Southern Yosemite Climbing Discussions
Southern Yosemite Categories => General Discussion => Topic started by: daniel banquo merrick on May 29, 2014, 01:04:24 pm
-
Is one bolt along an otherwise not protectable, 190' 5.4 pitch run out?
Let me ask a more open question and perhaps we can get some sort of consensus.
How would you define run out on a sustained 5.6 pitch? Assume there is no significant traverse, route finding difficulties or other peculiarities.
-
O boy, I imagine getting consensus on this will be nigh impossible. Very subjective. But I'll bite.
25+ feet on sustained 5.6 could perhaps be R. It's kinda hard, even for a beginner, I would think, to fall on 5.6 slab if you are paying attention. Steeper 5.6 terrain may warrant more protection.
If it was a 5.4 route with only 1 bolt in 190', I'd probably say R. If it was a 5.4 pitch with only 1 bolt in 190' on a multipitch climb with harder terrain and stiffer grade on the other pitches, than no R. But what do I know? Just my 2 cents.
-
Is one bolt along an otherwise not protectable, 190' 5.4 pitch run out?
I think so.
I would consider factor 2 falls and where bolts are located in relation to possible decking.
-
If the route is 5.4, and you have a 190ft pitch of 5.4 with one bolt, it is runout in my book.
If the route were 5.6 and the 5.4 pitch had one bolt in 190 feet I would label the "pitch" 5.4 R not the route.
-
I think it is all very relative to each specific situation. I think of a story about how a supreme court justice was asked to define what pornography is for a case. His reply was "I don't know how to define it but I know it when I see it". These definitions don't fall neatly into their places do they?
I tend to focus on the rating of the pitch in question in relation to the overall rating. Assume that some day the climb will be done by someone who's maximum skill level is near the overall difficulty of the climb, like a 5.7 climber doing a 5.7 climb. At that level, 5.4 is still proportionally near their limit as compared to a 5.10 climber doing a 5.4.
Besides, rating a climb with an "R" is the sure death of any chance of the route ever getting climbed anyhow!
-
The standard principle many of the folks I know use: If a competent leader at the grade would find the crux inadequately protected (e.g. a Factor 2 fall possibility, or ledge out) to prevent serious injury, then it gets an R.
So, if the route is rated 5.4, and the crux is 5.4 and the rest 5.3, then in theory a bolt/good pro at the crux could make the overall danger rating PG, and not R.
If the route is rated 5.4, and the crux is 5.4 with no bolt/good pro anywhere near the crux, then the route should be R, and likely X if no protection anywhere else on the route.
R is often a result of definition by guidebook authors, since it is a descriptor of the relative danger. There isn't an objective "R" standard to appeal to, just many historical uses of the R rating over time. That is still meaningful, but there needs to be some definitional quality communicated first for it to have meaning.
-
Besides, rating a climb with an "R" is the sure death of any chance of the route ever getting climbed anyhow!
And getting more than one or two stars.
-
Except South Crack or The Great Pumpkin in Tuolomne. Snake Dike on Half Dome. Still a number of popular routes with R ratings.
-
I gues it depends on the rock as well. Is it slabby face that you would slide down with minimal chance of tumbling? Then the R stands more for roughed up. If there is a shelf or features to cause injury then the R means more of a Rutrow(in a scooby-doo voice).
I typically don't have an issue running stuff out if it is well within my range, although I was a bit nervous toward the top of 70' of 5.8 runout at the top of Watership Down on Sunday since a fall would slung me into the book.
If FAing, R is often part of the game at times but I will come back and add bolts to make it safer. The last thing I ever want to hear is that someone climbed one of my routes and got seriously injured or died as a result of me not puting in an extra bolt or two.
How many times have we been told a route was 'great' by someone only to get on it and think WTF!? and you got into some sketch spots. Either the person who told you about it sand bagged to look cool or is a stud and didn't know better.
That's just me tho
-
Sanbaggery is an art both in the climbing and the delivery around the fire.
