Bolts Bolts Bolts

John Braun wrote:Anyone have opinions on the new-ish Wave glue-ins?

I have used them a bit. I have worked with the owner/ designer of the product in trying to improving the corrosion resistance of his design a bit. Anyway, they are good bolts for the money, and they are very strong. However, the bolts require a huge hole which requires a powerful drill and a lot of epoxy. If you are placing the Wave Bolts in hard rock, you must oversize the hole or else you will need a sledge hammer to get them in. For the 1/2" version you need a 5/8" hole and for the 5/8" version you need a 11/16" hole. Drilling a 11/16" x 4" hole eats up quite a bit of epoxy.

John Braun wrote:Anyone have opinions on the new-ish Wave glue-ins?

Glue In bolt discussion on RC

I'll bet you need a sledge to get a 5/8 into a 11/16 hole! ;)

Rick Mix wrote:I'll bet you need a sledge to get a 5/8 into a 11/16 hole! ;)

Actually they fit in a 11/16" with no effort, you can slide them in. The reason you need a larger hole with the 1/2" version is because with the 1/2" version, the legs are spread more than the 5/8" version.

Locker wrote:"What's kind of interesting with respect to all this chatter about galvanic corrosion, is, there is very little to no evidence of it at any crag in the U.S. between plated and stainless steel."... Well I am going to have to disagree there as I personally have seen it quite a few times when replacing mank... and I am just one person so you know many others have come across it as well...

i have noticed it quite a bit also. i think most people don't really know what to look for, so they assume it isn't there.

20 kN wrote: If you are placing the Wave Bolts in hard rock, you must oversize the hole or else you will need a sledge hammer to get them in. For the 1/2" version you need a 5/8" hole and for the 5/8" version you need a 11/16" hole. Drilling a 11/16" x 4" hole eats up quite a bit of epoxy.

This has a lot to do with the inconsistency in production, a lot of them have been made to be "about right" in the past.

I just sank a couple the other day, 1/2" hole for the 1/2" Wavebolt and then a 5/8" hole for the 5/8" Wavebolt.

I'd be willing to bet that this issue will get fixed with upgraded tooling and manufacturing.

I think its a great design, very simple, innovative compared to anything else out on the market, they just need a bit more refinement.

slim wrote: i have noticed it quite a bit also. i think most people don't really know what to look for, so they assume it isn't there.

I agree with this. I noticed the first photo posted by "Brian in SLC" where he is saying that he hasn't ever seen galvanic corosion is a textbook example of galvanic corosion. Also, the photo he posted of the old petzl caving hanger (SS not aluminum) looks like it was probably galvanic corosion (it's too old to really know, but I'd guess it is).

Chris Vinson wrote: This has a lot to do with the inconsistency in production, a lot of them have been made to be "about right" in the past. I just sank a couple the other day, 1/2" hole for the 1/2" Wavebolt and then a 5/8" hole for the 5/8" Wavebolt. I'd be willing to bet that this issue will get fixed with upgraded tooling and manufacturing. I think its a great design, very simple, innovative compared to anything else out on the market, they just need a bit more refinement.

The Wave Bolts are designed that way. Maybe there are production consistency issues as well, but the Wave Bolt was designed to enable bolters to place them in roofs and clip into them before the epoxy cures. They designed the legs to be wider than the hole diameter so you have to force them into the hole. When you do so, the legs compress and they provide enough resistance to allow you to clip into them and hang on them. However, they were designed mainly for the RRG, which has soft sandstone. When you try to use them in hard rock, forget it, it is impossible to get them in if you do not oversize the hole.

20 kN wrote: However, they were designed mainly for the RRG, which has soft sandstone. When you try to use them in hard rock, forget it, it is impossible to get them in if you do not oversize the hole.

You're spot on.

I agree with you 20kN, they are tough for harder rock. You hit all the points that make them innovative and useful for equipping routes. They are also made with 316L stainless which would make them ideal for salt water environments like Thailand too.

I put them in 5000psi concrete, which is pretty hard stuff, but nowhere near the strength of some types of granite, but very comparable to some types of limestone. Harder rock will make them harder to place, but in terms of purpose, how many extremely steep overhung granite crags are there in relation to sandstone or limestone, which they were designed for?

The design is solid though, i will humbly argue that point with you for sandstone and limestone, they are ideal and the best option available for a longer lasting anchor.

We have a couple going in to a reto-bolting project here in Central Texas where the mechanical bolts just cant take the abuse over time. I'll post a video of how it went!

i don't think RRG sandstone would be considered soft, at least not compared to many other sandstones.

Slim, the porous nature of it is what often makes people think it's soft. Every sandstone area has its good+bad rock, as well. I love Corbin, and guarantee you we could find total dirt chossbucket nastiness at pretty much every cliff at the Red, usually within a hundred feet or so of an amazing overhung classic, or often just at the base, on a different strata of rock than most of the climb. Just like El Cap has rotten shard piles like the Black Cave that are going to be garbage no matter how unbelievably perfect the rock was on the previous pitches.

I'm all for using glue-ins to replace bolts in Corbin-the porous nature means that water drains thru, meaning glue in stainless should last really, really long.

Chris Vinson wrote: They are also made with 316L stainless which would make them ideal for salt water environments like Thailand too.

You won´t find too many in the industry that share that view, nor will you find any 300 series for areas of high corrosion risk in the next UIAA standard.

Thanks for the correction Jim, you got me there, Thailand was a terrible example. Lets say Kalymnos instead, I'm sure this point could be debated as well.

Although the problem with titanium is...hahaha oh man this could go on forever.

I have read the threads in the past. No need to drag this topic along.

