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 SLCI 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 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? |
|
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. |
|
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, |
|
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 BrianinSLCI 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. |