Mountain Project Logo

Vermont Bolted runnouts WTF?

Original Post
John Husky · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2011 · Points: 5

Firstly, I am not a first ascentionist, but I am mystified why there are routes that get bolted, but not bolted safely.

I see more routes that are 5.7 pg13 or 5.8 for a 5.10 leader around here. I am not talking about places where you can get gear, I mean a line of bolts then a big runout, then a bolt, then a runout.

This is not the 70's. These routes were not hand drilled from a stance (if they were I am very sorry).

I guess my question is; if you make a route that you agree needs bolts, why not put in enough bolts that it is a safe lead? If you won't bolt it safely, why bolt it?

Examples: Some route below a 5.9 corner and 5.10 roof at Marshfield,
82 crag.
No pigs, Echo

I appreciate the hard work of my betters who bust ass to make these routes for me to enjoy, but I just don't enjoy being in ledge fall territory on a sport climb.

JohnWesely Wesely · · Lander · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 585
John Husky wrote:Firstly, I am not a first ascentionist, but I am mystified why there are routes that get bolted, but not bolted safely. I see more routes that are 5.7 pg13 or 5.8 for a 5.10 leader around here. I am not talking about places where you can get gear, I mean a line of bolts then a big runout, then a bolt, then a runout. This is not the 70's. These routes were not hand drilled from a stance (if they were I am very sorry). I guess my question is; if you make a route that you agree needs bolts, why not put in enough bolts that it is a safe lead? If you won't bolt it safely, why bolt it? Examples: Some route below a 5.9 corner and 5.10 roof at Marshfield, 82 crag. No pigs, Echo I appreciate the hard work of my betters who bust ass to make these routes for me to enjoy, but I just don't enjoy being in ledge fall territory on a sport climb.
Maybe they weren't bolted to be sport climbs? Just a thought.
NickinCO · · colorado · Joined Sep 2010 · Points: 155

Funny, I was just thinking about how closely bolted some of the new sport climbing routes are. Some routes in Clear creek are so closely bolted (every 3'-4') that it takes away from the actual climbing. I'm not talking about climbs with a nasty fall hazard either.

JCM · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 115

A lot of the routes on the main face at the 82 are not meant to be pure sport-climbs; a small set of nuts and cams are recommended. On those routes, I remember that wherever there was a gap in he bolting, a nice crack appeared right in the middle of the runout that took a nice cam. So, the routes at the 82 are plenty safe- closely protected, even- with a bit of gear. I can't speak for Marshfield, though, since I never made it over there.

Bolts do not necessarily indicate a sport climb, and mixed bolt/gear routes are standard local practice in VT and the Adks. For an example of this, take a trip to Poko, where the standard "sport climbing" rack seems to be 10 quickdraws, a set of RPs, and a screamer. Yikes.

john strand · · southern colo · Joined May 2008 · Points: 1,640

The reason is, as in a lot of the north east, is that not all climbs have to be "safe".
You will find this style widespread throughout the area,. i hope for a long time.

Devin Krevetski · · Northfield, VT · Joined May 2008 · Points: 140

don't go to Deer Leap.

JCM · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 115
john strand wrote:The reason is, as in a lot of the north east, is that not all climbs have to be "safe". You will find this style widespread throughout the area,. i hope for a long time.
Yet there are lots of safe climbs- bolted, gear protected, and mixed protection- as well. It is really nice to have the balance of safe climbs and more mentally-demanding climbs. I think that the Northeast strikes that balance very well.

I imagine that the release of the new VT climbing guide will make it easier to seek out the type of routes that you want.
M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911
Jon Moen wrote: Bolts do not necessarily indicate a sport climb, and mixed bolt/gear routes are standard local practice in VT and the Adks. For an example of this, take a trip to Poko, where the standard "sport climbing" rack seems to be 10 quickdraws, a set of RPs, and a screamer. Yikes.
exactly, either know the beta or be prepared. not every bolt means "safe sport", it may mean "keeps you from hitting the ground"
Brendan Blanchard · · Boulder, CO · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 590

As said above, not uncommon in the NE, especially on low angle multi-pitch.

I've done 5.8 pitches at Rumney with bolts every 4-5 feet on steeper rock, and 5.10 pitches in Cape Ann, MA that have 3 bolts for 70 feet of climbing. Choose your battles wisely.

Chris Duca · · Dixfield, ME · Joined Dec 2006 · Points: 2,330

As many of the previous posts explain, Vermont climbing is a mixed bag. Routes are typically bolted with the availability of natural protection in mind. The 82 Crag and Poke-O are the perfect example of this ethos. Added to this, a common practice, not only in Vermont, but throughout the north country, is to safely bolt the difficult sections of a route, but leave some unguarded terrain on the easy section (Wheeler Mt.). It adds spice and keeps the leader honest. Granted, not all route developers share this, but be forewarned, bolts on a route does not a sport climb make. And I am sure the new guidebook will also help clarify any confusion.

Graham Johnson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 0

It still begs the question - why make something artificially dangerous?

