Newly Established and Found Routes (Since the '07 Guidebook)

[mungeclimber]

I did post rating thots Brad.

thx Bruce. Nice one on the right!

the on the left was fun, but too short.

[Brad Young]

I did post rating thots Brad.

Son of a bi..., you sure did. I read your whole damn post the morning you put it up and then as of this morning, somehow, I had in mind that you didn't comment about ratings.

Oh well, I suppose we should be glad that I can remember your name.

[JC w KC redux]

Son of a bi..., you sure did. I read your whole damn post the morning you put it up and then as of this morning, somehow, I had in mind that you didn't comment about ratings.

Oh well, I suppose we should be glad that I can remember your name.

Maybe it was because he forgot the ugh in thoughts.

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

Brad,

not a problem on the name.  It can take Clint and I years to name the climbs we do, in fact,
I don't even know if we ever named some of the routes we put up in Tuolumne!  Let me
get back to you with the details.  Yeah, right route 5.5, left route 5.6 maybe 5.7.  I am
thinking February 27th, but I may be wrong.

[Brad Young]

Maybe it was because he forgot the ugh in thoughts.

No, that's just him being cooler, better at net-speak than us old folks.

[mungeclimber]

l33t

[Brad Young]

l33t

I agree!

ESAD and GSYT too.   

[F4?]

Somebody just shoot me....

[JC w KC redux]

Clint and I put up those two routes during a break in rebolting one day. 
Interesting information about the tree at the top.  It seemed OK when we were there.  Hmm.  I will have to get back there and take a look.  The normal descent from that area is to go up and left 50 feet to a notch on the left and then down climb(5.0) as per Brad's guidebook.

KC and I did both these routes yesterday. I led them both and she followed. They are both fun - although once you do one - since they conjoin - it makes the other a bit anticlimactic. The 5.5 is very well protected with the first bolt much lower than expected for Pinns. The top bolt was also a surprise - but nice to have as you exit on to the slippery dried grass and over to the tree. The 5.6/7 has a bit more spice. Unfortunately the sun was directly in our faces after the first bolt, so it was a little hard to rate objectively. The holds are plentiful and positive - so if the sun hadn't been blinding me - I would probably put this one at 6. KC had a little more trouble - probably a height dependent thing. Comparing it to other short routes we've done - we joked and said it is harder than the Snout but definitely easier than Cinder. That might not be the best comparison since Cinder is quite the spicey little 7.

The tree is not an issue as long as you have a follower - but I agree with Rob that there should be an anchor. It does not need to be a rappel anchor since there is an established "walk off"/downclimb. Even a one bolt anchor with body position would suffice. I stayed on the uphill side of the tree to belay. One problem with belaying from the tree is the shrub between the tree and the natural high point of the climb where it is best to walk across toward the downclimb. I had to flip the rope over that shrub before KC followed and then had her flip it back over before she came across the slippery dried grass. The second time up she was comfortable enough to just untie at the high point and walk across. That natural high point is probably a good spot for the anchor (see yellow arrow on photo below). It would put climbers in a position to safely walk across directly to the downclimb and completely avoid the area of erosion around the tree. The downclimb is shown on the N side topo on page 92. It is listed as "approach to Third Sister" - third class. I think it would be good to include - scramble off/downclimb the "approach to Third Sister" (shown on N side topo) - third class - in the route descriptions. This is as steep or steeper than any 3rd class I've been on at Pinns (Possibility Pinnacle and the Regular Route on Beak Peak come to mind). We haven't ever looked at or used the tree to step across the gully as described in the paragraph below Third Sister on page 95. There are two paths shown on the topo and we evidently use the lower path by walking up the gully and then making a few moves up a short steep face on big holds and excellent rock - which some folks might say is 5th class (Bruce says 5.0).

Suggested anchor location and little "problem" shrub. It's only a problem if you're using the tree to belay.





Area of erosional concern around the tree.


 

 

[Atomizer]

JC and KC, I've got an extra drill if you want it. Seems like it could be usefull with all the trouble you two get into...

[mungeclimber]

JC and KC, I've got an extra drill if you want it. Seems like it could be usefull with all the trouble you two get into...

