Cranial Prophylactic

.

I didn't think it was a stud on Cranial. I looked at it the day I grovelled up Gordon's (A story for another day), and it looked like a buttonhead.

Brian in SLC wrote:This post was originally a comment in Cranial Prophylactic That bolt has been there for along time (was there in '85 when I did the route for my first time). I've never seen anyone, including many many partners as well as myself, skip that clip. My bet is the bolt cropped up because the crux of the route is that move at the bolt, and, any pro in the crack would displace the finger slot that's used to do the crux move. If you note in the photos of anyone leading the route, you don't really get much good pro until your well above that bolt, and any gear failure would be a ground fall. Its not the greatest gear placement either. I'd hate to whip off a cam in that slot. My vote is to leave the bolt there. Its been accepted as pro on that route for well over 20 years. Actually might make those moves at the bottom 5.8. My bet is the FA team didn't place any pro there and just ran it out to easier ground. Removing this bolt wouldn't "improve" the route per se. But, would make it more difficult and less safe and definately not a 5.8 route for a 5.8 leader. It didn't get chopped over 20 years ago. Its noted in several editions of several guidebooks. I say leave it be. Maybe toss this out on the main board for comments. -Brian in SLC

I agree with Brian. I would vote to have it left alone.

I think that Cranial has ground/tree fall potential there, and agree a placement there would interfere with the available holds. Bolt's been there as long as I have (1994). If it's the same bolt, I think it's a spinner. I favor leaving it, with apology and respect to the FA party, but a popular, fun and safe(with the bolt) climb will be less popular and less safe without the bolt.

>Does anyone know if the SMC hanger is stainless or plated?

I believe all SMC hangers are stainless. Try the magnet test.

>Dave said he protected the move during the FA.

Very protectable well below the bolt with a stopper and/or a cam. Did he use a piton? 'Cause, when they did the FA of that route, I don't believe they would have had a cam (or at least one that fit the crack) and a stopper would be a very poor fit, methinks.

>Do you have any ideas on how to remove as much metal as posible from the existing stud? I have centerpunched studs and used small drill bits to get a hole started in the steel. Then progressively used larger and larger bits.

I probably wouldn't worry about drilling it out. You'd have to fill the hole with something anyhow, and, steel is as good as epoxy. To repair the busted off bolt, you might try a center punch then just leave the shaft buried and patch divot with epoxy.

Also, if folks are chopping bolts for whatever reason, please don't add another bolt so close that the old hole is covered by a bolt hanger. That's a bad practise. Best to follow the anchor spacing specified by Hilto or Powers in their installation guides, to keep the placement strong, as a minimum.

>BTW... I went up and measured the distance between "Spanish Fly" and "Mexican Crack" yesterday with a tape measure. Exactly 50 feet.

Wasn't that pertinent to another thread? You might try posting this information there...ha ha. Base of the crag from west to east only a couple of arm spans, though, I seem to recall. Not that it really matters much. Finish that route!

>I wasn't posting the info to get a concensus. The FA team has spoken. We can blab about it what we think about it. But a bolt has been added to a route after its FA and against the will of the FA team.

There is no "I" in team. "They" haven't spoken, you have. And, really, was only Dave. Was Kim the other FA on that route?

That bolt has been accepted by the climbing community for well over 20 years. My bet is that it was placed after an accident occurred on the route, possibly in the early eighties. If the community, Dave, or whomever didn't like it back then, they should have chopped it then. If Dave doesn't like it now, then maybe he should chop it now, if that's really his "will".

Why not just leave it alone? No one's chopped the bolts on the Mantle Variation, in fact, most folks (me included) find them useful. Ie, they've been accepted.

Cranial's a great route. Consensus I've got today is that its been there since the early eighties, and "leave the GD thing alone" (quote from a Wasatch climber from the early eighties).

Man, I've seen a lot of folks dog the route from that bolt...

I agree with Steve, that it is protectable safely without losing holds, without the bolt. It does increase the difficulty of the lead, but that is what it is. If you wanted to climb an easy crack, find an easy crack, don't dumb down a harder crack. I have to admit the first time I lead that, even though I swore not to, it was nice to clip the bolt. But, nowadays with a stronger ethic, and maybe a little more ability, I enjoy not using the redundant bolts.

