|
|
|
|
roughster
Aug 10, 2004, 4:44 AM
Post #1 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
And I am not talking about the kind you ate in kindergarten :lol:
Yeah, here goes a feisty topic I see starting to creep into another thread, but this issue is one I am interested in hearing peoples opinion. For the sake of the below argument, lets completely remove the "chipping" argument. Lets not even muddy the waters with it. Lets just focus on gluing. Lets also assume that the person doing the gluing "knows" what they are doing. They are not creating running streams of glue where not needed. They are not smearing entire sections. They are carefully and most importantly effectively only gluing that which needs to be glued in order to secure the "feature".
Now when you say gluing in many peoples eyes you can mean on of several things. Let me lay out some of the different "gluing" uses and see what you think. Yes, it is obviously your right to say "ALL GLUING IS BAD STFU!!!" but in the hopes of revealing some serious and hopefully enlightening dialogue, lets forgo the STFU'ing and just discuss the "whys" of each point:
-----------------------
#1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
#2- Reinforcing a critical hold on either an already established route or a route that basically is bolted and ready to go but the FA'ist is debating the use of glue. Critical meaning that if this hold breaks, the once classic 5-star 5.11a now becomes a zero star 50 foot jug haul with one V7 crimper move.
#3- Gluing to make the rock climbable. Lets face it, some area the rock is so chossy that while it will hold large diameter bolts or glue-ins, the rock would literally break forever unless several holds were glued. Think places like New Jack City in SoCal. Once cleaned and glued the climbing is great, even some of the best around, but it is gluing which makes it that way not the "natural" state of the rock.
#4- Gluing for safety. Yes believe it or not, this is usually how "gluing" starts. A flake that people pull on creaks and bends but doesn't break. Instead of risking a climber pulling the said flake down onto their belayers head, the developer decides to create a layer of epoxy to secure it.
-----------------------
Ok now some reminders: The "gluer" knows what they are doing so we can eliminate the "visual impact" of gluing. They "care" and after the gluing is done, carefully camoflauge it. They don't glue what is not necessary.
I'll be very straight forward here. I have glued holds. I have never done #1, but have done all of the rest. With that in mind, I'll discuss why. If your goal is to tar and feather "gluers" feel free, but your opinion will mostly be completely ignored at least from my angle. If you want to present well thought reasons why you think people should not engage in this type of stuff, I will certainly give it thought. Also consider if whether or not any of your local areas that you climb on have "glued" features. What if all of a sudden all of the glued holds dissapeared? Would your climbing area still exist? Do you know enough to say for sure that you know of the extent to which glue was used to help develop your local areas? Not trying to persuade you either way, just making sure you think about it before you respond. Camo'd glue is hard to spot and IMO is much more frequently used then most people realize.
-----------------------
#1- I think this shouldn't happen. Not even on manmade structures like bridges, etc... I think this is just inviting trouble from both climbers and non-climbers alike.
#2- I say do it. Some will say that you are just delaying the eventual breakage, but I have to dissagree. If done properly, a glued hold will often be stronger than the surrounding areas which are not glued. One could argue that you are not leaving it in a "natural" state. I would counter that by saying you are doing exactly that by "preserving" the natural state of the route.
#3- Some areas are not blessed with large scale patches of perfect rock. Sometimes the best you get is compact kitty litter. Should people in those areas either move or resign themselves to driving 4 hours each way to the nearest crag, or should they use "glue" as a means to allow climbing on the chossy stuff closer to home? I personally think that gluing done correctly is only apparent to climbers. If then we assume that it is only apparent to climbers, would you still be against it for this use?
#4- I am the 1st person to pull out the crowbar if I think a feature is unsafe. However, eventually you come across that feature that teeter-totters-but-wont-fall-down. What do you do? Do you leave it as a possible hazard waiting to squash people? Do you just leave the line alone in hopes that eventually someone else won't follow behind you and decide to bolt it anyways and have to face the same decision? Do you glue the feature down snug to keep it from loosening further?
This is often a very NOT black and white scenario. I have spent as much as 2 hours working on a refrigerator size block, rocking it back and forth, prying here, prying there, back and forth, over and over till eventually it cut loose, but you do have to draw the line eventually. What is your take?
-----------------------
Now I know I have laid out some pretty big assumptions, those being:
- The "gluer" knows what they are doing, which is often not the case.
- The glue is only apparent to climbers
- They are "effectively" gluing which means that the are not gluing and then the hold breaks anyways leaving behind a scar and now glue as well.
But indulge me those. Given the argument and ideas above, lets hear some (hopefully) open and well thought out ideas on them.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
musicman
Aug 10, 2004, 5:09 AM
Post #2 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 828
|
great, post, really awesome read. hopefully it remains that way with minimal STFU's like you put it. i definetly agree with you on the safety issue. when it comes to number 1, gluing holds to a featureless climb, i dont' know about that one. like you said, its not a black and white subject, there seems to be a lot of gray area in between. i do not think that that is always the best idea. for example, up A.F.Canyon, Utah. 20 years ago people never dreamed of climbing Hell'sCave routes (5.13b/c) but now its a popular climbing place. its definetly a tough and touchy subject, but great read and thanks for it!
