Retrobolting

Since we're having such a good time with this thread... let me muddy the waters ;-)

Two weeks ago I rebolted/retrobolted a route in Rifle. The FA is unavailable.

This is a short route that is essentially a 25', 5-bolt, 15-move boulder problem. The first four bolts were terrifyingly rusted but the last bolt and anchor were stainless and in fine shape.

So I replaced the first four bolts with stainless glue-ins. That's the rebolting part.

Once I had a rope up there I measured (because it looked wrong) and there was a ground-fall if you blew the 3rd clip. This clip was also difficult to make, it being way off to the right of the climbing line.

The first bolt was already high (stick-clip) so I moved it up about 1.5' and moved #2 up about 2'. #3 I kept at the same height but moved it left to make it easier to clip, and have less rope out doing it. That's the retrobolting part.

So am I damned to burn in hell?

Never make a decision like that on your own, one must always ask the community's permission first. Free thinking is not allowed.

John

I assume from your posts and our conversations, that you are a respected member of the Rifle climbing community. That can change things a bit. So my question for you is... now what happens when someone adds a bolt to a crux, not because there was ground fall potential but because they were afraid? Or they add a bolt because there is a long runout with no injury potential but, they were afraid? If you open the gate for your very specific circumstance isn't it possible that a retro-bolting free for all could become the rule not the exception?

Truth is, I don't care about your local ethics. I will follow them when I get there. I still look forward to a trip out to Rifle with hopefully, a day or two climbing with you.:-) But I stand by my original challenge. Try that at J'tree or Smith and see where it gets you.

Mr Roper. I would suggest that you can do all the free thinking you want when it's your time, money and effort involved.

Brad

rockvoyager wrote:John I assume from your posts and our conversations, that you are a respected member of the Rifle climbing community. That can change things a bit. So my question for you is... now what happens when someone adds a bolt to a crux, not because there was ground fall potential but because they were afraid? Or they add a bolt because there is a long runout with no injury potential but, they were afraid? If you open the gate for your very specific circumstance isn't it possible that a retro-bolting free for all could become the rule not the exception? Truth is, I don't care about your local ethics. I will follow them when I get there. I still look forward to a trip out to Rifle with hopefully, a day or two climbing with you.:-) But I stand by my original challenge. Try that at J'tree or Smith and see where it gets you. Mr Roper. I would suggest that you can do all the free thinking you want when it's your time, money and effort involved. Brad

Gee, thanks for the invitation. You too are welcome?

John Byrnes wrote:Once I had a rope up there I measured (because it looked wrong) and there was a ground-fall if you blew the 3rd clip. This clip was also difficult to make, it being way off to the right of the climbing line. The first bolt was already high (stick-clip) so I moved it up about 1.5' and moved #2 up about 2'. #3 I kept at the same height but moved it left to make it easier to clip, and have less rope out doing it. That's the retrobolting part. So am I damned to burn in hell?

Shit, sounds like you IMPROVED the route. So I don't even think penance is even warranted.

Dare I say...thank you for your service.

rockvoyager wrote:John I assume from your posts and our conversations, that you are a respected member of the Rifle climbing community. That can change things a bit.

I won't claim "respect" but when I contacted a member of the RCC I found that this route was already on "the list" for rebolting and that he had backed off too, just like I had! He supplied the materials from the cache.

rockvoyager wrote:So my question for you is... now what happens when someone adds a bolt to a crux, not because there was ground fall potential but because they were afraid? Or they add a bolt because there is a long runout with no injury potential but, they were afraid? If you open the gate for your very specific circumstance isn't it possible that a retro-bolting free for all could become the rule not the exception?

It Depends(tm). There's a number of reasons bolts should be added or moved. For example, there's the concept of a "working" bolt that allows you to work the crux without falling and having to pull up (yet) again, boink or lower-off. These bolts are skipped En Pointe.

Adding a bolt because you're afraid of a safe fall is rarely okay. In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard of it actually happening, yet it's used to justify not adding a bolt all the time. Adding a bolt because they are afraid of an unsafe fall, yeah, that happens, and in the case of a sport climb, it should happen.

rockvoyager wrote:I still look forward to a trip out to Rifle with hopefully, a day or two climbing with you.:-)

Sure, I'm there every-other week. I'd be happy to spray you with beta ;-)

rockvoyager wrote:But I stand by my original challenge. Try that at J'tree or Smith and see where it gets you.

Try what? Replacing weak or corroded bolts? Moving them for a convenient clip? Or eliminating a ground-fall on a sport route? Brad, you're not guilty of this, but whenever someone says "retrobolt" the spittle starts flying. That's just wrong because It Depends always applies.

Stich wrote: Shit, sounds like you IMPROVED the route. So I don't even think penance is even warranted. Dare I say...thank you for your service.

That third clip is definitely better. I tested the bolts this trip; too many times! That damn thing is hard: sheer power. Good for young boulderers ;-)