p300 new Falcon Eldo guide on the corner 50' right of TOUCH N GO
An alert belayer is required. Some may call this 's' but I think the risky moves are not within 2 number grades of the difficulty of the crux. A small nut protects a bouldery start, then carefully step up to clip the first bolt. A hold out left expedites this clip. The crux of the first section is found when stepping over the rooflet. A good stopper can be placed at the stance above. The second section follows two bolts out right to the arete, although some have gone straight up from the first, and up to finish on THE CONTEST.
The climbing is technical in spots but there are frequent rests.
My only reason for submitting this route can be found in the following...
No Lo Contendre
This route starts to the left of, and eventually joins, THE CONTEST, hence the name which pleads 'no contest' in a court of law. It came into being after I saw the possibility of the upper half and thought to climb the lower BEHIND THE TREE route to reach it. I led it onsight on natural gear with my friend Mark Miller some time later.
It was an adventure for me but in those days I was willing to add bolts to some of my routes after-the-fact and this one seemed appropriate. It had two cruxes that risked very bad falls. It lacked the aesthetic position that might have encouraged me to keep it as a 'death lead'. I asked the opinions of other local climbers who supported the idea.
The fly-in-the-ointment was that the bottom part, the BEHIND THE TREE route, was in the book as having been done before by 'unknown'. I was on the FHRC at the time and thought that proposing to add a bolt in the bottom half and 2 bolts to the top half would make it safer though still as sporty as some other Roof Routes. More importantly, perhaps, was it's value as a test case to promote public debate about adding bolts to existing routes. This issue, and the idea of replacing fixed pins with bolts, still lurks.
The FHRC made it's decisions in public meetings in those days. I had hopes of a lively discussion but there was little debate and it was approved (with me abstaining).
Over the years I have heard from a few people who were taken aback by this sequence of events. I told them I wished they had attended the meeting and voiced their objections then but that it wasn't too late. If they wanted to propose to remove one or more of them then they should do so. I used Rawl bolts so that they could be unscrewed easily and the holes camoflauged. I would be willing to attend the meeting, plead 'no contest', and help with the removal and repair. It was my intention to make the offer for "the good of the community" but it was probably misguided.
I think this is a good time for the debate on this route to take place, and this is a good forum.
By Tony Bubb From: Boulder, CO Nov 7, 2001 rating: 5.10c R
Funny, I was just thinking of adding this route to the guide, but I am glad I did not. The history contained above is more interesting than anything I could have said, so I am glad that Steve made the contribution.
That aside, here is my opinion on the route: I did it with the bolts in place last year. I thought that the lower face was simply a matter of concentration, but that a fall would produce grave (pun) results if it occurred at certain points. The upper (bolted) 1/2 is adequtely protected, but the move toward the right certainly produces a situation (crux) in which a somewhat uncomfortable fall could occur- the bolt would be to the left and the climber just up and right. Since the wall is quite featured here, it seems a leader could take a minor thump-and-scuffing. Injury seems unlikely, but pain seems likely.
My partner and I concurred that this had been a lousy choice of warm-ups (even if you usually warm up on 5.10), and Peter described it as a lead he would not ever choose to do. I agree that the crux is significantly harder than the runout portion of the climb, and thus the "S" rating is debatable, but I suppose I am inclined to rate the lower 1/2 "S." and say the upper half is a little ennervating, but safe. This is my $.02.
I think this sort of honesty and willingness to discuss one's actions when putting up a route, especially if they generate controversy, is quite laudable. Only in an open debate, where the first ascentionist is receptive to constructive criticism, can anything resembling a consensus be reached.
Perhaps the new "This route is modified" proclaimer automatically puts some people on the defensive, and I can certainly see why. But if we're all willing to subject ourselves to the same standards, standards which the owners of this web site are entitled to put in place, then we're all on an even playing field.
I thank Steve for his honesty and I'm willing to be just as open about my first ascent actions in the Front Range, be it on the rock or on the boulders. By the same token, I'm also open to constructive criticism of my actions. Like most first ascentionists, not everything I've done has been as pure as the driven snow. I've used glue, yarded off choss with a geology hammer, built landing terraces under boulder problems and knocked a sharp crystal or two off of a couple of holds.
Maybe if we all come clean then there will be less finger-pointing and more problem-solving.
I have never climbed your route but I [climbed] The Contest a few times a year and always traverse one extra foot to the left after the crux to clip your bolt. Thanx much. It has made this route less committing than it was in the past.
I just did this route for the first time on sat. 11/10 after Steve Diekhoff rescued my ropes! Thanks Steve! I thought the route was superb! I especially liked the balancy rock-over moves necessary to mantle the little roofs! I am also happy for the first bolt at the lip of the roof. Thanks again!
I wasn't that impressed by the line. The balancy moves over the roof are fun, but no where near as classic as most other Eldo routes I've done. IMHO, I dont think it should warrant bolts, but its a free country, and the bolts aren't bothering me any, really!
By Leo Paik Administrator From: Westminster, Colorado Mar 7, 2002
Honesty, fine, but this route really should get fixed or chopped. A very competent, former FHRC'er led this climb and got scared silly. There is major potential to keep climbing with shit for gear risking the big chop above the little roof until you get to the upper protected section. You proposed the bolts and now you think it should be fixed, so fix it. Submit the proposal.
By Leo Paik Administrator From: Westminster, Colorado Aug 29, 2003
As you can tell from my prior comment, IMHO not a worthwhile route. Negative stars for the 8X or VS runout between the bolted sections. Poor craftsmanship for a route placed on rappel. Bolts close together close to the ground with a long stretch until higher bolts mislead one to believe you can find natural pro in between. Don't lead it unless you are willing to pay the piper.
I was fortunate enough to top-rope this route and I thought the rock and the moves, especially above the ramp halfway up, were excellent. It seemed like a real hidden gem in that regard. I don't have any desire to comment on the bolting, except to say I'm glad I wasn't leading.
By mike r From: lAurora,CO Mar 9, 2008 rating: 5.10b
I did the same subliminal seduction to no lo contendre, fell at the crux move pulling onto the ledge. stopped about 4 feet off the ground. A Scary fall but clean and once you pull through that move it's easy climbing, be solid on 10 or be good at rolling out of your fall the first bolt is about 10 feet up, but thats only bouldering height anyways. Fun Route!!!
My buddy jumped off at the first bolt, with a little bit of warning, so I got some slack in. The fall was not too scary, but the potential for getting gored by the half broken off tree branch is.
I thought the upper part is pretty good and the lower part is better than some of the routes people call 'classics'.
Redgarden - Tower Two
RSS Feed