|
|
|
|
|
climbnhi
Aug 10, 2004, 6:23 AM
Post #3 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 19
|
This is certainly one the better posts I've read on this site. I'll have to admit, at first the notion of glueing holds was repulsive to me. After seeing some the funky glue jobs at Smith Rock, I was put off by the idea. Granted, one of my favorite climbs there has glued flakes. This last sunday I was climbing at an area near Portland, and towards the end of the day one of my friends brought me to a boulder problem he had been working on. Two crimpers had been glued in place, and you could barely tell the difference. I got spanked, and blew a pad on one the crimpers. Although, the idea of glueing still dosn't sit well with me, I would not have several fun routes at Smith, and a good spanking on a quality problem in Portland without it. If glueing is thought to be neccessary (safety, route feasibility), it should not be done in a way that detracts from the integrity of the rock. For example, manufacturing a route to make it easier, or harder. I'm still looking over a wall at this subject, catching a glimpse at postive aspects and results of glueing. If some folks in the climbing community could educate themselves more properly about glueing, this wouldn't be such a sensitive issue (myself included).
|
|
|
|
|
g-funk
Deleted
Aug 10, 2004, 7:30 AM
Post #4 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Yet again, Roughster comes through with one of the best dialogue inducing posts of the site.
I'm still pretty new to climbing, and honestly had no idea that using glue on routes was something that was done. I've gotta say that if the question revolves around safety, it seems like an open and shut case of protecting our friends in the climbing community in the least intrusive way possible. If this means inconspicuously securing a crux flake, then so be it. On the other hand, securing an out of place hold on an otherwise good route for no reason other than downgrading something that's naturally out of reach. Well I think we can all agree that that's way out of line.
The only point that I don't agree with roughster is in point number 1. The only time that I know that I've seen glued holds was on a support pillar underneath a bridge where I lived in AK. I thought that it was totally cool. Here we have a great big blank ugly cement pillar, and suddenly it's a center for people to spend time interacting and bouldering outdoors, and out of the rain. I'm totally down with securing buildering problems on manmade structures. Obviously there needs to be some tact and consideration granted on this point. It's not doing the climbing community a favor to start establishing routes along the front side of a bank, but an out of the way tower under a train trestle, in my opinion, is fair game. I'd like to hear some response on this point.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 10, 2004, 9:47 AM
Post #5 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I like the idea of hold under bridges. Other than that, I'm pretty much with you Rough. Never touched a glued hold yet myself, but I see no problem with it, as long as it's there to keep the route intact, or to make it safer, and not to actually build the route, as in some cases I've read about (ugh!).
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 10, 2004, 10:01 AM
Post #6 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
heres my opinion:
1) never ever.
2) if its an established climb, id normally say glue it, but if its under development, clean the thing.
3) dont have any experience with this so i wont comment
4) if its a prominent feature, important for climbing the route (like in case no2) and its an established route than glue it, otherwise id say removing is a btter option.
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Aug 10, 2004, 10:57 AM
Post #7 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
As a sport climber in SoCal and Las Vegas I have definitely encountered all four of the glue jobs described. here are my opinions:
#1 I believe this should never be done.. ever. two climbs in particular come to mind: "Clear Moment" at Mt. Potosi, NV, which has a small cube of limestine carefully glued between two miniature tufa features to create, in affect, a two-finger pocket.... as well as an unclimbed line at the Dream Streat wall at Echo Cliffs of the Santa Monica mts, which started on two crimpers composed ENTIRELY of glue (off of which one moves to a drilled pocket).. the glue crimps have been "removed" from the rock since, leaving something rather unsightly.
#2 In the case of reinforcing and saving a feature on a climb, and granting all your assumptions about the developer doing the gluing, I say yes.
#3 Need I say more than "Echo Cliffs?" I climb there.. it makes being a sport climber in SoCal much more bareable... so... well... for the sake of this arguement, I say do it. normally I say go with the established ethic at the crag, but you don't really leave me with that option if the question is about an area under development.
#4 if you're climbing on it, or creates a genuine danger for future climbers (and absolutely cannot be cleaned) then glue it.
peace and love :roll:
ike
|
|
|
|
|
glowering
Aug 10, 2004, 1:29 PM
Post #8 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 386
|
Nice sticky ethical questions. Sorry for the pun.
I remember a while ago (like 10 years plus) there was a classic boulder problem in the Valley, some top climbers (Kauk if I remember right) protected a key hold (small flake) with some glue. Then some ethics policeman said "the hold flexed when I hung on it" so he pryed it with a fingernail clipper or something and broke it off. He saw the glue so he said he was vindicated. But isn't it worse to pry a feature off an existing route? Glueing is illegal in a national park, but ethics overrule laws IMO.
I guess for me it comes down to practicality. Glueing is like bolting on a trad route. You should only do it as a last resort. But if it's done right (you're not adding holds, etc.) and it's the only way to establish/preserve a route it's probably ok.
Now if I had a big blank boulder in my back yard there'd be glue and bolted on holds all over it.
|
|
|
|
|
walt511
Aug 10, 2004, 1:52 PM
Post #9 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 16
|
Philosophically I've come 180 degrees from where I was when I started climbing in the mid 80's and given your caveats I agree with your cases 2, 3, and 4 and even have no problem with case 1 on man-made structures (and possibly even some natural routes)
That being said I think there are some practical problems that make supporting this position troubling.
