What’s normal as far as runout routes?

New outdoor leader here. I accidentally ended up on a runout route that had me climbing maybe 10’ above a bolt. A fall would have put me landing on a ledge with potentially bad injuries. The climbing was easy and so I just kept going to the next bolt and finished the climb.

I guess what I’m wondering is what’s normal when it comes to runouts? Do you stop climbing if a fall will result in hitting a ledge, even if the climbing is easy?

In general 10' between bolts is not run out but if one were to fall and hit something before clipping the next bolt then it was poorly bolted. 

Allen Sanderson wrote: In general 10' between bolts is not run out but if one were to fall and hit something before clipping the next bolt then it was poorly bolted. 

Heard. It may have been more like 12.  So I guess my question should be changed to - if a fall is dangerous due to bolt spacing (whatever the spacing), do you automatically bail? 

Serious answer: Unless you are in a gym everything is "runout" per modern standards.

Even more serious answer: There's no standard for "runout", you can easily get jacked up on "small" falls so make a judgement as to if you can make the "runout" moves without falling. If you don't think you can, back off and lower down. Bring along a "bail biner" and don't hesitate to use it.

Heather S wrote: 

Heard. It may have been more like 12.  So I guess my question should be changed to - if a fall is dangerous due to bolt spacing (whatever the spacing), do you automatically bail? 

This is a silly question. 

Edit: Whether someone bails is based on a couple of factors:

• How hard is the climbing compared to the climber's ability?
• Individual risk-tolerance varies

Some bail, some don't. Climbers don't automatically bail because there is a potential for injury.

Heather S wrote: I guess what I’m wondering is what’s normal when it comes to runouts? Do you stop climbing if a fall will result in hitting a ledge, even if the climbing is easy?

I would encourage you to look inside yourself and decide what to climb, rather than seeking to imitate others because it's "normal". What you do is your decision to make, don't give up your agency to others. It's your ankles that get broken when you fall, and it's you that has to live without the send if you back down.

13.7’

The serious answer is that there is a potential for injury on any route, you must decide if you have it in you or not. There are so many variables in how a route is “runout” that it’s hard to make a generalization to what is normal.

Bailing on a route is fine.

Normal? That's a big "it depends" (or possibly just Depends!).
On friction slab - 20'-40' is pretty typical but, and it's a huge 'but', most of those routes were drilled on lead, by hand. The location of the bolts is mostly a function of where someone could stand for 20-45 minutes, tapping on a drill, with their last pro 30' or more below. On something like the Glacier Point Apron, never be surprised at a crux move 30' out. The 5.9 crux friction step on Angelica is 45' above the last pro on the pitch. The first bolt on Misty Beethoven (10c) is 40' up on 9+ friction.

Even steeper stuff is still subject - P3 of The Coming (5.9 or 10a if you take the P1 variant) on Medlicot Dome in the Meadows is steep 5.6 knobs. It's a 160' pitch. The only pro on the pitch is the single bolt at 80'.

Many routes are run out at the easier grades relative to the crux of the route. When the PG, R, and X ratings were proposed in one of the Boulder/Eldorado guidebooks, R meant that while the crux may be well protected, there is no pro two grades below that - thus a 5.9 could have 50' of unprotected 5.7 on it. Later on it also came to mean that you could go a long ways and face potential injury if you fell at the crux.

In short, expect at least 20' between pro on a run-out route.

When leading trad outdoors, one should be confident running it out 30+ feet at 2 number grades below your limit.  In other words, if you can lead 5.10, falling on a 5.8 runout section should be very low probability (excepting bad rock).  If you can't develop that confidence, stick to sport routes.

David K wrote:

I would encourage you to look inside yourself and decide what you feel you should do, rather than seeking to imitate others because it's "normal". What you do is your decision to make, don't give up your agency to others.

I hear what you’re saying but disagree somewhat. I’m a new climber in the height of excitement for the sport. I’m worried it’s making me likely to overlook certain dangers. If I’m consistently taking risks that most people don’t, I want to know that. Obviously I’m not giving up full agency, but just because something feels fine to me in the moment doesn’t mean I don’t want to check myself. 

