Bolt/Anchor issues on Altered Scale & Trouble Clef
-
Wicked Tribe
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:25 pm
Don't get me wrong, I love to bitch about other people's bolting jobs for sure. I just thought it was kinda funny. Not trying to be a bitch or anything, just pointing out something that seemed funny to me.
And the over/under deal is really good. I also like Terry's over/under setup with just one 1/2 quicklink. Bomber.
Wes
And the over/under deal is really good. I also like Terry's over/under setup with just one 1/2 quicklink. Bomber.
Wes
"There is no secret ingredient"
Po, the kung fu panda
Po, the kung fu panda
if the rock is so shitty( 
) there why did all those new routes go up?
Strip all the bolts and find a new slab on the MP to bolt..
) there why did all those new routes go up?Strip all the bolts and find a new slab on the MP to bolt..
Last edited by rhunt on Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Climbing is the spice, not the meal." ~ Lurkist
-
Guest
Johnny, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe, Rhunt, that those routes went up in order to mitigate some of the heavy climber traffic at other areas of Roadside. Those routes have become ultra popular, and they are fun. Because of the high traffic and the questionable rock the anchors and bolts may need more frequent maintenence. The FA is right here willing to do that, so what's the problem, mr. sweetass?
rhunt, if shitty rock wasn't climbable, then Utah wouldn't be a mecca for tower climbing, Garden of the Gods wouldn't exist, the Eiger wouldn't have been climbed, etc. You may only like clean granite, but other climbers like different stuff.
At any rate, they are fun routes and seem to be quite popular. That might be justification enough for most. If you think chopping is the best solution, then go to it. I won't stop you. I put those routes up for others to enjoy, not me.
Eagleman, I have no problem with your suggestions.
Wes, as you know, I really don't like chains because of the visual impact. I'm not keen on the connected chain to one link either because of a single point for failure. I don't like links (compared to rings) because they wear in the same spot and are worn out quite fast on popular routes. All that being said, if the rock is fracturing so easily along its natural strata, then offset heights of anchors are best. If they are offset quite a bit, then you can put the upper one on a chain (with a ring attached to its end) and leave the lower ring one as is. If there is rotation problems with the bolts (and thus loosening), then chains on both can help somewhat. There's no panacea for sure.
At any rate, they are fun routes and seem to be quite popular. That might be justification enough for most. If you think chopping is the best solution, then go to it. I won't stop you. I put those routes up for others to enjoy, not me.
Eagleman, I have no problem with your suggestions.
Wes, as you know, I really don't like chains because of the visual impact. I'm not keen on the connected chain to one link either because of a single point for failure. I don't like links (compared to rings) because they wear in the same spot and are worn out quite fast on popular routes. All that being said, if the rock is fracturing so easily along its natural strata, then offset heights of anchors are best. If they are offset quite a bit, then you can put the upper one on a chain (with a ring attached to its end) and leave the lower ring one as is. If there is rotation problems with the bolts (and thus loosening), then chains on both can help somewhat. There's no panacea for sure.
Johnny, those 1/2 inch quick links are stronger then your rope, or nearly so. Besides, only having one usually causes people to TR off their own draws, which is a good thing. Also, they are super easy to replace, and cost less the rings. The other good thing is the gumbies that leave an extra locker or two as a sacrfice to the bolting gods when the lower or rap... 
Chains might be more visable, but not more then all the chalk and draws, etc.
Wes
Chains might be more visable, but not more then all the chalk and draws, etc.
Wes
"There is no secret ingredient"
Po, the kung fu panda
Po, the kung fu panda
It sounds like to me that "chemical" bolts may be in order. They offer extra security in marginal rock. Joe has a tube of epoxy if one of you guys would like to use it for the anchors in question.
On our blog, Joe is posting a short primer on how to bolt safely in the Red. Input from you professionals would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to comment or contact me with a with an essay. The next essay in the series is" Where to bolt" Your inputs would be greatly appreciated.
On our blog, Joe is posting a short primer on how to bolt safely in the Red. Input from you professionals would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to comment or contact me with a with an essay. The next essay in the series is" Where to bolt" Your inputs would be greatly appreciated.
"I enjoyed a Guinness after I got back home from Palm Sunday Mass." - Captain Static
"Listen, you heard what I said. Do you want me to donate or not charlie. Suck it up and procreate." - Andrew
"Listen, you heard what I said. Do you want me to donate or not charlie. Suck it up and procreate." - Andrew
-
the lurkist
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 2:07 pm
Off set anchors do help with the potential of anchor failure (probably vastly over stated as it is). An anchor approx 12-16 in higher than the lower one, but still in the same vertical plane (or possibly off set horizontally 1-2 in) eliminates the potential for catastrophic anchor failure secondary to fracture lines throught the horizontal rock strata. Again, I think this potential failure is vastly over stated, as the cracks you see are probably of the patina and don't extend down in depth 3 1/2 in. If the route developer is using 4 3/4 in bolts, and assuming the anchors are receiving a static load, they are most highly probably not going to both fail.
Chem bolts/ glue ins are the ideal anchor, but are very expensive and messy and logistically problematic. I've place two anchors (Convicted and Loosen up) with glue ins, and it was a pain. I haven't replaced a whole route yet. The logistics are tough.
Chem bolts/ glue ins are the ideal anchor, but are very expensive and messy and logistically problematic. I've place two anchors (Convicted and Loosen up) with glue ins, and it was a pain. I haven't replaced a whole route yet. The logistics are tough.
"It really is all good ! My thinking only occasionally calls it differently..."
Normie
Normie
I agree Lurky.
Wes, my only complaint with fair sized links is that they are oval and thus concentrate the wear on one point (or two if you occasionally flip them over). There are a zillion examples of worn links in the Red, some of which have already had to be replaced. I can't think of the same thing happening with Fixe Rings. They rotate, thus the wear is evenly distributed. They might be made of harder steel too, I don't know. Then again, rings are newer and it may just be a matter of time for them too. At any rate, I think Terry's setup might be fine if you had a one or more rings attached to a link as the lowering point rather than just a link. Theft of the ring would be the only problem there.
Wes, my only complaint with fair sized links is that they are oval and thus concentrate the wear on one point (or two if you occasionally flip them over). There are a zillion examples of worn links in the Red, some of which have already had to be replaced. I can't think of the same thing happening with Fixe Rings. They rotate, thus the wear is evenly distributed. They might be made of harder steel too, I don't know. Then again, rings are newer and it may just be a matter of time for them too. At any rate, I think Terry's setup might be fine if you had a one or more rings attached to a link as the lowering point rather than just a link. Theft of the ring would be the only problem there.