+1 on the wavebolts though, great product for glue-ins. Affordable, cool design but Isaac always seem to be out of stock!

Aric Datesman wrote: Do you mean other than opinions about Wave's quite misleading testing in comparison to Bolt Products bolts, in which they compared pullout strength with the holes for the Bolt Products bolts drilled oversize? No, no opinions. Other than the obvious.

I think I missed this - source/etc? You're saying they tested half inch bolts in 9/16 holes or something?

John Braun wrote: I think I missed this - source/etc? You're saying they tested half inch bolts in 9/16 holes or something?

It was something along those lines... The Bolt-Products need a Metric hole and they drilled an incorrect-size-for-the-bolt English hole and then went on and on how the Bolt-Products bolts were inferior because they wouldn't stay in the hole. Was a big ugly mess on RC when Jim Titt called them out on it. I don't remember when it was or which forum (Lab/GH/general?) but should be easy enough to find.

Aric Datesman wrote: It was something along those lines... The Bolt-Products need a Metric hole and they drilled an incorrect-size-for-the-bolt English hole and then went on and on how the Bolt-Products bolts were inferior because they wouldn't stay in the hole. Was a big ugly mess on RC when Jim Titt called them out on it. I don't remember when it was or which forum, but should be easy enough to find.

Forum topic where the issues cropped is linked up thread a bit. Wasn't quite that nefarious but certainly misleading. I'll fill in blanks later...

I can also give an updated head-to-head review on the Wave and Titt bolts later. I just got back from using both again today - just don't have time for the write up right now

mattm wrote: Forum topic where the issues cropped is linked up thread a bit. Wasn't quite that nefarious but certainly misleading.

Nefarious, misleading... Tomato, tomahto... My only recollection of it was something about holding strength without epoxy and it being the first and only time I've seen Jim go back and remove posts (once he and the Wave guy settled the issue). Iirc the missing posts were rather heated.

EDIT- Here's where it started: rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/fo…

Wavebolt@RC: "Sorry to revive an old thread, but Wave Bolts ( wavebolt.com) are a new and superior alternative to all other glue in bolt designs. Three major advantages: unlike all other designs they will not slide out of a hole before the adhesive sets, they are made in the US and ready to ship, and they are less expensive than others! Check out the website for more info."

JimTitt@RC's response: "Bolt Products Twisted Leg Bolts are interference fit for the last 20mm before the eye to prevent them sliding out. They have been like this for more than 10 years. They also have considerably higher dry (no glue) extraction resistance than Wavebolts in both radial and axial testing. Before making advertising claims one is well advised to check, incorrect claims reduce the credibility of the company and its products. That you consider your bolts `the best´is natural but others may for example think that the SeaWater series of bolts we manufacture from 1.4462 Duplex stainless steel are superior in both strength (100kN) and corrosion resistance. "

As I recall it got a bit heated after that and posts were pulled.

I cant comment on any of the discussion about BoltProduct's bolts, but I did call out Wave Man for posting erroneous info about his bolt's strength. He said that one of his 1/2" Wave Bolts was stronger than two 1/2" Power-Bolts, which is complete bull. But having talked with Wave Man (Isaac) on multiple occasions about his product, I don't think he is out to scam people, he is just trying to sell his product. He is pretty a knowledgeable climber, and he knows quite a fair bit about bolting. He has also been working to improve his product. He fired his machine shop a while back because they were not meeting his quality requirements, and now he refers to his newly machined bolts as "Wave Bolts 2.0".

20 kN wrote: The Wave Bolts are designed that way. Maybe there are production consistency issues as well, but the Wave Bolt was designed to enable bolters to place them in roofs and clip into them before the epoxy cures. They designed the legs to be wider than the hole diameter so you have to force them into the hole. When you do so, the legs compress and they provide enough resistance to allow you to clip into them and hang on them. However, they were designed mainly for the RRG, which has soft sandstone. When you try to use them in hard rock, forget it, it is impossible to get them in if you do not oversize the hole.

I'll concur with this as well. I just put in 4 of the Waves and 4 of Bolt Products bolts in good limestone. I had to bash the sh*t out of the Waves to get them in. Fairly frustrating. "1/2in" Waves definitely need an oversized hole in anything but soft rock. I have a 9/16th SDS so I'm going to see how that goes.

The 12mm Bolt Products bolt slipped right in of course. (12mm bolt in 12.7mm hole). I need to try them in a true 12mm hole to see how their interference fit is. The Titt bolt is designed for an interference fit in only the last little bit which I think is better for all but the really overhanging stuff. I hope Bolt Products can tweak their jig for US 1/2in use. Just a bit more flair on the last, parallel legs portion should do it.

I did a quick test with some water on the volume of the Titt Bolt vs the Wave. Many, including myself, seemed to think the Wave needed more glue. I got a 10mL tube and filled it with water. I then submerged each bolt into the "hole" the same distance and checked how much water was displaced (and thusly, how much glue would be needed to fill the hole). It was pretty much identical from what I could tell without a more precise system. So for the same size hole, expect to use the same amount of glue. Of course, if you're drilling "correct" size holes (12mm for the Titt, probably 9/16th for a Wave in anything but soft rock) the Titt will require less glue and the Wave more.

Just a few things on various points made above.

I think arguing over the strength of wave bolts, or any other certified glue in (Fixe, Petzl, etc) compared to Powers is a waste of time. They are both far stronger than we need. The difference is that the powers will not last as long... eventually it will spin. TheGlue in is not under pressure when there is no fall, so it stays put. It will simply last longer.

Also, 316 breaks down just as fast in Thailand as 304. There was no appreciable difference.