There are some pro sandbaggers around...
-
make sure those retro bolts are painted pink!!
;D
-
I think bright orange would be more appropriate to warn of upcoming dangerous crux section....haha.
Never retro just after an FA where I didn't want to stop and drill cause of stances.
Side thought: what about doing a climb and describing the pro by the size of monkey fists needed. 1 x 10mm 4 loop M.F.
3 x 8mm 4 loop M.F.
2 x 7mm 3 loop M.F.
4 x 5mm 3 loops M.F.
10 med. + 4 long slings for knobs and chocks
I am feeling it.
-
The 5.4 pitch I have in mind may not be 5.4 of course. Anything below 5.8 is pretty hard for me to determine. I'm pretty sure I know where 5.9 starts when I climb because that's where I think I might or actually do fall. The second ascent leader of this pitch felt it could use another bolt which leads me to suspect it is run out so perhaps it is.
I guess it has to with how you feel as you climb the route. Moving above a bolt or piece of gear goes something like this for me:
1) I feel secure and confident that if I pop off it will be OK and perhaps just funny.
2) I am aware of how far away the last piece is.
3) I am looking for and pretty focused on where the next placement will be.
4) I am really wishing I had a placement and don't know what will happen if I fall.
5) I'm uncomfortable and curse the nut case that put up the route.
6) Holy shite! I plead with the belayer to please reel in slack if I fall - he'll have plenty of time to do so.
7) Throw all caution to the wind and sprint for the anchor/placement/ledge.
I think runout is somewhere around 4 or 5.
-
One observation I have made in the definition of "runout" is that it can't be defined strictly by the distance between protection points. I believe that some FAists focus on "feet between bolts" too closely because is sounds so bad on paper and in discussion but is not a big deal in reality.
Example: If there was a magical number of feet that everyone agreed that you should never fall, let's say 30', then that would mean that there would have to be gear or bolts at least every 15'. The majority of routes would require more bolts on terrain that most climbers wouldn't have otherwise given any thought about. And you would get that feeling of "I feel silly stopping to clip this bolt" more often than ever. Is that so bad? I suppose not, but overall I believe it is still best to at least try and be a minimalist with bolting. Less is more just feels right.
-
I like your list of progressive thought processes there, Dan. That resonates. Sure enough, everyone's comfort level is different - some even enjoy the fear and then the subsequent high/relief of finally gaining the next bolt or pro. Their point of reaching thought #4 or #5 is well beyond others. I personally enjoy that sense of relief, but do not relish in fear. There's a fine line where it can definitely just feel stupid and irresponsible, not fun anymore, and that varies for each person.
It's like the statement John quoted "I know it when I see it", 'cept it's "I know it when I climb it".
I'm glad there are a variety of routes out there for many different tastes.
-
I don't think there are any R-rated four star routes in the Doe Guide. Can anyone think of one?
-
I looked real quick and there was Elegant Inclinations on Chiquito. Can't recall any others. There were some 4 star PG13 routes also, like Wing Feather, Afternoon Nap, and a few others.
-
On that note, what is PG13?
Wing Feather is PG13? Seriously?
-
I agree with PG13 for Wing Feather. I've been a little bit run out on it every time and where it would suck to fall. I never got that many slung chickenheads, and what I did were not confidence inspiring. Plus, they're chickenheads - don't want to strike any with an ankle.
Mostly recall seeing PG13s all over the green Tuolomne guide and maybe Gunks along with G ratings at the Gunks, but that rating system is other places also. Been a while since I've cracked open many other guidebooks tho.
G - Great stances for pro all the way
PG13 - More challenging gear placements but not likely to get hurt if fall
R - Likely to get banged up or hurt if fall
X - YGD or wish you were
The last thing I ever want to hear is that someone climbed one of my routes and got seriously injured or died as a result of me not putting in an extra bolt or two.