Problem 1 is illustrated by your objection to case 1. As you say
"[it] is just inviting trouble from both climbers and non-climbers alike". I think the same holds true even more so for climing in natural areas. The vast majority of them are on public land and I don't believe it would help our image - and our access problems - if the practice became widespread and our little secret got out to the general population.
Problem 2 is how do you regulate it. Your argument sets out some assumptions that aren't valid in the real world. Specifically:
In reply to: - The "gluer" knows what they are doing, which is often not the case. - The glue is only apparent to climbers - They are "effectively" gluing which means that the are not gluing and then the hold breaks anyways leaving behind a scar and now glue as well.
I just don't believe those assumptions will reflect reality if gluing becomes more accepted and widespread.
In any case - that's for the thoughtful discussion.
Walt
|
|
|
|
|
cerikpete
Aug 10, 2004, 2:07 PM
Post #10 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 4043
|
I agree with the general consensus.
I have an area nearby which is an abandoned quarry (i.e., choss). However, if you look at my location, you will realize that we are desperate for nearby rock. So at this quarry, many places have been epoxied to prevent them from breaking off. Nothing was added.
I see no harm in this and am grateful for it.
|
|
|
|
|
elblat
Aug 10, 2004, 2:17 PM
Post #11 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2003
Posts: 40
|
I've seen too many horrible glue jobs, and seen too many people new to the sport dissapointed, angered or saddened with finding glue on the rock, that I can't really advocate gluing at all.
Around here, I've also seen glue used to force a route to be much harder (filling in a whole
crack while leaving a two-finger pocket in a giant loose flake, or creating a "Hueco" out of bondo) or to force a line where there is a lot of virgin rock still to be explored. I've seen glue more often used to reinforce someone's ego more than to further the sport of climbing.
I say, leave the glue at home and improve your own ability and/or boldness.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Aug 10, 2004, 2:37 PM
Post #12 of 42
(4692 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
who says every piece of rock absolutely has to be climbed and conquered? gluers do...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 10, 2004, 3:07 PM
Post #13 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I don't think glue should ever be used on trad or alpine style routes. Occasional use on sport climbs and boulders seems in keeping with the articifical difficulty of those sports. And point #1 is an argument of convenience... glueing on a loose flake that is going to fall as soon as it iscranked upon is no more ethically pure than glueing the same flake back on once it fell.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
diesel___smoke
Aug 10, 2004, 3:16 PM
Post #14 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2003
Posts: 507
|
"ALL GLUING IS BAD STFU!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
b_fost
Aug 10, 2004, 3:16 PM
Post #15 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Posts: 1268
|
I personally think that gluing holds isn't something that just everyone should be doing. Just like bolting, before you go out there and glue, take some time and learn how to do it right, so that you don't make a huge mess or improperly glue flakes etc.
In certain situations, mainly those that roughster outlined, gluing is okay as long as it doesn't interfere with local ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 10, 2004, 3:24 PM
Post #16 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Around here, I've also seen glue used to force a route to be much harder
Modern sport climbing and bouldering often involves the creation of artificial difficulties. If you are glueing on flakes or prying off 'loose' rocks, the result is an artificial climb. Harder or easier, is that relevant?
If the goal of sport climbing is to create difficult but well protected climbs, and you go into with the knowledge that much of it is artificial or at the minimum contrived, glue just doesn't seem to be that bad.
I've ever even been tempted personally.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Aug 10, 2004, 3:27 PM
Post #17 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
This issue depends a lot on the area and the specific climb you want to glue. Hard to make generalizations about when it's right or not. I think we can all agree that we'd always rather NOT have to use glue. So be cautious with the stuff, learn how to glue well at home before doing it at a cliff. Practice with it in your garage. Add local rock dust/flakes into the glue so that it matches well. Many people have climbed on glued routes and not even realized it because the job was done so discreetly.
I am disappointed that some people immediately want to bust out the glue without a moment's thought. It should always be used with caution and moderation. Even at areas where there is a precedent of using glue.
|
|
|
|
|
elblat
Aug 10, 2004, 3:57 PM
Post #18 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2003
Posts: 40
|
In reply to: Harder or easier, is that relevant?
No, you are absolutely correct, it is not relevant, except that in the one case I had in mind when I wrote it, it required so much glue as to be an eyesore (gluing a several foot crack), which I guess could have been done just as poorly to make the route easier too.
At this same crag, people have bolted holds to routes to make them easier (one was a bright green jug, easily seen from the road) on the justification that the wall was already glued to make an artificial route.
Why not keep artificial routes in the gym and let the rock dictate the lines "in the wild"?
Every weekend this summer we go out and find new, good rock. We climb the obvious, excellent lines that the rock has presented. If it's too loose, we move on. Here, there is no need to manufacture anything, yet people do it. Why?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 10, 2004, 4:10 PM
Post #19 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Here, there is no need to manufacture anything, yet people do it. Why?
Ego?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Aug 10, 2004, 4:20 PM
Post #20 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
In reply to: I've seen too many horrible glue jobs, and seen too many people new to the sport dissapointed, angered or saddened with finding glue on the rock, that I can't really advocate gluing at all. Around here, I've also seen glue used to force a route to be much harder (filling in a whole crack while leaving a two-finger pocket in a giant loose flake, or creating a "Hueco" out of bondo) or to force a line where there is a lot of virgin rock still to be explored. I've seen glue more often used to reinforce someone's ego more than to further the sport of climbing. I say, leave the glue at home and improve your own ability and/or boldness.