To an earlier poster:  I know climbers don’t automatically bail because there’s a chance of injury. I’m trying to get a feel for what most peoples’ limit is. If you were to climb a route 100 times and expect to sustain a bad injury (or death?) one out the 100, is that acceptable? What about one in a 1000? Everyone’s got a limit somewhere, just wondering where it is for the average person. 

Normal is area dependent.  I've climbed in areas where 15ft would have been considered run out.  But another area there where bolts 20 to 30 ft apart and that was not run out.  At least not compared to the 5.6 1st pitch had 1 bolt in 50 meters but was 5.6

Some places you don't see a lot of bolts if it's an easy part of the route.  If falling at the crux or a near crux level move would put you on a ledge then its poorly bolted.

Many older areas that where bolted on lead will feel run out compared with rap bolted routes.  Especially if it was put up using a hand drill

I would say that extreme rumours are probably not best for beginners.  You need to know what you can do be able to keep a cool head and down climb before you get hurt.  That means judging what you can down climb before moving up.  A huge runout might feel similar to free soloing if the consequences are high enough

I would usually not put 10 ft in that category but 30 ft could be a 70 ft fall.  Might just cheese grater on slab but if you get airborne that would be a bad day.

Heather S wrote:

I hear what you’re saying but disagree somewhat. I’m a new climber in the height of excitement for the sport. I’m worried it’s making me likely to overlook certain dangers. If I’m consistently taking risks that most people don’t, I want to know that. Obviously I’m not giving up full agency, but just because something feels fine to me in the moment doesn’t mean I don’t want to check myself. 

To an earlier poster:  I know climbers don’t automatically bail because there’s a chance of injury. I’m trying to get a feel for what most peoples’ limit is. If you were to climb a route 100 times and expect to sustain a bad injury (or death?) one out the 100, is that acceptable? What about one in a 1000? Everyone’s got a limit somewhere, just wondering where it is for the average person. 

I never go out climbing expecting to get injured ever.  The key is knowing your limits and balancing that appropriately with what your goals are.  Some people are more willing to do risky things for style points because they're strong climbers who have a good lead head and know what their abilities are.  Until you get the lead experience where you can assess things better, it's best to stick to routes within your comfort zone and to always err on the side of safety as you're learning.  If you're a ways above a bolt and you're sketched about reaching the next one, down-climbing is always a good option and if you need to leave a bail biner, they cost very little and it's a lot cheaper than a hospital trip and physical therapy.  It's also a good idea to do research about routes beforehand to know what you're getting in to.  If some comments say there's some sketchy clips with injury potential, either just avoid the route or be sure that you;re solid at the grade if you give it a go.  There's plenty of routes I've skipped within my grade range because of comments like those that I've read about the bolting.  

Heather,

I suggest you climb with an experienced outdoor climber when you first start.  You can learn a lot from that.

Are you just figuring it out on your own? Is your climbing partner new to outdoor climbing, also?  Stay safe. Don't take risks you aren't comfortable with.

bkozak wrote:

I never go out climbing expecting to get injured ever.  The key is knowing your limits and balancing that appropriately with what your goals are.  Some people are more willing to do risky things for style points because they're strong climbers who have a good lead head and know what their abilities are.  Until you get the lead experience where you can assess things better, it's best to stick to routes within your comfort zone and to always err on the side of safety as you're learning.  If you're a ways above a bolt and you're sketched about reaching the next one, down-climbing is always a good option and if you need to leave a bail biner, they cost very little and it's a lot cheaper than a hospital trip and physical therapy.  It's also a good idea to do research about routes beforehand to know what you're getting in to.  If some comments say there's some sketchy clips with injury potential, either just avoid the route or be sure that you;re solid at the grade if you give it a go.  There's plenty of routes I've skipped within my grade range because of comments like those that I've read about the bolting.  

Yeah, makes sense. This route was well within my ability (5.8 at the hardest section, 5.6 during the dangerous section, I onsight 5.10a top roping). 

