|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 23, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #1 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
How many people think old bolts should be left to rust away? Okay, now that you have the jist of things....
The history: Where I do most of my climbing, there was a spurt of route development around the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s. Many of these routes were very bold and done very much in a gritstone style (1 bolt/route, maximum, and only as a very last resort).
Today: 25 years later, many of those bolts are starting to get rather manky, and in my opinion are good candidates for replacement.
Anyway, I was talking to a climber from that era the other day, who did quite a bit of gritstone climbing as well, and has what I found to be a rather unique view on whether those bolts should be replaced or not.
He was of the opinion that those bolts are part of the "climbing heritage", a bit of the history from that period of development, and should not be replaced. He thinks they should be left to rust away. Basically, for the sake of history, leaving climbers with 3 options:
1) the bolt is still okay, use it
2) the bolt is not okay, free solo the route
3) the bolt is not okay or the climber doesn't trus it, don't climb the route (or TR it)
Are there other people out there who share this person's opinion, or is he a one of a kind? I am curious to hear what other people's opinion is on this one!?
Edit: I hope I put this if the right forum, maybe it would have been better in History & Trivia??
|
|
|
|
|
the_mitt
Jan 23, 2006, 9:30 PM
Post #2 of 34
(10045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 279
|
I think it depends on what you are truly asking. Are you asking to replace manky and possibly dangerous bolts or are you asking to add more bolts to already existing lines? or both? 2 very different topics both very worthy of troll points :)
Mitt
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 23, 2006, 9:32 PM
Post #3 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: I think it depends on what you are truly asking. Are you asking to replace manky and possibly dangerous bolts or are you asking to add more bolts to already existing lines? or both? 2 very different topics both very worthy of troll points :) Mitt
mmmm, troll points...... :D
I specifically said "replace"! This has absolutely nothing to do with adding bolts to a route. That would be retro-bolting, and is a whole other kettle of fish!
|
|
|
|
|
d1ll1gaf
Jan 23, 2006, 9:37 PM
Post #4 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 119
|
Well since you asked for opinions:
A new bolt should be added to the route to replace the old unsafe bolt. Nothing is worse than not trusting your protection, and a climber who starts a route expecting a bomber bolt would be in for a big surprise to encounter a piece of "Heritage".
Allowing a bolt to rust away will have a much larger visual impact on the rock that placing a new bolt (visualize nice long rust streaks down the rock)
Just my 0.02 cents
|
|
|
|
|
the_mitt
Jan 23, 2006, 9:38 PM
Post #5 of 34
(10045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 279
|
Sorry I thought you were leading us down the retro-bolting conversation. I'd say speak with a few people in the community and then just do it.
Mitt
|
|
|
|
|
climbingnurse
Jan 23, 2006, 9:40 PM
Post #6 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 420
|
I think you should put the duffer in question into a museum with his bolts. I think he is being overly sentimental about an old piece of metal. As someone already said, all you'd really be doing is returning the routes to their original condition.
If the local community really feels that strongly about leaving the bolts, I'd advocate placing a new bolt (perhaps a glue-in?) right next to the old bolt. See how they feel about that.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 23, 2006, 10:06 PM
Post #7 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: Sorry I thought you were leading us down the retro-bolting conversation.
No worries, definitely don't want to rehash the whole retro-bolting thing.
In reply to: I'd say speak with a few people in the community and then just do it. In reply to: If the local community really feels that strongly about leaving the bolts, I'd advocate placing a new bolt (perhaps a glue-in?) right next to the old bolt. See how they feel about that.
Great feedback so-far everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
euroford
Jan 23, 2006, 10:22 PM
Post #8 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 2913
|
yank em out and send em to Neptune.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Jan 23, 2006, 10:29 PM
Post #9 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
He is out of his fucking mind. Chop them and replace them.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jan 23, 2006, 10:36 PM
Post #10 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
In general, I'd say replace.
Use judgement though, I've seen climbs that were tainted if not ruined by the ASCA.
Not to start a flame war or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 23, 2006, 10:44 PM
Post #11 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: I've seen climbs that were tainted if not ruined by the ASCA.
Edit: scratch that, I just saw that their policy is, "We do not add bolts..."
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Jan 23, 2006, 10:56 PM
Post #12 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
How many people think old bridges should be left to rust away? Okay, now that you have the jist of things....
The history: Where I do most of my driving, there was a spurt of bridge development around the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s. Many of these bridges were very bold and done very much in a cobblestone bridge style (1 lane/bridge, maximum, and only as a very last resort).
Today: 25 years later, many of those bridges are starting to get rather manky, and in my opinion are good candidates for replacement.
Anyway, I was talking to a driver from that era the other day, who did quite a bit of cobblestone driving as well, and has what I found to be a rather unique view on whether those bridges should be replaced or not.