Sounds more like manufacturing than gluing the way you describe it. I have gotten over gluing - it's very prevalent in southern california, and there are a lot of good routes with glue on them. But I also know a lot of good routes without glue. Both types of routes break, it's true. I guess I agree with DMT, depends on the crag / situation. Glue has no place at Tahquitz or Suicide but it's going to be found at the local sport crag, no doubt.
Bouldering, however, I think should be devoid of glue. There's just no point. Problems break, they evolve, that's ok.
|
|
|
|
|
elblat
Aug 10, 2004, 4:31 PM
Post #21 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2003
Posts: 40
|
That would be my guess, too.
And it's the examples here that have soured me on the idea of gluing. It has created a lot of anger and dissappointment in so many people and created ugliness in the rock around here that I don't feel that it's worth creating a new sport line or boulder problem.
In the instances where a hold has broken or is about to break, well then the rock has just upped the ante. More often than not, the line still goes and the quality is not diminished by a broken hold.
So, perhaps we are just really lucky in this area to have lots of rock, or maybe we are just looking harder, or perhaps people have done much better glue jobs elsewhere.
But I will state that in all the new areas we have discovered and are developing, a precedent *has* been set, and all lines are %100 natural.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Aug 10, 2004, 6:27 PM
Post #22 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
This could be good if it doesn't turn into the typcical rc.com slanderfest.
In reply to: #1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
On natural rock, no. If you can't do it with the natural features, then save it for another generation. Bachar/Kauk could have glued up "Mandala" but chose to save it for the future. It took 20+ years, but Lamiche onsighted it, then added a sit start.
In reply to: #2- Reinforcing a critical hold on either an already established route or a route that basically is bolted and ready to go but the FA'ist is debating the use of glue. Critical meaning that if this hold breaks, the once classic 5-star 5.11a now becomes a zero star 50 foot jug haul with one V7 crimper move.
Too many routes with glue have seen the glued hold break off over time leaving a nasty glue scar. "Masters of Reality" (V5) at Stoney Point was glued, eventually broke off repeatedly, yet still goes at the same rating. "La Machine" (5.13d) at Joshua Tree has a ton of glue scars where holds eventually broke, not to mention the verbal war when it happened, yet still goes. And Echo Cliffs continues to break whether glued or nor. These three examples cover almost 20 years of gluing techniques on three types of rock and the holds are still breaking every day. It's obviously a technique that is not working.
Rock changes when repeated pressure is applied. I believe that we need to change as well. Being a control freak is part of climbing, but there are certain things we cannot control.
As far as keeping/creating a "classic"? That word has been used too often to describe things. "Midnight Lightning" is a classic because of it's standing after years and the people visiting. A hold broke and was never replaced. "Mandala" is considered a modern classic. Two key holds have broken, yet again, not replaced. And those are boulder problems where every hold is vital. Rope runs tend to have alternatives because the routes are longer and body styles are different. If the hold breaks, then the next climber needs to get stronger. If it becomes "reachy" when the hold breaks, then it won't be done by a short person. Plenty of problems exists naturally this way, there is no viable reason to change that.
The other problem here is that once you glue a hold back to keep the "classic", then what happens when the hold itself is not the right size? Do you recreate it, thereby violating rule #1? Do you chip, which alters the rock in a way that it never was? If you put up the route, are you going to stick around to ensure that it always remains the same? Will you also constantly wash off the chalk to ensure people have the same texture as the FA? Remove any footholds you didn't use? Bar people from finding other beta? Rhetorical obviously, but lends to the problem. In the end, nothing is permanent and future climbers will be stronger making today's "classics" just warm-ups if even bothered with. To try to force anything other is ignoring reality.
In reply to: #3- Gluing to make the rock climbable. Lets face it, some area the rock is so chossy that while it will hold large diameter bolts or glue-ins, the rock would literally break forever unless several holds were glued. Think places like New Jack City in SoCal. Once cleaned and glued the climbing is great, even some of the best around, but it is gluing which makes it that way not the "natural" state of the rock.
Okay, let's not state that NJC is "the best around". Joshua Tree, Red Rocks, and Owen's River Gorge are the same drive time for many and I don't see people from around the world choosing NJC over them. :D
If the rock needs that much glue to hold it together, and glue is not permanent and will always eventually break, then maybe people shouldn't even be on it. Personally I think that it is only a matter of time before someone gets put into a wheelchair or is permanently hurt/killed from one of these glued up choss piles. People laugh about needing a helmet for the belay. That will close access. That's not rock climbing, it's gym climbing with a dangerous aspect to it. You wouldn't put up a bunch of "spinners" on a gym route and go for it would you? The bigger problem to this is that it might be the knowledgeable climber who glued and cleaned the place, but now the next person who claims to be knowledgeable believes this is accepted practice, and before you know it, even worse choss is glued, or an area that doesn't have glue starts seeing it. And again, this only leads to worse ethics as holds refuse to stay on. Tomorrow's technology may provide an answer, but not today's.
So no. If the rock is that bad, stay off it because you only fool others who are less skilled into believing they will be fine as well.
In reply to: #4- Gluing for safety. Yes believe it or not, this is usually how "gluing" starts. A flake that people pull on creaks and bends but doesn't break. Instead of risking a climber pulling the said flake down onto their belayers head, the developer decides to create a layer of epoxy to secure it.