I take bail biners and am fine with using them. I wasn’t sketched at all on the route and never felt like I was in the slightest danger of falling. It was only when I got to the ground and my SO was upset about the injury potential that I questioned things. 
Basically, his argument is that even if it’s easy climbing, if you climb it 1000 times, you’re bound to slip once. He thinks a 1 in 1000 risk of bad injury in that spot isn’t worth it. 
I thought this route was well within my comfort zone. I’m wondering if my comfort zone is not trustworthy because I don’t get scared on climbs (at least not yet). My SO basically thinks I have a messed up brain and shouldn’t trust myself 

The length of the runout doesn’t matter if you don’t fall.

Basically, his argument is that even if it’s easy climbing, if you climb it 1000 times, you’re bound to slip once.

Well, that sounds good, but it's a really bad approach to this sport.  If you take that thought to its conclusion, you should not climb at all.

Like, you need to asses if you're planning on falling or possibly falling that -specific time- in that -specific place-.  And if you're not going to fall, then keep going, because the pro doesn't matter.   If you might fall, then you need to evaluate your situation a littler harder.

Climbing is inherently dangerous. It's up to you to make it relatively safe

 Heather. there is no real normal and nothing is based on your wants or needs.  Climbing outdoors is a constant assement game  based on can I climb to the next obvious pro without getting hurt. If I do climb up there then what ? can I bail from there if its too hard or scary for me.?  If you can't or don't learn to figure this stuff out you will get hurt. 

Heather S wrote:

Yeah, makes sense. This route was well within my ability (5.8 at the hardest section, 5.6 during the dangerous section, I onsight 5.10a top roping). 

I take bail biners and am fine with using them. I wasn’t sketched at all on the route and never felt like I was in the slightest danger of falling. It was only when I got to the ground and my SO was upset about the injury potential that I questioned things. 
Basically, his argument is that even if it’s easy climbing, if you climb it 1000 times, you’re bound to slip once. He thinks a 1 in 1000 risk of bad injury in that spot isn’t worth it. 
I thought this route was well within my comfort zone. I’m wondering if my comfort zone is not trustworthy because I don’t get scared on climbs (at least not yet). My SO basically thinks I have a messed up brain and shouldn’t trust myself 

If you're not getting scared then that means you have a good lead head.  So long as you can assess when you're really in danger and in over your head in terms of ability, you're doing well.  And what your SO is saying to you is pretty typical of people who don't lead or aren't solid leaders.  When you step up to leading, you have to get your head in the game and tune out the thoughts about falling and the danger because most of the time you're actually safe.  And the 1 in 1,000 thing is a bunch of crap sorry to say.  There's no way you can possibly make some kind of calculation like that in your head when you're in a runout situation.  All that matters is if you're solid or not and then commit or don't.

Will you actually slip 1 in 1000 that sounds like bs number.  

The number is probably best likely than that.  If it was 1 in 100000 would it be ok?

And what is slipping on 5.6? I've had a foot slip on easier terrain but with both hands on didn't fall.  When climbing  severe runout you climb differently.  Less dynamic more points on ect

Not getting scared while climbing well within your abilities does not indicate a “messed-up brain”. Staying calm and cool on lead is a positive trait, making you less likely to fall and better able to make good decisions.

Making up imaginary numbers like “if you climbed this 1,000 times you’d definitely fall” is kinda pointless. You need to evaluate the situation you’re in, in the present. Risk assessment has two main factors: what is the likelihood of an occurrence, and what would the consequences be. Climbing a closely bolted sport route with clean falls several grades harder than you’ve ever climbed before: high likelihood, low consequence. Free soloing a climb you know every inch of well below your abilities: low likelihood, high consequence.

When climbing you have to constantly be assessing your risk and making decisions. Many factors go into assessing both the likelihood and consequences of a fall, (your ability, style of climbing, rock type, weather conditions, protection quality, belay quality, terrain, etc). As a beginner, I think it’s wise to climb very conservatively until you’ve built up enough experience to realistically assess these factors.

However, by your SO’s logic (no matter how easy, you’re bound to fall eventually; therefore it’s not worth the risk) it seems there wouldn’t be much they would consider ok to climb other than on TR.