Tony Calderone wrote:I wasn't posting the info to get a consensus. The FA team has spoken. We can blab about it what we think about it. But a bolt has been added to a route after its FA and against the will of the FA team.

Why is this a big deal to the FA team now? Why didn't they do something about it a long time ago? I think they owe us that explanation... Thanks!

Do to previous evens in the canyon and on this website...I hope we're not going to have some major "audit" of all the routes in the canyon to make sure there a certain way. That would be lame...

Nathan Fisher wrote:I agree with Steve, that it is protectable safely without losing holds, without the bolt. It does increase the difficulty of the lead, but that is what it is. If you wanted to climb an easy crack, find an easy crack, don't dumb down a harder crack. I have to admit the first time I lead that, even though I swore not to, it was nice to clip the bolt. But, nowadays with a stronger ethic, and maybe a little more ability, I enjoy not using the redundant bolts.

Nathan,

Your first sentence sounds a little strange too me.... You say it can be safely protected with out losing any holds... But then you go on to say that is does make it a more difficult lead. If you don't lose holds...Then it can't get much more difficult... Unless your talking about the difference in time that it takes to place a piece versus just clipping a bolt, that's one thing..? But that shouldn't make it that much more difficult either... Unless the protection is tricky or non-existent.
Now it's been along time since I've climb this route and yes i clipped the bolt, because it seemed like the only reasonable protection there took up holds... But I'll have to re-climb to verify this for myself.
Hell, forget the bolt, forget the cam or nut and run it out.... ; p

triznuty wrote: Nathan, Your first sentence sounds a little strange too me.... You say it can be safely protected with out losing any holds... But then you go on to say that is does make it a more difficult lead. If you don't lose holds...Then it can't get much more difficult... Unless your talking about the difference in time that it takes to place a piece versus just clipping a bolt, that's one thing..? But that shouldn't make it that much more difficult either... Unless the protection is tricky.

It takes a little bit of time to place the piece and for a 5.8 leader it could be a strenuous stance. That is all.

Nathan Fisher wrote: It takes a little bit of time to place the piece and for a 5.8 leader it could be a strenuous stance. That is all.

Just wanted to verify what you meant...sorry. Thanks!

I tend to agree with Brian and Nathan. It's been a while since I've been on Cranial, and I'm not certain exactly HOW good a nut placement is there. Do you think it would it be resistant to outward pull in that spot? Would a 5.8 leader be likely to pull it out as they climbed past it? The guidebook shows the bolt, doesn't it? If I recall, Ruckman notes that it was added later. Do want want published guides to LCC showing bolts where they're not? IE...if it's been there long enough to be in the guide....maybe it should stay.

Maybe I am a bit confused - when was it that Dave Smith purchased the parcel of rock that Cranial Prophylactic resides on from the LDS church? Shouldn't we actually be asking Pres. Hinckley about chopping the bolt, I mean, land ownership trumps FA, right?

My point is - the crack is easily protected without the bolt and, wether or not the FA from 30 years ago believes so or not, I believe it should be removed.

For those 5.8 leaders that would be sad to see the bolt go, consider this - you can stem up the tree and place a nut at nearly the same level as the bolt (depending on your height). Then, presto, the route will now have "fixed" protection at the crux for your ascent. Not that I would ever use a tree (or root sticking out of a crack) to aid in an ascent...

Also, isn't it a slippery slope to claim to get the FA's permision to "alter" (or return to natural state) a route w/o witnesses or proof? It just seems irresponsible to do so, in light of the mess that has ensued on this website and in LCC in recent months. And I do not mean to imply anything about anyone with this last statement, it's just a thought.

Tony Calderone wrote: Dave can't climb any more. Give the guy a break.

If he can't climb anymore, and the majority want it left alone... Then why should he care so much.

Why do we climbers have to be so selfish and arrogant sometimes??