I haven't climbed any of the routes mentioned but I have been to many areas where bolts are placed few and far between with no options for other gear. I know of one area where the first ascenionists had a policy of what they called "exponential bolting" where the bolts got further and further apart the higher you went (no, the falls would not have been clean). Why? It was just a game the guys putting up routes played 'cause they were good enough to get away with it.

john strand · · southern colo · Joined May 2008 · Points: 1,640

Maybe "good enough to get away with it" but having done a fair amount of f/a's in NE, it's more like "you drill when you can"

Remember, the vast amount of climbs in VT and Nh were done ground up.If you are on a 5.11, do you really need bolts on the 5.7 stuff ?

iBolt · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2011 · Points: 5
john strand wrote:If you are on a 5.11, do you really need bolts on the 5.7 stuff ?
Maybe because if you fall and die on the 5.7 part; you'll be just as dead as if you fell and died on the 5.11 part.

Didn't Derek Hersey fall (and die) on only a 5.8?

iBolt

edited for spelling, doh!
JohnWesely Wesely · · Lander · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 585
iBolt wrote: Maybe because if you fall and die on the 5.7 part; you'll be just as dead as if you fell and died on the 5.11 part. Didn't Derek Hersey fall (and die) on only a 5.8? iBolt edited for spelling, doh!
Try not to fall and die then.
Dom Caron · · Welsford, New Brunswick Canada · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 1,370

I haven't climbed in Vermont but I live in the NorthEast and we get influenced by what goes on in New England. That being said I find it ridicule to bolt something and the finished product is an R rated route. If you're going to bolt something do it well, if not leave it naturally protected or/and R/X rated.
Some bolted routes in NB are Run-out and it pisses me off. So I'm slowly changing things by bolting well protected bolted routes. (or mix routes with good gear in between)

Brendan Blanchard · · Boulder, CO · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 590

Although I agree that some ethics are extreme, I think the NE holds up a pretty good balance. If you want closely bolted routes, go to Rumney. Even a 5.3 will have 5-10 bolts per pitch, depending on legth. If you want an alpine feel, go do Standard Route at Whitehorse and climb really runout 5.0-5.4 terrain.

Yes, it may seem extreme at some point, but bolting 5.2 climbing even every 15 feet can be a waste. Bolting the Standard route on Whitehorse could cost the bolter upwards of $500, but that's not the point at all. Different styles of climbing do, and should always exist. If you don't like one, then you don't need to participate in it.

A year or so ago, I would agree that 3 bolts for a 70' 5.10 slab or several bolts for a 100' moderate pitch is ridiculous, but now that I've sacked up and done some routes like this, I can respect the FA'ers and understand the ethic. It seems harsh, but excepting some extreme circumstances, you just have to climb what you like and ignore what you don't like. Learning to love it* in some sick twisted way is also an option...

  • Read: off widths, crystal finger cracks, highballs, run-out slab, choss etc...
D.Mills · · boulder,co · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 0
iBolt wrote: Maybe because if you fall and die on the 5.7 part; you'll be just as dead as if you fell and died on the 5.11 part. Didn't Derek Hersey fall (and die) on only a 5.8? iBolt edited for spelling, doh!
no need to bring Derek Hersey into this argument is there?
Petsfed 00 · · Snohomish, WA · Joined Mar 2002 · Points: 989

The OP is objecting to *rap* bolted runouts. Where bolts "where you can get 'em" is wherever you damn well please.

I really respect routes put in ground up, drilling from stances. Its proud and bold. Rapping in to drill the bolts, then relentlessly toproping the runouts (or saying "its easy for me") is chicken shit though, and the wall is forever marred because of it. In other words, if the rap bolter hasn't considered the consequences of a blown clip, he needs to put the drill down and figure it out before damaging the rock.

JesseT · · Portland, OR · Joined May 2011 · Points: 100
Graham Johnson wrote:It still begs the question - why make something artificially dangerous?...
The FA's don't do anything to make the routes artifically dangerous. By adding any bolts what they're doing is making them artifically safe. By chosing to make a route less artifically safe than it could be, the FA is sharing a certain type of experience that can't be had while climbing a route which has been made more artifically safe.
John Husky · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2011 · Points: 5
JesseT wrote: The FA's don't do anything to make the routes artifically dangerous. By adding any bolts what they're doing is making them artifically safe. By chosing to make a route less artifically safe than it could be, the FA is sharing a certain type of experience that can't be had while climbing a route which has been made more artifically safe.
My problem with this is that the FA-ist is bringing the rock down to their level. If they can climb 5.11 and the route is 5.7 the result can seem unsafe to me. I don't have a scrap more respect for the FA-ist of a bold bolted route than I do for the FA-ist of a grid bolted sport climb. As stated, the word is artificial.

Why not make them safe?
MojoMonkey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 66
John Husky wrote:These routes were not hand drilled from a stance (if they were I am very sorry).
Seems maybe you should have found that out first? And whether some gear to supplement bolts would help? And then, depending on the first two items, maybe not climb it if you don't like it?

BTW, if it turns out there is gear available to cut the runouts, you should argue for a bolt anyway so people don't need to bring gear. You can then helpfully point out that those wishing to use gear can just skip it.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northeastern States
Post a Reply to "Vermont Bolted runnouts WTF?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.