04:15 PM »

Quote from: My Name is Mud on December 06, 2011, 03:02:41 PM

Poppy, I agree. I do not think the if you do not like them do not clip them is a good argument for having bolts in the middle of an existing route.

totally, way slippery slope to bolts, modified holds, etc.

Thomas D · « **Reply #66 on:** January 30, 2012, 10:50:53 AM »

Folks,
The new route under the roof is completely out of place. The anchors directly interfere with an old established route. As far as I'm concerned, the route can stay, but the anchors must go. If it was my route that had bolts added, I would have already taken them out.

Brad Young · « **Reply #67 on:** January 31, 2012, 06:00:35 AM »

There seems to be a strong, strong consensus. Matt are you still reading this? I think you said you'd listen to, and act on such a consensus? Greg?

mungeclimber · « **Reply #68 on:** January 31, 2012, 10:09:27 AM »

FWIW, Matt never replied to my message to discuss, which is odd, since I've met Matt a couple times now in the gym. Probably landed in the spam folder is all.

Gavin · « **Reply #69 on:** February 04, 2012, 04:58:48 AM »

Interesting reading the developments on this thread... It seems like there is at least some consensus that the bolts on the face are acceptable, but the anchor bolts / rings should go.

On the other hand, in the past few months I've seen quite a few climbing parties leading and following Straight Up because it is short, straightforward, has some interesting moves, and is not as difficult or intimidating as continuing on to the Roof anchors.

Obviously I am fine with whatever the majority consensus is on the subject, but here's an idea: how about removing the yellow webbing from each fixed pin on either side of the Straight Up anchor bolts, screwing a quick link onto each pin, and then having those as an alternative anchor set-up for the Straight Up route? That way the Straight Up anchor bolts could be removed and the route could still be set up as a TR. For the Roof, the only change would be having a quick link fixed to 2 pins rather than yellow webbing... Which would probably be safer than relying on the webbing anyway in the long term.

At any rate, just an idea I thought I'd throw out there. Whatever folks decide on the subject is ultimately fine by me.

joe · « **Reply #70 on:** February 04, 2012, 04:15:33 PM »

Gavin, have you ever considered a career in politics?
seems like a reasonable idea to me, but I don't have the history or cred that many of the bad boy veterans own, so what do I know?

MUCCI · « **Reply #71 on:** February 05, 2012, 12:06:57 AM »

Hey Gavin, how goes it?

The issue with using the Pins with rap rings is, as a belay they would not be adequate. There is no way to judge the integrity of the pin placements (they are very old) on a regular basis as there is with bolts. I do agree that the yellow tat is unecessary and can be removed.

Further, if/when the anchors are removed, the next few teams may take it upon themselves to use those pins just as described by Gavin. They are in no way suffice for a climbing anchor.

The FA need to step up and do the right thing here as I have said before. Removing and patching those mistakes should not fall to the labor of those who respect the area and history.

Your sweat, time, and money, is what is needed for this restoration.

Please remove your anchors, and patch the holes you placed on the route "The Roof".

Josh Mucci

Gavin · « **Reply #72 on:** February 05, 2012, 07:39:16 AM »

Quote from: MUCCI on February 05, 2012, 12:06:57 AM

Hey Gavin, how goes it?

The issue with using the Pins with rap rings is, as a belay they would not be adequate. There is no way to judge the integrity of the pin placements (they are very old) on a regular basis as there is with bolts. I do agree that the yellow tat is unecessary and can be removed.

Further, if/when the anchors are removed, the next few teams may take it upon themselves to use those pins just as described by Gavin. They are in no way suffice for a climbing anchor.

The FA need to step up and do the right thing here as I have said before. Removing and patching those mistakes should not fall to the labor of those who respect the area and history.

Your sweat, time, and money, is what is needed for this restoration.

Please remove your anchors, and patch the holes you placed on the route "The Roof".

Josh Mucci

Hey Josh, good to hear from you.

You make valid points, especially about the uncertain integrity of the pins.

I guess I was just thinking out loud, trying to come up with a way to accommodate both routes... In the past several months I've seen at least 40-50 people leading or following Straight Up (just saw 3 more there yesterday), but shying away from The Roof given its more challenging nature.

But I definitely hear where you're coming from and understand if that is the general consensus.

cobbledik · « **Reply #73 on:** February 05, 2012, 10:43:25 AM »

Those angles seemed suspect and rusty when I climbed by them over a year ago. But that could be my memory. I still haven't got to climb the routes since I noticed the new bolts so am still reserving my comments.

k-man · « **Reply #74 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:04:19 AM »

I haven't read this whole thread, but here's a bee in my bonnet:

Whoever put the new anchor bolts in The Roof placed them right in the middle of the crux.

The Roof used to turn the corner at the end of the traverse and go up a few moves (then you'd lower off a couple of crappy old bolts). Now, the anchor is smack-dab in the middle of the old crux.

Go figure.

Oh, and that new route? Perhaps the best example *ever* of how not to put up a "new" route.

Brad Young · « **Reply #75 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:27:47 AM »

Quote from: k-man on February 23, 2012, 09:04:19 AM

I haven't read this whole thread, but here's a bee in my bonnet:

Whoever put the new anchor bolts in The Roof placed them right in the middle of the crux.

The Roof used to turn the corner at the end of the traverse and go up a few moves (then you'd lower off a couple of crappy old bolts). Now, the anchor is smack-dab in the middle of the old crux.

Go figure.

Oh, and that new route? Perhaps the best example *ever* of how not to put up a "new" route.

Both are very good points. I didn't remember that the "old" anchor on that route was higher up than the current anchor. But I knew that the route originally went further.

And there seems to be pretty universal agreement that the new, Straight Up route anchor is a terrible placement.

mynameismud · « **Reply #76 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:45:45 AM »

I agree with k-man and do remember the old anchors since The Roof was one of my first 5.10 leads. Turning the corner and the couple of move up is the crux and those old bolts were nasty.

k-man · « **Reply #77 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:47:51 AM »

Indeed Brad. Ever wonder how the route got its .10a rating? Well, there ya go!

Looking through old books, it appears that the "old" anchor was actually retro'ed--the original route seems to be one pitch to the top. But I imagine rope drag (and unpleasant climbing) gave birth to the mid-point convenience anchor.

mynameismud · « **Reply #78 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:54:28 AM »

The rope drag was horrible as a one pitch lead. Especially for the 10a leader that actually protected the lead. I think the idea behind moving the anchor the second time was rope drag. With the old anchor if people tr'd or lowered off the lead then tr'd the second the rope went up and around the corner which created a fair amount of rope drag. Do not know for sure but that is my best guess.

Brad Young · « **Reply #79 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:56:19 AM »

I know that I led the route past the anchors and to the rim when I led it. But that was less than 10 years ago (??) and I don't recall what mid-way anchor was there when I did it.

BTW Kelly, welcome to the Mudn'Crud forum!

News:

Author Topic: New route on right side of Discovery Wall? (Read 19943359 times)