How big a flake? How critical to the climb? What hold do you create/lose if you remove it? If it's a 10 pound block it will hurt, but what about a pebble? Close to the ground it won't hurt, but 20 feet up? 50? 100? The higher the hold, the smaller it can be to create the same amount of damage. If you glue it rather than remove it then you've modified it. There's no answer to how this can work. Glue is not permanent. If it is already creaking, then you glue it, now people believe it is solid and pull harder than before eventually ripping it off in likely dramatic style. Either remove the hold, or mark it with a warning. "O'Kelly's" at Joshua Tree has a creaking hold on it. It's been there at least 16 years. "Waltzing Worm" the same. Both have markings warning people. Glue would only give a false confidence to it's eventual failure and provides the potential for even more harm.
Again, no.
In the end, gluing does not lend itself to keeping the rock in it's natural state, nor does it decrease the risk of the hold coming off. It's a short sighted solution and merely provides a temporary fix. Rock changes but people refuse to allow themselves the same ability. If you cannot do the move with rock in it's natural state, then you are not strong enough either physically or mentally. However, someone in the future will be and to deny them that privilege is just plain wrong.
People climb in Eberstand (sp?) and the Fisher Towers on rock that you can literally scratch your fingernails into. Gluing these routes, both mini and multi-pitch is not even an option. That same logic applies to a single hold.
In the end, rockclimbing is a contrived sport because there is usually an easier way up the rock. So either get stronger, or move to another problem. It's not as grey an area as people make it sound.
Now if you want to talk about Kindergarten, I'm all for Elmer's....
|
|
|
|
|
darth_gaydar
Aug 10, 2004, 6:39 PM
Post #23 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2004
Posts: 168
|
"Lets Talk About Glue"
Yes, let's.
You need to lay off the stuff. Step away from the model airplane and open a window. From the read of your rant, you must have a serious three to four tubes a day habit.
If you stay clean for a few weeks, I am sure what you are doing will begin to make sense to you again, and you will see what an monkey's arse you have been.
And thank you once again for illuminating us all as to how myopiccally self absorbed a single human being can get. The curator at the Smithsonian will no doubt want you as a specimen one day.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Aug 10, 2004, 9:30 PM
Post #24 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
#1. It shouldn't be done. If the rock can't be climbed the way it is, then the climber should move on to something that he can climb.
#2. Nature is dynamic, and so should be the routes. If they change, so be it.
#3. This looks like the same situation as #1. If people want to manufacture routes that are not naturally climbable, they should move on to something they can climb. An exception would be like what Cerikpete mentionned. If the area is an old quarry, then the area is already manufactured, so changing it even more won't damage anything natural.
#4. If the route sees a lot of traffic and if the feature breaks, it would pose a serious threat to safety, I wouldn't oppose to making if safer, although I would rather see it be left alone. Everyone knows that climbing has it's risks, and climbers should always keep that in mind when heading out.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Aug 10, 2004, 9:44 PM
Post #25 of 42
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*As far as keeping/creating a "classic"? That word has been used too often to describe things. "Midnight Lightning" is a classic because of it's standing after years and the people visiting. A hold broke and was never replaced.*
The bolt hold on the Lightning was flexing pretty good years ago before Kauk put some glue behind it...
|
|
|
|
|
g-funk
Deleted
Aug 10, 2004, 9:56 PM
Post #26 of 42
(4053 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: If the rock needs that much glue to hold it together, and glue is not permanent and will always eventually break, then maybe people shouldn't even be on it. Personally I think that it is only a matter of time before someone gets put into a wheelchair or is permanently hurt/killed from one of these glued up choss piles. People laugh about needing a helmet for the belay. That will close access. That's not rock climbing, it's gym climbing with a dangerous aspect to it. You wouldn't put up a bunch of "spinners" on a gym route and go for it would you? The bigger problem to this is that it might be the knowledgeable climber who glued and cleaned the place, but now the next person who claims to be knowledgeable believes this is accepted practice, and before you know it, even worse choss is glued, or an area that doesn't have glue starts seeing it. And again, this only leads to worse ethics as holds refuse to stay on. Tomorrow's technology may provide an answer, but not today's. So no. If the rock is that bad, stay off it because you only fool others who are less skilled into believing they will be fine as well.
This seems to make sense. I'm not sure if I entirely agree. I live in an area that has lots of alternatives in case of poor rock quality, but if I lived in Nebraska, my choice might be a little more constrained. Nonetheless, I like the idea of keeping in perspective the unstable nature of the rock in some areas, and not trying to alter that substantially.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Aug 10, 2004, 10:05 PM
Post #27 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: #1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
Nope. Shouldn't ever be done on public land.
In reply to: #2- Reinforcing a critical hold on either an already established route or a route that basically is bolted and ready to go but the FA'ist is debating the use of glue. Critical meaning that if this hold breaks, the once classic 5-star 5.11a now becomes a zero star 50 foot jug haul with one V7 crimper move.
My inclination is to not use glue at all. Let the hold break if need be and let the route progress naturally, without glue. Could always lower the anchors and make it a shorty.
In reply to: #3- Gluing to make the rock climbable. Lets face it, some area the rock is so chossy that while it will hold large diameter bolts or glue-ins, the rock would literally break forever unless several holds were glued. Think places like New Jack City in SoCal. Once cleaned and glued the climbing is great, even some of the best around, but it is gluing which makes it that way not the "natural" state of the rock.
