Adding Bolts between runouts

So, I am wondering...what are the ethics of adding a bolt in between large runouts? Is it a bad thing to make a route safer for someone to try, so that the risk of taking a bad whipper or even decking isn't as high? I realize that some climbs are so easy and putting bolts there can sometimes be silly, however, why have runouts on 10s or harder? I would appreciate only serious constructive comments...

Seriously…Here goes again.

(sigh)

Search bolting ethics on the forums and you will save a lot of unnecessary key strokes and drama.

The ethics are talk to the FA party and the local community before modifying a route otherwise the ethic is to leave it alone and suck it up.

Retro bolting is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Don't even THINK about adding bolts to established routes... just to make it easier for you.
Find other routes that you feel safe on instead.

NO

When FA party is dead, you still don't have the rights to retro bolt.

Where are you thinking to re bolt in Tahoma? Hopefully not mayhem. Mayhem is great as is and a friend has kept up the mussy hooks and bolts there how they should be.

It is certainly fine to put in bolts if the route is a first ascent (and, of course, if bolts are allowed in the area).

In the rainy NW, runout routes are generally lost to history because almost nobody does them, which generally means that the rock gets reclaimed by moss. When the route is already established, the ethic is often to ask the FA party. Sometimes the FA party comes back years later and adds the bolts themselves. Though in some areas, such an action could provoke some bolt-chopping.

Who ever is born first wins. Sorry. Because they were born first you have to do what they did. It's called tradition, not logic. Plus, I am kinda a big deal.

I've heard that if a Stonedmaster even peed at the base of a slab, it is off limits until Jesus returns.

It is ethical to respect your elders forever and ever by looking at their run outs with respect and never touching them.

Kinda like being a serf in a catholic church in the dark ages

Adding bolts is totally fine. Last time I checked there is no law anywhere that gives the FA any type of ownership or control over the rock just because they were there first. Others will strongly disagree and threaten you with physical violence and scorn for being a retro-bolting pussy. Regardless, the world will continue to turn and Eva Mendes will be smoking hot for at least another 5 years.

What we picture the FA party saying when setting that run out bolt: "Now, this next section of 5.12 needed a nice 30ft run out to force a juxtaposing feeling of fear and tranquility. When one passes through the trial of 'near-decking-ness' one will truly reach self actualization."

What was probably said by the FA party: "These bolts are freaking expensive, and this rock is a pain to drill."

By NC Rock Climber
From The Oven, AKA Phoenix
11 mins ago

Adding bolts is totally fine. Last time I checked there is no law anywhere that gives the FA any type of ownership or control over the rock just because they were there first. Others will strongly disagree and threaten you with physical violence and scorn for being a retro-bolting pussy. Regardless, the world will continue to turn and Eva Mendes will be smoking hot for at least another 5 years.

It is called respect something a stick clipping bolt crusher like you may never understand... Spend some time on some classic trad routes before you disregard the right of the FA party to disagree with some pussy coming in and rap bolting
Their once classic traditional mind control test piece!!!
Hey nc rock climber if you ever come to the front range I would spend most of my time in bocan plenty of safe grid bolted bullshit for you In there

Yeah. That worked out GREAT in Connecticut.

Jared Moore wrote:So, I am wondering...what are the ethics of adding a bolt in between large runouts? Is it a bad thing to make a route safer for someone to try, so that the risk of taking a bad whipper or even decking isn't as high?

It depends,

If its a traditional route thae leave it alone and sack up. Altering an already established route is A. a doutch bag thing to do, you are not the only climber of that route, that route is a puzzle to solve not to bring it down to a kindergartner level. and B. if you ate too scared or weak to climb than find a better route to meet your needs.

If it is a bolted sport route talk to FA or people that are actively maintaining the area and you can probably sneak a bolt in there if there was truly a safety concern and not just because you were scared to get above you last clip. Out side is not the gym where bolts are every three feet, the bolt may be 15-20+ feet apart and that is OK.

is there good pro to the crux, you fire an questionably protected crux and there is a good stance and gear placement? Then Sack up and climb it how the FA intended the route to be climbed, there maybe a full value experience waiting for you to discover.

Jared Moore wrote: I realize that some climbs are so easy and putting bolts there can sometimes be silly, however, why have runouts on 10s or harder?

To some a 5.10 is anothers 5.3. the FAs may have been solid 5.14 climbers and felt that a wimpy 5.10 could be runout. . .you never know .

Since were already on the topic of adding bolts, there's this run out climb in Yosemite. It's called the Bachar Yerian. I think I'm gonna throw in a few bolts to make it safer sometime this summer. I heard one guy broke a leg from a 60 foot whipper. The climbing community will totally love me for that.

chills wrote:It is called respect something a stick clipping bolt crusher like you may never understand... Spend some time on some classic trad routes before you disregard the right of the FA party to disagree with some pussy coming in and rap bolting Their once classic traditional mind control test piece!!! Hey nc rock climber if you ever come to the front range I would spend most of my time in bocan plenty of safe grid bolted bullshit for you In there

LOL!

Chills, will you use your super 5.10a sport climbing abilities to rope-gun for me if I come to the front range? That would be really cool, bra.

Chills sounds pretty frickin awesome. are you like famous or something?

The real answer is that it depends on the route- if there is indeed an "established" route. A very good example where you would receive bucketloads of shit and backlash is the Bachar-Yerian.

Another where you would receive a bunch of shit but you could disregard it because it was a contrived lump of shit waiting on bolts to become quality is Archangel.

Honestly though, if your limit is in the .10s, there is plenty out there to crank on that is well protected and will keep you from pondering shitshow topics like this one.

Jeff J, just spitballing here, but did you graduate high school? If so, you may have some sort of valid lawsuit on your hands. Go get 'em tgier.

Jeff J wrote: the FAs may have been solid 5.14 climbers and felt that a wimpy 5.10 could be runout.

That probably happened a lot when these routes were being bolted. The climbing scene consisted of very strong climbers, and no one was around to contest the spacing.

I applaud some of the route setters in southeast and southern idaho, who can crush 5.12-5.13, yet think about the little guy and pick a reasonable bolt spacing and use that on all their new routes. The big difference is visualizing the experience for a whole and not just a few. And guess what, these routes are some of the most popular routes for beginners and the advanced climbers alike.