He was of the opinion that those bridges are part of the "driving heritage", a bit of the history from that period of development, and should not be replaced. He thinks they should be left to rust away. Basically, for the sake of history, leaving drivers with 3 options:
1) the bridge is still okay, use it
2) the bridge is not okay, ford the river
3) the bolt is not okay or the driver doesn't trus it, don't drive the route (or walk it)
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 23, 2006, 11:02 PM
Post #13 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: How many people think old bridges should be left to rust away? Okay, now that you have the jist of things.... The history: Where I do most of my driving, there was a spurt of bridge development around the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s. Many of these bridges were very bold and done very much in a cobblestone bridge style (1 lane/bridge, maximum, and only as a very last resort). Today: 25 years later, many of those bridges are starting to get rather manky, and in my opinion are good candidates for replacement. Anyway, I was talking to a driver from that era the other day, who did quite a bit of cobblestone driving as well, and has what I found to be a rather unique view on whether those bridges should be replaced or not. He was of the opinion that those bridges are part of the "driving heritage", a bit of the history from that period of development, and should not be replaced. He thinks they should be left to rust away. Basically, for the sake of history, leaving drivers with 3 options: 1) the bridge is still okay, use it 2) the bridge is not okay, ford the river 3) the bridge is not okay or the driver doesn't trust it, don't drive the route (or walk it)
Sweet! Thanks for that! (I fixed a couple of typos in the last line)
|
|
|
|
|
rockguide
Jan 23, 2006, 11:10 PM
Post #14 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2004
Posts: 1359
|
In reply to: He was of the opinion that those bridges are part of the "driving heritage", a bit of the history from that period of development, and should not be replaced. He thinks they should be left to rust away. Basically, for the sake of history, leaving drivers with 3 options: 1) the bridge is still okay, use it 2) the bridge is not okay, ford the river 3) the bolt is not okay or the driver doesn't trus it, don't drive the route (or walk it)
Don't rebuild the bridges. By allowing death trap bridges we give drivers a chance to build judgement and encourage a higher standard of driving. Standards must improve!
Sure the bridges were fine for the original crossers, but with modern SUVs we can cross bridges that they could not.
[/sarcasm]
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 23, 2006, 11:12 PM
Post #15 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: Sure the bridges were fine for the original crossers, but with modern SUVs we can cross bridges that they could not. |
|
|
|
|
markd
Jan 23, 2006, 11:20 PM
Post #16 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2002
Posts: 147
|
if it's ok for the fa party to place a bolt to protect themselves, it's certainly ok for that bolt to be replaced when it's no longer is good.
|
|
|
|
|
rockguide
Jan 23, 2006, 11:33 PM
Post #17 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2004
Posts: 1359
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sure the bridges were fine for the original crossers, but with modern SUVs we can cross bridges that they could not. Actually, that is very similar to one of the reasons the person in question gave for not replacing the old bolts :shock:
yes, I know.
I was being sarcastic and doing a parody.
I forgot the [parody][/parody] tags.
Html is so complex :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Jan 24, 2006, 12:05 AM
Post #18 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
What about Heritage bolts on Granite Trad climbs that are not really needed any more? I know several old climbs that have a single bolt next to a crack at a belay. Not doubt on the FA the crack was so dirty/grassy that drilling a bolt was quicker or safer than extensive cleaning of the crack. Now, 20 years later, the crack takes cams fine.
Replace? Chop? Or Leave it alone?
Take into account the route maps all show the belay as having one bolt. Also consider that the local “Bolt Police” are more likely to chop a new 3/8” bolt next to a crack than an old ¼” relic.
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Jan 24, 2006, 12:09 AM
Post #19 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
What about Heritage bolts on Granite Trad climbs that are not really needed any more? I know several old climbs that have a single bolt next to a crack at a belay. No doubt on the FA the crack was so dirty/grassy that drilling a bolt was quicker or safer than extensive cleaning of the crack. Now, 20 years later, the crack takes cams fine.
Replace? Chop? Or Leave it alone?
Take into account the route maps all show the belay as having one bolt. Also consider that the local “Bolt Police” are more likely to chop a new 3/8” bolt next to a crack than an old ¼” relic.
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Jan 24, 2006, 12:14 AM
Post #20 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: What about Heritage bolts on Granite Trad climbs that are not really needed any more? I know several old climbs that have a single bolt next to a crack at a belay. Not doubt on the FA the crack was so dirty/grassy that drilling a bolt was quicker or safer than extensive cleaning of the crack. Now, 20 years later, the crack takes cams fine. Replace? Chop? Or Leave it alone? Take into account the route maps all show the belay as having one bolt. Also consider that the local “Bolt Police” are more likely to chop a new 3/8” bolt next to a crack than an old ¼” relic.
that's a good question.
i'd say leave it in, until it breaks, and then don't replace it. hopefully whoever breaks it is not climbing on it, and knows better than to...
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 24, 2006, 12:22 AM
Post #21 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
Interesting Fact
In Squamish the Squamish Chief is in a Provincial Park. A few years ago BC parks went and wrote up a management plan that recognised rockclimbing as a legitimate recreational opportunity in the Park.
Part of BC Parks mandate is to recognize and protect places and things with historical significance.
In the management plan three things where recognized as being historically significant.
1. the memorial placs on memorial ledge on the top of the Apron.
2. The statue engraved in the boulder on the Chief Trail.
3. The Baldwen/Cooper bolt ladder on the Grand Wall.
So there you have it. "Heritage bolts" recognized, and therefore protected by BC Parks.
No one uses this bolt ladder, but it's recognition as a historical sight is cool if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 24, 2006, 12:47 AM
Post #22 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: So there you have it. "Heritage bolts" recognized, and therefore protected by BC Parks. |
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jan 24, 2006, 12:54 AM
Post #23 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: So there you have it. "Heritage bolts" recognized, and therefore protected by BC Parks. |
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Jan 24, 2006, 1:04 AM
Post #24 of 34
(10047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: ...I've seen climbs that were tainted if not ruined by the ASCA. Not to start a flame war or anything.
In the absence of specific route names, this statement is indeed incendiary.
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Jan 24, 2006, 2:17 AM
Post #25 of 34
(9734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
I agree with all you say, pmyche.
I don't know story behind these wall routes.
A fellow climber here in Reno (who's a lot more familiar with the aid climbs of Yosemite than I am) feels that aid bolts shouldn't be replaced with sport climbing fatties. I agree with that too.
But, speaking for myself, I'm glad to see the Zodiac ladder get straightened out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
