Dangerous Condition on Crimson Chrysalis

Has anyone thought about replacing the bolts on the last two pitches of Crimson? They are 1/4" rusty spinners.

These pitches could be protected with gear, but with the amount and type of traffic this route gets, I would bet that a lot of people are clipping them giving them a false sense of security. The flavor of the route changes a bit on these pitches going from a crimp/jugfest to a bit more delicate climbing, so I could see people whipping on these bolts.

At the very least they should be removed, but to keep in line with the rest of the route, I think replacing would be the right thing.

Well.... go replace them.

Jordan,

I will be happy to help, but don't have any experience placing bolts. I also wanted to throw it out to the community before messing with hardware on such a popular route to see if anyone had objections.

Cheers,

Doug

The bolts are not necessary. I have climbed the route in the past and as Doug says, "Gear is available". You should not dumb the route down just because it is popular with less experienced climbers. I doubt many "whippers" have been taken on the 5.8 terrain of the the last pitches. Remove yes, replace no.

I know absolutely nothing about this climb, but...

+1 for acknowledging inexperience with bolting instead of risking placing crap bolts, and

+1 for asking about fixed hardware and bolts and all the controversial stuff.

(A disastrous argument about bolting ethics can now commence.)

If your going to remove them it would be prudent to replace them. Maybe ask the Urosties - it's there route.

Jay Eggleston wrote:The bolts are not necessary. I have climbed the route in the past and as Doug says, "Gear is available". You should not dumb the route down just because it is popular with less experienced climbers. I doubt many "whippers" have been taken on the 5.8 terrain of the the last pitches. Remove yes, replace no.

I am not advocating replacing the bolts (in particular if there are GOOD natural gear placements where the bolts are), BUT, how exactly is simply replacing aging hardware 'dumbing' down the route? Are the bolts from the FA? If so, then perhaps the FA's made the decision that they wanted their route to be as 'dumb' as it is with the four bolts. In this case, I would argue that simply replacing the bolts is no big deal and would be keeping with the established ethic of the original route.

In short, who are you to judge the FA ethic of placing these seemingly original 'dumb' bolts?

Jay - I fail to see how replacing potentially dangerous bolts is "dumbing the climb down". The bolts are there. They'll be clipped regardless of how safe\sketchy they may be. Why not replace them? It won't change the nature of the climb, only make it safer. I don't know anything about this climb and I'm saving up for my first trad rack, so you're free to deride me as just some "bolt clipping sport climber". It's elitism like yours though that has made me hold off on getting into trad for so long. How long will it be before I forget that when I started climbing I was scared to take a fall, didn't know what a "cam" was, and just wanted to learn as much as I could? Is there a manual of elitism and douchebaggery that I can read to give me ideas on how to properly insult people who are below my skill and experience level?

Chris - +1

Now this could be entirely wrong, but I remember the ASCA replacing all the bolts on the route and running out near the top (i.e. last 2 pitches). Although there is gear on the pitches, even with the bolts the protection is sparse and the bolts aren't following some crack up or anything like that. I believe I remember Greg Barnes (????) saying something to the effect of what I said (well, replace 'em) in some other thread somewhere.

-I'm all for specifics eh?

Not trying to give anyone a hard time, so thanks for bringing it up.

Really? Are you guys really debating the Uriostes style and changing CC one of their finest gifts to the climbing community. Really?

J. Albers wrote: I am not advocating replacing the bolts (in particular if there are GOOD natural gear placements where the bolts are), BUT, how exactly is simply replacing aging hardware 'dumbing' down the route? Are the bolts from the FA? If so, then perhaps the FA's made the decision that they wanted their route to be as 'dumb' as it is with the four bolts. In this case, I would argue that simply replacing the bolts is no big deal and would be keeping with the established ethic of the original route. In short, who are you to judge the FA ethic of placing these seemingly original 'dumb' bolts?

I am not judging the FA Ethic at all. I am sure that the bolts were needed on the FA for safety. However, with modern gear I.E. Micro cams, the bolts are not needed for safety. I do think it dumbs down a route to have fixed gear when natural, bomber gear is available. This is not an elitist attitude. The gear we now place was not available on the FA. In most climbing areas it is the ethic to not replace fixed gear, such as a pin or bolt, if good natural gear is available. If this opinion makes me a "douchebag" then I am guilty as charged. I did not clip the 1/4 inch bolts on the last two pitches because they looked like garbage. If people clip them and skip the gear that is their choice, but it does not mean the bolts need to be replaced.

Jay Eggleston wrote: I am not judging the FA Ethic at all. I am sure that the bolts were needed on the FA for safety. However, with modern gear I.E. Micro cams, the bots are not needed for safety. I do think it dumbs down a route to have fixed gear when natural, bomber gear is available. This is not an elitist attitude. The gear we now place was not available on the FA. In most climbing areas it is the ethic to not replace fixed gear, such as a pin or bolt, if good natural gear is available. If this opinion makes me a "douchebag" then I am guilty as charged. I did not clip the 1/4 inch bolts on the last two pitches because they looked like garbage. If people clip them and skip the gear that is their choice, but it does not mean the bolts need to be replaced.

Jay, I didn't call you a douchebag. I am simply arguing that replacing hardware placed on the FA does not fall into the category of 'dumbing' down a route. Adding bolts to Hobbit Book up in Toulumne, now THAT would be dumbing down a classic.

To be honest, I have spent quite a bit of time in RR (mostly trad), but I have not climbed CC because I like more solitude than that route can give. Thus I am in no position to comment on the adequacy of the natural gear on the last pitch. However, if you are stating that the 'adequate' natural gear for that WHOLE pitch breaks down to microcams, then I would contend that it is not well protected....that is, unless you can place a microcam or RP every 6 feet. If there is larger gear than microcams on the pitch and the microcam placements near the bolts are simply supplementing the better gear, then fine, you may have a point. Nevertheless, I still don't think that replacing existing hardware would be out of line.

