Comments: Bump - RSVP is actually to me (use the link to my name here) and is important so we can plan for food. Work will probably end a little after 1PM, and the BCC will serve a complimentary lunch for the volunteers. Thanks for your help!
Comments: This thing is such a prominent feature, yet it gets almost no traffic. I cleaned the lichen off of it years ago... and to a small degree, again today. Perhaps since it is not for the squeamish if you are only leading 5.8. You could take a big fall from the crux if your small/marginal gear there failed. There are good holds on the arete to the left of the bush, so go left there and back.
Comments: While I may agree with the the OP, above, that there are Flatirons with better climbing in the area, or perhaps just more variety, I disagree with the apparent idea that this one is less worthy of a visit. A recent trip there netted 5 distinct lines we climbed, and, remarkably, the two best of these were not documented. Furthermore, the 3rd best was listed as a variation to the main route. Perhaps the less-than-great review given above was due to the best climbing not being well covered by the... more >>
Comments: Climbing this directly up the arete to the edge and staying on that arete is harder, has less gear and is a little heads-up for gear but offers some variety. You end up above the 2nd bolted belay a way and have to build an anchor of small cams and small/med nuts.
Comments: A nice route that is far longer than one would suspect. There are cruxes much harder than 5.0 if you don't climb way down and left at the breaks in the ridge. I did some 5.6 or harder going between the various rocks, but some of this could have been avoided by climbing down and back up a ways.
Comments: The system kicked me out in the middle of 'creating' this route. Here are the details:
Details: Follow the blunt South arete to the top of the cliff, staying within an arms reach of it. This route feels more "5th class" in some sections than others, and the subgrade I have given reflects the overall feel of it. There may be a slightly harder move here or there. The rock is cleaner, less broken, and is more exposed than the standard 'East Face South Side' 4th class slab.
Comments: As Per Leo's comment: to address that concern, just be sure to be and stay right (North) of the massive chockstones that jut out of the gully between the sections in question, producing large roofs. If you are to the right of those, you are in the right place.
Comments: FWIW, When Marc A. and I recently did 666 proper (tandem solo after Enchanted Devil on Thanksgiving), we couldn't figure out where the supposed 5.6 moves were either. I 'downgraded' that to 5.4, but it could have just as easily been 5.3. It was easier, in both of our eyes, than Enchanted Devil (5.4), but I didn't want to take a 6 all the way down to 3 considering I might not be terribly sensitive to grades in that range.
Comments: Looks like you were just out to the climber's right of the 'normal' route for 666. In the top photos, I can see the huge chockstones that should be there, but you were less on the arete. As the climbing on each of the various sub-features of each ridge is generally the same as on the long south end of the features, these are considered variations. For an IE, refer to the Haas book for Enchanted Devil where it has a variation at the same grade for climbing the center of the face instead of the... more >>
Comments: In retrospect given all of these comments, it sounds like I forced my way too straight directly up on that last pitch, aiming for the short back corner above, and thus through terra incognita. No good. Glad to hear that there are several other/better options.
Comments: If I projected routes, I'd probably give this one a go. But I'm lazy and I don't climb that hard, so I'll settle for getting rejected on it on TR (hmmmph). Well protected crux but pretty hard, & it comes when you are already pumped.