I'd say not on public land.
In reply to: #4- Gluing for safety. Yes believe it or not, this is usually how "gluing" starts. A flake that people pull on creaks and bends but doesn't break. Instead of risking a climber pulling the said flake down onto their belayers head, the developer decides to create a layer of epoxy to secure it.
See 1-3.
In reply to: If you want to present well thought reasons why you think people should not engage in this type of stuff, I will certainly give it thought.
Not "natural". I'd say, climb what the rock gives us, and refrain from building an artificial outdoor climbing gym on public land. Who knows? Maybe tomorrows sponsered climbers will excel at climbing loose rock and they'll be bummed if there ain't any (ha ha)...
I'd say, consider what if you had to ask a land manager their opinion? Well placed and camoflaged bolts are a tough enough issue. Adding glue, I think, crosses the line between developing or "opening" a new route, and manufacturing one. I don't think we should be manufacturing climbs.
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Aug 10, 2004, 10:14 PM
Post #28 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
a well-written beginning to an interesting thread.
it seems the responses have been somewhat split and the reasoning somewhat situational.
as someone who has chosen to glue at some crags and not to glue at others, i'll be watching this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Aug 11, 2004, 11:18 PM
Post #29 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
In reply to: The bolt hold on the Lightning was flexing pretty good years ago before Kauk put some glue behind it...
My mistake, I thought the upper part also had a hold that broke, forcing the sloper finish. Regardless, the point was that the word "classic" get used too often.
In reply to: I live in an area that has lots of alternatives in case of poor rock quality, but if I lived in Nebraska, my choice might be a little more constrained. Nonetheless, I like the idea of keeping in perspective the unstable nature of the rock in some areas, and not trying to alter that substantially.
Like you, I have a ton of options available which is why I find it offensive that so much glue is used nearby. Gluing rock provides only one move that will break anyways. Going to a gym has more alternatives, creating a home wall is not that expensive for those that don't have access to a gym. Again, it's about preserving access and value to this limited resource. Not to mention saving something for the future generations to test themselves against since we can't.
In reply to: a well-written beginning to an interesting thread.... as someone who has chosen to glue at some crags and not to glue at others, i'll be watching this thread.
Watching does nothing. You've glued at many places over several years, put in your two cents. A discourse is only good if everyone jumps in. Then the only thing that matters is how folks react after the discourse is over.
Put five climbers in a room and you get five different opinions. In the end, it's all talk with no action. Roughster started this for one of two reasons. (1) to create yet another worthless "debate" from which gluers will still glue, and non-gluers will not, or (2) provide a forum from people from both sides can voice their opinion, and just maybe create a consensus from which people will follow. So far, only two folks seem to believe gluing is good.
If opinions can't be changed though, then go on and scream, curse, slander, and carry on in the usual rc.com way. i.e. resolve nothing. If open to understanding, discourse, and reason, then maybe there's hope.
|
|
|
|
|
mungeclimber
Aug 12, 2004, 1:17 AM
Post #30 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
In a theoretical way Roughster points out the conditions in which gluing might be acceptable. But as mreardon, DMT, and Walt511 pointed out, the assumptions upon which the theory relies does not play out in practice. The actual practice is really the devil, as in, the devil is in the details, so I can't in the pursuit of rational discourse grant those premises.
Much like the conditions under which corporations might be allowed to vitiate consumer protection in pursuit 'assuming' the risk of a faulty product. The devil is in the details of what is liable product and what is acceptable. Basically make a safe product, don't race to the bottom so to speak. (not sure that is the best analogy I could make but it seemed like one was called for there)
Thus in the pursuit of a rational principle upon which all climbers can act, I would say no gluing, because as BrianinSLC pointed out there should be no gluing on public lands, and it is likely those who are not expert gluers will take up the epoxy and start using it in public land areas risking access.
I'm a big proponent of adventure (not to the exclusion of fun) so that in my mind practices like wholesale chipping, gluing or drilling holds means that one isn't pursuing the idea of self-overcoming or elevating oneself in the pursit of aspiring to excellence or some "peak' performance, rather you are working the system for some other goal. And maybe that is what is at stake. It's not that these concepts are black and white and otherwise not workable, but that on the whole, our goals should be not one of devolving but aspiring. Is gluing something other than bringing the rock down to one's own level? Would like to hear others opinions on this issue.
Roughster please forgive the slight step away from the tenor of your thread. But yes, granted your assumptions and the artifice of much of sport climbing, and gluing under those above conditions would be feasible and useful to creating routes that are predetermined for a particular outcome. Does that make sense?
As an aside, I think that gluing and camouflaging old chopped, pulled or holes for bolts if done well, can improve the quality of the climbing experience. Does this violate the above principle of adventure? Not sure that it as the same situation? Can this principle of using glue to counter act the history of artifice (bolt holes, old bolts chopped), be a different principle- the goal being to put the climb into a more natural state?
Sincerely,
Mungie
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Aug 12, 2004, 1:52 AM
Post #31 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
In reply to: #1- I think this shouldn't happen. Not even on manmade structures like bridges, etc... I think this is just inviting trouble from both climbers and non-climbers alike.