Tony Calderone wrote:If the FA team of the "Mantle Variation" wants the bolt removed I would be glad to do it for them. I never wanted it there. concensus theories abound.

Why do you want to play the auditor Tony? By playing this role you're asking for grief you sometimes get (may not deserve it). But remember, nobody likes the auditor...

By the way... What's the problem exactly with the bolt that protects MV? That thing saves my ass on the stiff days... Because I've popped on that thing almost fully stood up...

triznuty wrote: If he can't climb anymore, and the majority want it left alone... Then why should he care so much. Why do we climbers have to be so selfish and arrogant sometimes??

I mean I could understand getting rid of the bolt if this just happened in recent times. But it sounds like it's been there a really longtime. So Dave should be taking that into consideration. We can't keep changing our minds on these routes by adding removing, adding removing.

>Prior to making stainless hangers, SMC made two different steel hangers. One was hardened and plated. That hanger had low enough nickel content that it typically rusted, peeling the plating off. It was also much thinner & lighter than the stainless hangers that followed. It was recalled in the late 1970s.

Good catch, yeah, I've seen those around a bit. The one on Cranial is one of the newer ones, I seem to recall (and seems so from my pictures of the route).

>Dave did not place a piton or any other steel hardware.

Do you know if he lead the first ascent, or did Kim? I'm not asking to be a butthead, just curious (rather than buggin' Dave or Kim). I see them both around and will ask.

Description from blue guidebook, "Pitch 1, climb the crack past the bolt". From "Wasatch Rock Climbs", published in 1984.

"The bolt on the first pitch was added on a later ascent by a different party. A head plant is still possible, however".

To me, that means that the bolt has been accepted. Kim and Dave both certainly were aware of that bolt and no one felt the need to remove it.

>Dave says otherwise about the stopper.

Eeek. I defy anyone to go up there and hang off that flare, next to the bolt, from a stopper. Grim little flare.

>Am I part of the community? I never accepted it.

Am I part of the community? I accepted it.

Happened before both of our time. Maybe our vote on the matter is diminished, or, shouldn't carry as much weight.

>The bottom line is that it does not matter what you or I think.

Then leave it be.

You obviously have been thinking about it, or, you wouldn't have drug Dave into this. You contacted him about it, eh? My bet is that he didn't seek you out initially on it.

>If you go do more homework and find something to contradict me we have something to discuss. If you have some proof that I'm lying about what Dave told me... show it.

Didn't say you were lying. Just that the bolt has been there for an aweful long time and has been accepted by the Wasatch Climbing Community, well before you or I climbed here.

>Dave can't climb any more.

His partner from that ascent certainly can and does. And he certainly could back when the bolt was added.

>Give the guy a break.

You drug him into this. Maybe you should think before posting this stuff. Now, folks are going to be bugging him about what he really wants. I certainly will be asking him to allow the bolt to stay.

>So why didn't it just get left alone? Why did someone add a bolt to it?

I think I know who added the bolt. Give me some time to find out why. My recollection is that someone got pretty hurt on the route (hence the name of the route). Bolt was added to protect the ground fall potential on the crux moves, as referred to in the '84 guidebook. Maybe Smoot will chime in, he probably knows the history as well. He's also a friend of Kim's, and maybe he'll figure out Kim's opinion of the bolt too (hint hint).

There's a ton of routes here in the Wasatch, LCC specifically, that have added fixed pro after the FA was complete. I think if it happened before your time here, then, consider leaving it alone.

triznuty wrote: I mean I could understand getting rid of the bolt if this just happened in recent times. But it sounds like it's been there a really longtime. So Dave should be taking that into consideration. We can't keep changing our minds on these routes by adding removing, adding removing.

I'm not implying that Dave keeps changing his mind...I'm just saying...