BAM!

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

Hold on there boys and girls.  Not to sound heavy handed, but Clint and I established those routes.  The tree from the photographs that JC provided doesn't look too bad to me and I don't remember it being an issue when we did the FA's. I will talk it over with Clint and see what he would like to do.

[JC w KC redux]

Hold on there boys and girls.  Not to sound heavy handed, but Clint and I established those routes.  The tree from the photographs that JC provided doesn't look too bad to me and I don't remember it being an issue when we did the FA's. I will talk it over with Clint and see what he would like to do.

No worries Bruce. I would never modify any route without permission. I mainly just wanted to contribute to the rating consensus and offer some suggestions. I revamped the first picture a bit when I realized I had positioned the yellow arrow for the suggested anchor location too low. There is a much flatter spot just a little higher that would make a nice belay seat. I think a one bolt anchor with body position would be the easiest/best solution. That would keep folks away from the tree, the "problem" shrub and put the belayer inline with the routes - plus minimize effort and expense. I think Rob's concern with the tree is negated by having a follower(since he was rope soloing) and as long as folks are aware of the "walk off" - the impact will still be minimal even if nothing is changed. Thanks for the new routes!

[mynameismud]

The tree does look bomber at the moment but there is noticable erosion around the base and those pines are sensitive to erosion around their root base so I do see it as a problem.  If that routes gets any amount of traffic I think the erosion will cause the pine to fail.

[mungeclimber]

The tree does look bomber at the moment but there is noticable erosion around the base and those pines are sensitive to erosion around their root base so I do see it as a problem.  If that routes gets any amount of traffic I think the erosion will cause the pine to fail.

Agreed. And in an age where most don't appreciate a "pinnacles downclimb" to get off of a climb. A standard anchor seems very appropriate. These will be popular options up there.

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

If we do put in an anchor, my preference would be to put it way over to the east right near where the 5.0 approach tops out.  That is actually a safer location for several reasons.  First off, nobody would have to cross the vegetated area without a belay and secondly, trying to reverse the 5.0 approach when it is raining is a bit sketchy and the bolts could be use to rappel off if
necessary.

[JC w KC redux]

If we do put in an anchor, my preference would be to put it way over to the east right near where the 5.0 approach tops out.  That is actually a safer location for several reasons.  First off, nobody would have to cross the vegetated area without a belay and secondly, trying to reverse the 5.0 approach when it is raining is a bit sketchy and the bolts could be use to rappel off if
necessary.

Yes, I didn't like stepping onto that slick grass on lead - that's why I continued up the rock to where it flattens out and then walked across. What would you think about one more route bolt between the proposed anchor and the "problem" shrub to serve as a directional and save that shrub when belaying from your "far east" anchor location? That would make the rope run across to the anchor about where it is in the pic and keep it from hanging or rubbing on the shrub or the tree.

[mungeclimber]

If we do put in an anchor, my preference would be to put it way over to the east right near where the 5.0 approach tops out.  That is actually a safer location for several reasons.  First off, nobody would have to cross the vegetated area without a belay and secondly, trying to reverse the 5.0 approach when it is raining is a bit sketchy and the bolts could be use to rappel off if
necessary.

why cross the vegetated area at all? Dragging a cord across the shrub, especially if people start to lower off it, doesn't seem ideal at all.

[mynameismud]

I would like to ammend my post to say fail more quickly.  I think it is a matter of time until it fails so additional traffic will not cause it to fail it will just increase the speed of the process.

[JC w KC redux]

why cross the vegetated area at all? Dragging a cord across the shrub, especially if people start to lower off it, doesn't seem ideal at all.

Munge - are you calling the tree the shrub or the shrub the shrub? (P.S. "bring me a shrubbery!") If anyone lowers off the shrub they will receive a Darwin award. I was just trying to point out that if a directional is not installed along with the far east anchor remedy, the leader will have to exit onto some pretty sketchy ground below the tree and the "problem shrub" to diagonal up and keep the rope from interfering with either - since the last bolt is currently well below both of them. That would also create a bad situation for erosion of that whole patch of loose, fragile soil/ground.