In reply to: #3- Some areas are not blessed with large scale patches of perfect rock. Sometimes the best you get is compact kitty litter. Should people in those areas either move or resign themselves to driving 4 hours each way to the nearest crag, or should they use "glue" as a means to allow climbing on the chossy stuff closer to home?
Not everything is black and white.
I learned to climb in Dallas, where manufactured routes up bridges where the closest thing to choss within a 3 hour radius. As a result, your views on #1 and #3 are in direct conflict - routes were manufactured on man-made structures because they were the only things available to climb, period.
Please commment.
(PS, Please dont PM for directions to the routes in Dallas. I learned of them on my own. Get wild. Explore your urban jungle.)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 12, 2004, 2:29 AM
Post #32 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
People have been doing glue ups on artificial structures for at least twenty years. One of the so cal originators is a member of this site. Bouldering and lead climbing. I have no ethical qualms about this whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
cgranite
Aug 12, 2004, 2:50 AM
Post #33 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2003
Posts: 366
|
It makes me sad that so many people support glue. This is why you don't hear about new climbing areas any more. :roll:
If you live far from rock that is NATURALLY climbable, then move.
Better yet, I wouldn't want anyone with a mentality like that moving to my area.
It's like Sharma said, "There is enough rock out there to climb on."
I came across a boulder problem that had a broken hold glued back on it.
The thing that really made me sick was that I climbed it without using the hold...and it wasn't hard...NOT relatively speaking here. If a hold falls off, it wasn't meant to be. The route will either become harder or impossible, and you can go on feeling good, knowing that the area is all natural with minus one problem.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Aug 12, 2004, 2:56 AM
Post #34 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*My mistake, I thought the upper part also had a hold that broke, forcing the sloper finish.*
Legend has it that a foothold for the move out to the bolt broke after the first ascent and that bachar got the first ascent of the problem as it now stands. ask johnnyb about "the force" and his nailclippers next time you see him if you wanna hear about glue...
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Aug 12, 2004, 3:14 AM
Post #35 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
In reply to: #1- Gluing an artificial or "out of place" feature to an otherwise blank expanse of rock.
In my opinion this is as bad as chipping.
|
|
|
|
|
korporal
Aug 12, 2004, 3:15 AM
Post #36 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 175
|
Where I climb this is not an issue bucause it is a mostly traditional area where the only bolts are belay anchors and some people are mad about those. Take what I say with not a grain of salt but a whole pound.
#1: No good. I think this is not ethical on natural rock. Maybe on a cement pillar or something as long as it was out of the way and the owner gave the gluer permission. Wouldn't this essestailly be creating a gym outside?
#2: This is no good eithier. I was following a route earlier this week and there was a move onto and up a flake that didn't seem natural at all. I got to the belay and the leader said that there used to be a bunch of blocks that went straight up rather than traversing over to this flake. He also said that everybody knew that the blocks were going to fall down and that it was only a matter of time. Rather than gluing them or trying to magically wedge them into place people just climbed on them untill they weren't there any more. When the blocks weren't there somebody figured out a different way up. Yet again this is in a traditional area.
#3: I could see this if it was a small area with a few routes in the middle of flatland somewhere. I disagree whole-heartedly with gluing an alpine area to make it into local crag, but if there is an abandonned quarry or something it might be worth cleaning and gluing the choss together a bit. I would just make sure that it isn't an established climbing spot already and that absolutley nobody would care if you did it. Then again I climb in an area where fixed belay anchors are questionable.
#4: No. "Exfolliating" is part of how the rock evolves and how those flakes got there in the first place. If a flake is going to pull then I say let it pull. Yet again I climb in an area where fixed belay and sometimes rappel anchors are being questioned and/or getting chopped. I don't get all these people ranting about safety. Look at Stone Mountain in North Carolina. Those are bolted routes but there is definatly potential for groundfall. People still climb them...They just know what they are getting into. Why would climbing an unglued "unsafe" route be any different? Maybe that route should be left as an alpine route? Or maybe left alone all together?
Yet again take all of this with a pound of salt. I climb in an area where fixed belay and rappel anchors are constantly being pulled.
|
|
|
|
|
walt511
Aug 12, 2004, 3:16 AM
Post #37 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 16
|
This discussion reminds me a lot of the frenzied debates that went on about sport vs. trad climbing in the mid/late 80's. It seemed to me then - and it seems to me now that there were several similar issues under consideration, namely, environment, access, and experience -- in decreasing order of importance to me.
I remember in the sport climbing debates how the environmental impact of bolting was debated ad-nauseum (BTW - I was highly anti-boting at the time) In the end most of us realized that it had nothing to do with the environment and that driving to the crag had a more deliterious impact than sinking a few bolts. I suspect that the thoughtful among us will come to a similar opinion regarding glue.
Access on the other hand was - and is - an issue that is impacted by bolting. The general public does not like the idea of people engaging in unregulated construction projects (regardless of how trivial or how trivial the environmental impact) on public wilderness lands! I suspect the same holds true for gluing and I remain unconvinced that we can keep it a secret. This is by far my biggest issue with bolting and gluing.
The final issue is "experience" (sometimes loftily referred to as climbing "ethics"). This is basically what we as a community accept as standards of behavior within the arena within which we play. To be honest, the gluing issue seems a lot more trivial than the bolting issue to me. What's the difference between bolting a hanger on or bolting/gluing a hold on except to the extent that it changes the experience of other people climbing the route?