To whom it may concern,
I have been watching from sidelines as the bolt or not to bolt thing played out. It did not bother me much because you were talking about routes that IMHO are pretty much choss anyway. My greatest fear is becoming reality. You are starting to mess with LCC routes that are classic and reflect the history of climbing in SLC. Please stay out of LCC. All one needs to do is read all the arrogant, selfish, pompous, inconsistent, self centered, beat on your chest diatribe about this bolt thing to realize that the best reason to not clip any bolt is that you don't have to rely on someone else's reputation for your safety. I have been climbing in LCC for over twenty years and have seen this debate played out a number of times. It is bad for the atmosphere of the whole canyon which IMHO is the most important aspect of LCC. I don't know everyone contributing to this thread or the Stiflers MOM thread but I am very concerned about some of the ones I know by reputation. Please leave things the way they are. You guys can't spend much time In LCC anyway because The one's I have heard of I don't see much anymore and the one's I have not heard of I have not meet. Go Bolt a highway, pull the bolts you put on a highway, retrobolt a highway but please keep your tiresome politics out of LCC.

Tony Calderone wrote:Welcome to the world of LCC politics, Mike. You have just made your first contribution.

How true it is - we try to eradicate "politics" by jumping into it.

Tony Calderone wrote: Why does it matter how much he cares? It sounds like some people are just trying to shoot the importance of respecting the FA full of holes. If you don't have any respect for the FA come out and say it. If you want to do whatever you want to do for whatever justifications you create in your own mind why don't you just come out and say it honestly? Theories abound. My therapist says its because I hate myself. Climbers say I have a Death Wish. Wanna go climbing? Ask BrianinSLC

I have much respect for FA'ers... Much much respect. I would never ever alter someone else work. I problably believe in most the ethics you may... LCC is my favorite canyon in the whole world (shows my lack of travel) to climb routes in. Mostly because of how the routes were established. I would never vote to put a bolt were there is obvious protection or even tricky protection (as long as it protects).
I guess I shouldn't defend something I don't know the whole story about...

Yes Tony, I would like to go climbing with you...

tim f wrote: Also, isn't it a slippery slope to claim to get the FA's permision to "alter" (or return to natural state) a route w/o witnesses or proof?

For what its worth, I was privy to one end of the conversation. I did not hear Dave's voice say yes. But he stated that he did not want pieces of fixed gear added to routes that he had FA on. He seems to be of the school of thought that the least amount of damage to the rock is the best. He does not any bolt wars to come out of any of this either, he wants a peaceful solution, and dialogue before the fact seems to be the means to this. Tony, I understand and fully agree with your point of view at this point. However, lets not act immediately. To assist in keeping everything peaceful lets discuss and wait. The bolt sticking there for a while longer is doing no more damage, and waiting and discussing could and probably will prevent future problems, like a rebolt/chop/bolt/....etc scenario. Don't mind my use of the word chop, as that is by default what I say. :)

>Please stop trying to make this about me Brian. It is not about me.

But it is, Tony. You're doing the leg work. You asked Dave. You've taken it upon yourself to do these things. No one asked you to do it. And, I'd venture, very few people want you to either.

>I don't know if Kim was on the sharp end or not. But something tells me if he was not it wouldn't make any difference to you. And if he was and voiced his desire to return the route to its original bolt-free state, you would turn your argument in another direction until it rested at a dead end point that supports your position. If it is really about respecting the FA then why can't we let it rest at that instead of making everyone dance so you get your way?

My way? Dude, you're the one involved in this thing to the point of actually altering a route in LCC physically (as you've done in the past, of course). So, its more about you projecting what you think is right for the area. I didn't add the bolt. Wouldn't have. Why don't you let Dave, Kim, and whoever added the bolt work it out between themselves? Why do YOU need to be involved? Why do YOU have to make it about YOU and have YOUR way. Just leave it be.

Kim was part of the FA. Kim can remove the bolt. He's certainly capable.

>If Dave told me he wanted the bolt to remain (for whatever reason) I would have posted exactly that. I'm just posting what the man told me because climbers cared what he thought.

"Rather not see anything added to it" ain't strong enough language to change a route that's been a part of the SLC community, bolt included, for a long long time. If Dave feels that strongly about it, Tony, then he doesn't need you to be his mouthpiece. He's certainly capable of communicating his thoughts on the matter.

The FA team has NOT spoken on this.

Until one of them does, leave it be.