Add a bolt to "Flying Dutchman" on the Sail?

Just wanting some community input - the title of my post does not reflect intent.

I love the routes on the Sail in LCC. I've led them all except for "Flying Dutchman" ( mountainproject.com/v/flyin…), which I've only TR'd.

I'd love to lead it, but the R runout at the top is just engaging enough to where it's not worth the risk to me, personally. I understand that there are people who live for this type of route. I get that and I respect that fully. I don't want to tread on any toes, and I'm happy TR'ing hardman routes, or avoiding them altogether, until such a time as I'm willing to get on it in the style of the FA, or to pursue softman routes exclusively, as I'm wont to do.

HOWEVER: I think adding a bolt to the runout face would make for an amazing lead. Just a single bolt to keep the spiciness factor but reduce the injury potential, and make the climb a bit more accessible to people working 10's.

Depending on what ye LCC hardmen think, I'd be willing to finance the enterprise if someone would go out with me to do it. Again, this is a thought, I don't have any plans. I value the SLC community and those tribal elders that laugh at my pleas for safety.

I guess I should try and contact the FA? Any suggestions on protocol in such a case?

Please don't flame me for being a pansy.

Also, to beat everyone to it, I know the runout face is 5.8.

Sam Cannon wrote: the runout face is 5.8.

HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!

If you can lead the bottom 3/4 of the route, the top "runout" is trivial. Adding a bold would ruin the route.

I could understand your view point if this were some obscure route that was never repeated, HOWEVER, this route gets done all the time, and has been that way for years.

Hey Sam, I don't think you'll get much (any?) approval on this forum. Probably due to selection bias alone. I would say leave it alone for a couple years, then come back when you're routinely onsighting hard 5.10, and you won't think twice about leading it.

Sam Cannon wrote:Also, to beat everyone to it, I know the runout face is 5.8.

Alec - thanks for the response. I knew the title of my post would draw a lot of negative attention, which is why I tried to quickly qualify my position.

I was/am curious how these matters get sussed out now that there are so many climbers in the area, loosely connected by word of mouth, chance encounters, and forums like Mountainproject or Summitpost. The idea of a climbing "community" is made more nebulous both by the growing number of climbers and the internet. Contributing positively (and tangibly) to the community surrounding the activity and landscapes I love is an important thing to me, and I was curious to see if I'd get any constructive criticisms/comments beyond "You suck, go climb the Slips."

You are right, of course, and I'll either McGuiver some psychological pro or wait until I am, as you suggested, consistently OS'ing hard 10s and the runout is more trivial to me than it would be currently.

As an alternative, hang a static line from the top with a loop tied where you would like pro. Then lead the route and clip the static line as your piece. You get to lead it and the route isn't changed. Best of both worlds.

^^^^this

If you fall on 5.8 then you deserve to die.

And your grandmother will make fun of you at your funeral for falling on 5.8.

Quote of the day:

jeff lebowski wrote:If you fall on 5.8 then you deserve to die. And your grandmother will make fun of you at your funeral for falling on 5.8.

jeff lebowski wrote:If you fall on 5.8 then you deserve to die. And your grandmother will make fun of you at your funeral for falling on 5.8.

You will not be able to contact Jack Roberts, whom did the FA until the after life. Sadly Jack is gone as he died two years ago while ice climbing in Colorado.

suntimes.com/news/nation/10….

Regarding the idea of adding a bolt. The R rating is of recent times. Many climbers have done the route without incident. As such, there is no need to bring the grade down.

No.

Any bolt added would get chopped. So, don't bother.

Geir wrote:As an alternative, hang a static line from the top with a loop tied where you would like pro. Then lead the route and clip the static line as your piece. You get to lead it and the route isn't changed. Best of both worlds.

I remember seeing Todd Skinner doing it down in Waco Tanks in Texas. There is or was a bolting ban down there so he hung a static line down climbs with loops tied into them and clipped those. So it has been done.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Always kinda joked about doing this... but does anyone have any photos of someone actually doing an FA with a rig like this?

My thought on the matter is this; that everyone from hardman to 1st-timer has a different idea of acceptable risk. With such a wide spectrum of acceptable risk, we are left with only two options when it comes down to the safety of a route. Either we accept the FA's idea of acceptable risk (even or especially after they are gone) or we take it down to the lowest common denominator, which I believe is prolly the gym standard of like 4 feet per bolt.

There are soooo many LCC lines I wanna try that are too widely spaced apart for me. And I think, well if those bolts were only 10 ft apart, I'd totally go for it. But the guy right behind me might be saying the exact same thing except 'only 9 ft' and so on. So we are obligated, I think, to leave it to the FA.

So I guess my point is that I'm like you, I wanna RP routes that I just don't have the nerve for, but I'd rather look forward to a day when I have the mental fortitude to try a 5.whatever R/X then see the day when I'm confidant to do ANY route cause I can reach the next bolt by standing on the last one.

Paul Wilhelmsen wrote:My thought on the matter is this; that everyone from hardman to 1st-timer has a different idea of acceptable risk. With such a wide spectrum of acceptable risk, we are left with only two options when it comes down to the safety of a route. Either we accept the FA's idea of acceptable risk (even or especially after they are gone) or we take it down to the lowest common denominator, which I believe is prolly the gym standard of like 4 feet per bolt. There are soooo many LCC lines I wanna try that are too widely spaced apart for me. And I think, well if those bolts were only 10 ft apart, I'd totally go for it. But the guy right behind me might be saying the exact same thing except 'only 9 ft' and so on. So we are obligated, I think, to leave it to the FA. So I guess my point is that I'm like you, I wanna RP routes that I just don't have the nerve for, but I'd rather look forward to a day when I have the mental fortitude to try a 5.whatever R/X then see the day when I'm confidant to do ANY route cause I can reach the next bolt by standing on the last one.

Agreed that if you can lead the Dutchman up to that point, you ought to be fine on the upper runout. I recall there being a semi-good red C3 placement in semi-good rock up there to help make you fell all warm and fuzzy as you finish the route.

You can definitely send it without dropping a cord off the horn up top Sam. The 5.8 move is no more than 15ft from your last pro, and the climbing after that is much easier. You can nest a few good cams before you cast off for a nice mini anchor.

Plus that rock is not good for a bolt up higher since you're climbing over a semi detached flake.

Giv'r