Of course that is totally understandable and worth repeating DaveyTree. Seems originally the main focus of climbing was exploration and adventure, though, and it would be a sad day if climbs rich in this flavor are automatically written off as unsafe bc, say, a party would have to commit to top out or else leave gear to rap to safety if they had to and the route wasn't so equipped....
Since no one can accommodate for all the different perspectives, abilities, body types, mindsets, or sorts of climbs that different people prefer, let alone possible ways someone could get hurt, and there is a lot of gray area and varying perspectives, I really like the concept of simply asking oneself, would I want to repeat the route in question as it is?
-
PG13 has two meanings, depending on book.
The negative meaning where PG13 means it's something dangerous, but not "R"
The positive meaning where PG13 means it's something more on the safer side, but not perfect protection for the whole thing.
I can't recall which books were which, but Tuolumne definitely rings a bell. Green guide? hmmm
-
OK, just checked again and I was mistaken - no PG13 on Wing Feather. My bad. However, I would agree with Susu that the route felt PG13 to me in places. Just another example of how subjective these things are.
"Would I want to repeat the route in question as it is?"
I like that, and have asked myself the same in regards to some of my routes and decided to add a bolt in a few cases, and leave as is with others.
-
I agree Susan. I just mean that if is a long runout where a fall would mean ground, a ldge or swinging into a block, why not place a bolt. Just regular face no big. That's just how I feel on my routes.
I guess it also changes depending where the route is. Alpine means big Rs and bolts are a gift. R is expected. Guess it is how I feel at the time when comes down to it.
-
I remember spotting a PG climb in the last tuolumne guide and realized I had not known that the rating was used at all in that guide. After looking around more it turned out to be a really rare notation. Plenty of R and X and many with high stars but few PG's.
-
I am certain I have seen it written that PG means "Protection Good."
-
Tuolumne 4th edition Falkenstein Guide defines
PG as "A somewhat committing climb."
R as "A climb with serious runouts."
X as "Extremely long runouts with possible fatal consequences if one falls."
Will look for the other example book shortly....
-
Did not expect this:
Greg Barnes ST Tuolumne guide says:
"R-" "the route is somewhat runout. This is obviously subjective, but it generally means there is a moderate runout on easy terrain (for that route rating), or a short runout on harder terrain."
"R" "it means the climb is substantially runout (has little protection) and a fall from the wrong spot is fairly likely to result in injury...To climb an R rated climb you should be very solid at the grade."
"R/X" "rating is severely runout or runout in a really bad spot. This could be just a short runout with cruxy climbing and a big ledge to hit, or it could be a huge runout on a slab."
"X" "A climb with an "X" rating means that a fall will likely result in severe injury or death.
He goes on to write...
A good number of climbs that are rated R- in this guidebook would have a solid R rating in other areas. Likewise, routes listed here as R might be rated R/X or even X in other areas because of long fall potentials on steep, knobby terrain... Many easier climbs also have very long fall potential on smooth lo-angle granite , and these are not given R/X ratings because serious injury beyond road rash is relatively unlikely.
-
I am certain I have seen it written that PG means "Protection Good."
http://www.safeclimbing.org/about_overview.htm
-
Found it (my first real introduction to "PG")
Bartlett guide to Indian Cove JTNM
G - A well protected route that the competent leader should not find scary or dangerous in any way. Note: this rating is never given in this guide. If a route has no protection rating, it is assumed to have a "G" rating.
PG - This indicates that there is some form of protection problem. It could be that the protection is good, but widely-spaced. Or, it might mean that the protection is good, and abundant, but difficult to place. Or, it could mean that the protection is abundant, but doesn't always seem especially good. At any rate, a "PG" rating does not indicate that a route is dangerous, rather, it just has something other than ideal protection."
R - This gets more serious. Either the protection is good but very widely-spaced, or the protection is simply not very good. A fall in the wrong spot on an "R" route could result in injury.
X - Basically little or no protection. A fall on an "X" route could result in injury or death.
-
PG - This indicates that there is some form of protection problem.
That is a great summary for PG.