J. Albers- No offense taken. I believe it was Austin Baird that called me a "Douchebag". I would not be upset if new bolts were placed, and yes, it would be safer. My point is just that they are not absolutely necessary to make those pitches safe. Perhaps I should have better considered the use of the words "dumb down". I like bolts. I just get upset when people don't consider all the options.

Jordan Ramey wrote:Now this could be entirely wrong, but I remember the ASCA replacing all the bolts on the route and running out near the top (i.e. last 2 pitches).

Thanks for the credit...but in this case, actually you are at least partially wrong. The bolts were replaced by Dan McQuade and friends before the ASCA even existed - along with many, many other bolts throughout Red Rocks (such as most anchors on the main Black Velvet routes, making it very easy for us to replace the pro bolts since we didn't have to bring bolt kits on lead for the anchors). As for running out of bolts at the top, that could well be - or out of daylight, power, bits, patient partners, etc...

This has been on our radar for a while, but it would largely be up to the Uriostes as to whether or not particular bolts should be replaced. With George Urioste's permission, I have removed a bolt next to a crack on one of his routes (Spare Rib near Crimson). But he has personally replaced a broken bolt next to a crack on another of his routes (Levitation 29 crux pitch), and we have replaced bolts next to cracks which would take small wires that were available when the routes were established.

We should respect the FA, even if the routes are "over-bolted." Respecting the FA tends to go in the other direction... it's pretty hard to defend the bolting on old super runout routes if you don't also defend old tightly bolted routes.

Consistency is the key if the previous pitches needed the hardware replaced then it just seems like replacing the rest would be the thing to do. Bad bolts are like ex-girlfriends nobody really wants to see them!!

It's a do-acracy when it comes to this stuff. Who ever does it gets to do it. That's one way of seeing the situation.
You know, I'm not exactly a sport climber, but I don't see the point in either leaving shit hardware on a route that isn't good. If you are going to have a bolt, why not have a reasonably good one? If you pull the bolts from CC, you alter the route significantly. If you replace them, you restore the route to it's original condition. Presumeing you use the same holes. What's the harm in that? It is what it is.

Greg and John,

Thanks for the clarification and more importantly, thanks for all your hard work.

.....and I will go ahead and give a plug for the ASCA. To the original poster Doug: If you are not sure about replacing bolts yourself, but you think something should be done, consider donating to the ASCA. Their work helps eliminate the quarter inch spinners that you mentioned in your original post.

Austin Baird wrote:I don't know anything about this climb and I'm saving up for my first trad rack, so you're free to deride me as just some "bolt clipping sport climber". It's elitism like yours though that has made me hold off on getting into trad for so long. How long will it be before I forget that when I started climbing I was scared to take a fall, didn't know what a "cam" was, and just wanted to learn as much as I could? Is there a manual of elitism and douchebaggery that I can read to give me ideas on how to properly insult people who are below my skill and experience level?

It sounds like you're the perfect candidate to write said manual in a few years when you've got some trad experience under your belt; you certainly have the right attitude.

--Marc

So folks know, the proposed action for rebolting is available for review and comment on the BLM website. blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo.html
It is the section under wilderness notifications. Feel free to comment (in support of this), so as to let the BLM know that this is supported by the climbing community.
The LVCLC currently has a great relationship with the BLM, and we are working together to pursue a climbing management plan that is amenable to everyone.

Hats off to John and Greg and Joanne and Jorge and Dan McQuade and Randal Grandstaff and Paul Van Betten and Leo Henson and Sal Mammusia and all the people who have made Red Rocks an enjoyable fun place to climb. I lived there for many Years and have fond memories of all their handiwork. Thanks

DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON! Rusty 1/4" spinners on Crimson! What shall we do?

Well the legal thing to do would be wait 3 years for the BLM to complete their EA or their NEPA or their EIS or whatever is "needed"...and then voila!...let the hand-drilling begin. Vegas Trad Guy could go up there with his BLM special use permit clipped to his gear loop; and after a few hours of carpel-tunnel inducing, noise polluting, banging on the hand drill, the final pitch and anchor of Crimson will be safe once again for the bewildered herd.

The other option is somebody could just go up there illegally and replace the bad bolts...and since you are already engaging in illegal activity, hell, you might as well use a power drill...and while you are at it, maybe you could punch in a rap line to the right or the left, throw in a couple of nice stainless steel 3/8" bolts every 28 meters or so and then Crimson could be rapped with a single 60m cord. You fucking scofflaw! Whoever you are.

"Dumbing down the route" happened a long time ago. Talk to Jorge; he'll tell you. The FA had less than 6 lead bolts on it. Eleven years ago, I interviewed Jorge for a CLC newsletter. He said in the late 80s and early/mid 90s "bolts started sprouting like mushrooms on Crimson."

Scott, Thanks for the link to the BLM Notification of Proposed Action. "A decision on the proposed action is anticipated for June 2010 with implementation thereafter." That would be lightning fast by BLM standards. We can all be very impressed if that timeline actually plays out. Also, I wonder who drafted this NOPA. In the first paragraph it states, "In the past, the CLC has been approved for and conducted replacement of old permanent fixed anchors within most of the major canyons of Rainbow Mountain Wilderness." There is no truth to that at all. The CLC has never "been approved for and conducted" bolt replacement in any of the canyons, only in the Calico Hills. All bolt replacement in the Wilderness (or previously Wilderness Study Area) has always been done by Greg Barnes and the ASCA.

Greg and his numerous ASCA volunteers have replaced an impressive number of bolts over the years. Thanks Greg. Check out the ASCA website. Send them money, lots of money.