My personal opinion is that I'd rather not see gluing. But then again, I'd rather not see nearly as many bolts as we have today. On the other hand I realize I am only one member of our community and I realize that my opinions are based on my own personal prefereces. I'm willing to accept either gluing and/or bolting to the extent that it is desired by the climbing community at large and more importantly - it does not adversely impact access issues.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Aug 12, 2004, 3:28 AM
Post #38 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
In reply to: In the end most of us realized that it had nothing to do with the environment and that driving to the crag had a more deliterious impact than sinking a few bolts.
Did you think about how bolted routes bring more people to the now more accessible crag, meaning more people driving their cars?
|
|
|
|
|
walt511
Aug 12, 2004, 4:16 AM
Post #39 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 16
|
In reply to: In reply to: In the end most of us realized that it had nothing to do with the environment and that driving to the crag had a more deliterious impact than sinking a few bolts. Did you think about how bolted routes bring more people to the now more accessible crag, meaning more people driving their cars?
Exactly my point - it had nothing to do with damage to the crag - the real impact was all the other stuff we were doing. (and, by the way, would probably be doing irrespective of the bolts). The bolts themselves (or glue - or whatever) was insignificant environmentally.
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Aug 12, 2004, 4:45 AM
Post #40 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
having been called out by mr. reardon, here we go:
first off, i wasn't trying to avoid getting involved; i just came across the thread at the end of a long day and did a quick post. i always intended to post more on the topic and now that i find myself at the end of yet another long day i'll take the time to do just that.
first some background. i've been bolting routes for a lot of years (20 +/-) and in recent years have chosen to glue more and more regularly. The gluing i'm talking about here is the reinforcement type (can't remember what number that was).
i do not always glue on my new routes. it depends on the area and on the rock type and hold(s) in question. despite the amount of gluing i've done i have reservations about justifying its use straight across the board.
i never used to glue at all and subscribed to the "if it breaks, oh well" state of mind. this is all well and good on moderate to good quality rock. however, in the mid 90's i began to bolt some new areas locally that were absolute choss. they were appealing due to their length, steepness and hold type (all unique to these crags locally). in the beginning i did very little gluing and holds broke on the routes with just about every passage. before long some of the routes featured huge blank sections where the features had broken off. at that point myself (and the other area developers) made the conscious decision to not only clean the routes a lot more, but to also begin gluing to a greater degree.
the main crag i'm talking about here is echo cliffs in the santa monica mountains. quite honestly if it wasn't for glue, this crag would not be the crag it is today. ten years after the first bolts were placed, the area sees 40-70 climbers a weekend day during the climbing season. true we rationalized the use of glue when we decided to begin using it more, but the end result is a crag featuring 160+ sport routes up to 200 foot tall, and another option for local climbers that led to fewer crowding issues at the other area offerings.
i'm not 100% convinced that i would do the same if faced with another crag that had echo's potential and poor rock quality, but i'm proud of what echo became and the enjoyment that it offers so many other climbers.
the flip side of my experience with glue is that i became much quicker to glue when bolting at other crags. this is something that i'm aware of and am making a conscious effort to change. i have already walked away from several potential new routes due to the fact that if i were to do them i would probably glue on them and i didn't feel it was appropriate for the area involved.
when i said in my original post that i would be watching this topic i meant that i was interested in seeing what opinions people had on the subject. the use of glue adds a lot of additional expense and time to the development of new routes (often more than the bolting) and if i were to find that the majority of local climbers opposed it, i would definitely reconsider future actions.
|
|
|
|
|
changling
Aug 12, 2004, 4:45 AM
Post #41 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 301
|
In reply to: Exactly my point - it had nothing to do with damage to the crag - the real impact was all the other stuff we were doing. (and, by the way, would probably be doing irrespective of the bolts). The bolts themselves (or glue - or whatever) was insignificant environmentally.
I understand your point, although there are a lot of people that choose to only climb bolted routes these days and probably wouldn't be climbing outdoors if it wasn't for the increased safety, so there is more damage being done then there would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Aug 12, 2004, 4:50 AM
Post #42 of 42
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
Case 1: I'm gonna have to go with a "no" here except for man-made structures (they're artificial anyway, might as well make them climbable and good - no categorical difference between making a concrete wall and gluing holds on). For natural walls... we don't have to force a baby-butt smooth roof to be climbable if it doesn't want to be... some stuff will be impossible for people to ever climb, but a lot of stuff we see as "impossible" or completely blank may oneday yield a route for some mutant.
Case 2: this one is harder. i think it really depends on how much it will change the grade. Now hard-core anti-gluers will say that "Oh if it makes it harder, you just have to wait and eventually someone could come along and climb it" blah blah blah... but, BUT, how often do you think someone strong is gonna come along to attempt the 80 foot 5.10b with a 10 foot V13 crux move? No one in their right mind would work such a route...
Case 3: i've never been on rock this bad, but if it is really too chossy to climb on, go ahead. this is also a safety thing too i think... breaking holds tends to make for bad falls.
Case 4: DEFINATELY GLUE!! NOTHING, i believe, should EVER supercede safety. If there is a potential widow-maker you can't dislodge, glue it and save a life.
I tend to think of glue as more "preserving the natural state of the rock" since it keeps the rock in its natural state BEFORE some fat human decided to tear at it.
oh and this was definately a great topic... very thought provoking and well written. thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
