Rebolting Roadside Attraction, Puoux, Glenwood Canyon

Talk about scary!

This spring, I’ve been replacing bad or suspect anchors and bolts at our beloved little roadside crag, the Puoux with hardware donated by Climbing Magazine’s Anchor Replacement Initiative. In the process, I’ve discovered a number of rather scary bolts, a couple of which prompted me to think, “man, I’m glad I didn’t whip on that thing.” Tonight took the cake though.

Roadside Attraction is a short, mediocre line that checks in at around 5.10a. Its claim to fame is that it’s arguably the most popular climb in western Colorado. Throughout the year it sees a steady flow of traffic, particularly because it’s easy to hike around to the top and set up a toprope. I’ve climbed it countless times, often combining it with the second pitch for a long warmup.

That's what bolts look like on the inside. 3rd bolt on Roadside Attraction at the Puoux, Glenwood Canyon.
“Can you say, scary?”

I’ve never been too fond of the bolting on the climb and others have shared their feelings with me as I’ve worked at replacing bolts this spring. Many of us have wondered about the third bolt, placed in a suspect block. Tonight, while rappelling the route after updating the second pitch anchor I decided to tap around with my hammer and see if any of the route’s bolts were in hollow rock. My senses have been alerted after finding a couple of key crux bolts on Two Tone in frighteningly hollow rock that was peeling off with moderate tugs six inches away. Additionally, a few years ago a large flake with a bolt in the middle of it fell off the Left Innominate and rumors flew that someone had whipped on the bolt, causing its displacement.

3rd bolt on Roadside Attraction at the Puoux, Glenwood Canyon.
““After a few hits with the hammer.””

Upon closer inspection the 3rd bolt did indeed have cracks all around the bolted hold/block. I gave it a couple of taps to listen for a hollow ring and it gave that eery hollow sound that a route developer despises. I tapped it a couple more times and thought that I could detect some movement in the hold. Giving it a couple harder swings, although not violent, I could see the cracks around the hold widen and I knew it was going to come off easily. With about six more swings the hold came off with the bolt in it. I left a note on the first bolt warning future ascents and brought my artifact home to rest on my bookshelf.

Now, the question is, “do we rebolt the rest of the climb while we’re at it?”

Here’s my argument, which is by no means settled.

1. Obviously the third bolt needs to be replaced.
2. We don’t know who the first ascentionist is so instead I/we are looking for some sort of community agreement.
3. There is groundfall potential when clipping the second bolt and particularly when pulling up rope.
4. The second bolt is in rock that sounds good now but there is hollow rock on two sides of it within 6 inches and it appears to be part of a larger flake feature that may work loose with time and freeze/thaw. How long, I don’t know but it seems like a possibility. Currenty, the second bolt protects the crux.
5. I propose that the first bolt be moved up slightly, 4 to 6 inches. The second bolt should be lowered, about 10 inches into a solid plaque of rock. The third bolt should be relocated 12 to 18 inches to the left of its original placement in a solid plague of rock that could be clipped before committing to the crux, thereby offering better protection for the leader. The fourth bolt is probably fine but we could replace it while we’re at it and move it 4 to 6 inches lower where it will be easier to clip and better protect the upper moves.

Roadside Attraction. The blue numbers indicate the location of existing bolts (or recently existing in the case of the 3rd) and the red numbers indicate the possible location of new bolts.”
Roadside Attraction. The blue numbers indicate the location of existing bolts (or recently existing in the case of the 3rd) and the red numbers indicate the possible location of new bolts.

Please share your thoughts. I have no intention of doing this alone and would love as much community input as possible, even if it is a chunk of roadside choss. I would like to rebolt this before the weekend and plan to go out on Thursday night (8-8:30), after my own climbing session, to do the work along with some beers, pizza, and friends. Feel free to join us and contribute to the decision making process or to leave some comments here.

Cheers,

Mike

Go for it Mike, and thanks for putting in the effort. I'll try to show up and help on Thursday.

Tom Bohanon

Please do!

Thanks John. I've got the hardware from the ARI from the other work I've been doing out there.

And, agreed, it's not like this is some mega classic line in Eldo where the boldness is part of it. It's a route that I know is an early lead for many people, particularly local climbers such as CMC students getting into the game. Makes sense, to me, that it be bolted as safely as possible.

I too am not into retrobolting lines, hence why I'd love to get some input/feedback. So far, I haven't talked to anyone who is opposed to it.

Yank 'em and do it right!

I thought you were going to be doing master's work, not destroying the bolts on local "classics" last night:) Looks like a good idea to me as that route combined with the pitch above is a nice warm up for the area.

Lynn S wrote:I thought you were going to be doing master's work, not destroying the bolts on local "classics" last night:)

I was but I got tired of staring at a screen.

Isn't this like putting lipstick on a pig??

Do it. That line gets more traffic than anything else @ the Puoux.

It's a good warmup and a good lead for an early 5.10. There's a good bit of loose stuff up past the crux as well that would probably be wise to take care of/remove. I've climbed it 4-5 weekends this year and the holds above the crux have changed at least twice. We pulled out a couple of very loose holds that were literally rattling around, but there is still more crap up there.

Oh, and thanks.

A little bump in case anyone else has a comment.

Thanks for all the great comments here, via email and on splitterchoss.com.

I think it sounds like a great thing to do. That said, I would consider not using ARI hardware. You're replacing aging hardware, but by installing bolts in locations that are different from how the FA did it (even if it wasn't the best job) you are also retrobolting. If it were me, in this particular case, I'd be fine taking responsibility for it, but I'd feel weird about using donated hardware for any bolts that are "relocated".

Josh, good point on the use of ARI hardware. One of the issues here is that the old bolts are studs so reusing the same hole would be difficult and the 2nd bolt is in rock that might be a little suspect. In the work I've done this spring I have moved other bolts because they were in suspect rock, never adding bolts to routes, just moving them into good rock.

Does that change your point at all?

P.S. I'm not averse to using my own hardware, just throwing the question out there.

It doesn't change my point, but let me clarify.

When you're replacing bad bolts (which includes good hardware placed in bad rock), and you're not using the same bolt hole, I think you need to find the nearest solid rock to place it in. If there's solid rock all around the bad rock (or all around the unusable hole in good rock), then choose a location that makes the most sense for protecting the route. I wouldn't hesitate to use ASCA or ARI hardware for this kind of thing. I just wouldn't use it if I was moving the bolts for any other reason than necessity. Does that make sense?

For example, Greg Barnes and I rebolted a climb in Red Rocks called Parental Guidance. None of the three existing bolt holes could be reused. The rock all around the holes was good, so we had the choice of putting replacement bolts in, say, six inches in any direction of the originals. We chose locations that made the most sense in terms of making the clips.

PG is pretty spicy, and in my opinion, if I had only three bolts, I would have to placed them in very different locations (all lower, so as to prevent ground falls), but we felt that would cross the line to retrobolting. The route was established on lead, and moving the bolts any more than necessary would have been wrong.

With Roadside Attraction, I'd be willing to bet the FA could care less and 99.9% of the people out there will thank you for moving things around a little.

Josh, absolutely makes sense and I totally agree.