RRC Archives

What is the standard deviation and margin of error???

dustonian wrote:What is the standard deviation and margin of error???

ha. the font suggests this study is probably peer-reviewed.

in all seriousness, i really like the idea of full equip for mega-steep, mid and anchors on semi-steep, and anchors on not steep.

i think the bolter and/or FAest should make the call... they decide if a route needs bolts and where, why not decide if it needs PDs or not???

You also need to take into account whether it is public land (NFS, Park, etc.) or private land. Leaving fixed gear on public land is self centered and disrespectful to a degree vs. private land where the owner can decide what they want to allow. I think bolts have been tolerated on public land but the PDs on public land are definitely viewed as trash by some land managers. They do make it too convenient and it does bring a crowd. The impact from crowds bring a lot of attention and the kind you don't want. The more we push into this area the more likely areas will be closed to climbing. Climbers can disagree all they want but ultimately it will come down to who owns or manages the land and what they want. Clint Eastwood comes to mind, “You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?" Some popular public areas are going to more and more strict permits limiting numbers due to impact.

TradMike wrote:You also need to take into account whether it is public land (NFS, Park, etc.) or private land. Leaving fixed gear on public land is self centered and disrespectful to a degree vs. private land where the owner can decide what they want to allow. I think bolts have been tolerated on public land but the PDs on public land are definitely viewed as trash by some land managers. They do make it too convenient and it does bring a crowd. The impact from crowds bring a lot of attention and the kind you don't want. The more we push into this area the more likely areas will be closed to climbing. Climbers can disagree all they want but ultimately it will come down to who owns or manages the land and what they want. Clint Eastwood comes to mind, “You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?" Some popular public areas are going to more and more strict permits limiting numbers due to impact.

Pretty sure the question is meant only where the land owner has no position on fixed gear.

Ray,

Is there anyway we could post this to the front page of the site?

THB wrote:So far it seems apparent. As of right now 63% of the people that voted in the other thread feel that stripping the draws from the lode was a BAD idea. That's a clear majority. And it seems so far on this thread that the majority (70% out of only 10 voters so far), feels that we need to equip routes in with perma-draws based on a mixed approach depending on the steepness of the route...

But, where do we draw the line? Thanks for posting this thread aburgoon, it's about time we stop all the back-and-forth bickering, and put that energy toward a solution. Is the meeting still on for 8pm at Miguel's tomorrow (saturday) night? If so, can I volunteer myself to be the moderator of the meeting. I really don't want to see it turn into a pissing match, i'd like to see the community come back together and make a decision that we can all agree on with this topic. hopefully by the end of the night we'll all be holding hands and singing kumbayah (sp?)...

The line(s) have been drawn by the everyday actions of the entire climber population at the Red-- somewhere around 5.12, and somewhere around the steepness level of the Undertow wall. The perma-draws were the next step, taken by a much smaller group of climbers, but project-draws-that-became-fixed-draws IS the result of the entire community.

Everyone who says, well, what if the Playground and the Volunteer walls were all fully fixed is forgetting that the majority of climbers, something like 70-80% of climbers coming to the Red, are NOT climbing 5.12s. They are climbing those 5.10s and 5.11s at Playground and Volunteer wall, and whatever other place you'd like to name, that have no fixed draws on them, and they, as a community, have collectively decided (not through any meeting, but through actions of every single climber who took his draws off at the end of the day) that they will not leave their draws.

It is a reality that "projecting" 5.10 just doesn't happen the way projecting 5.13 happens. There may be someone out there who had sent a specific 5.10 that was really calling their name after 50 tries, but statistically speaking this is very rare. Not because there aren't people for whom 5.10 is as hard as 5.14 is for other people, but because climbers for whom 5.10 IS that hard generally have a different attitude towards climbing; they are in general not so obsessed about sending and projecting as climbers who work on 5.14s, and they are more interested in getting on a bunch of different 5.10s, and are not that interested in getting on the same 5.10 route 50 times in a row.

And then, try to remember yourself when you were just starting to climb, and just bought the shiny new gear and spent a lot of money on it. You were just going to leave it hanging on a route for all to use? Not bloody likely!!! Those are all contributing factors to why there are no draws on 5.10s, and there aren't likely to be fixed draws on 5.10.

I agree with those who say it should be up to the route developer, and I suggest that moving forward we apply this to new routes. In my opinion being a route developer means much more than just putting some bolts in a piece of rock, it also means for example equipping the route properly. Equipping a route may include perma draws (assuming the route is on land where PDs are okay)- the decision whether or not to place them and if so then where. If a route is developed and subsequently FA'd with PDs, then they should stay. Conversely, if the route was developed and subsequently FA'd without PDs, then they should not be placed on the route in the future. This idea isn't about the developers becoming the police of PDs, its about style and ethics: if the developer deems the route doesn't need PDs and it is FA'd as such, then it doesn't need PDs.
I also recognize that standards have changed since most of the routes at the Lode were put up, so I am not suggesting that this idea be retroactive. What we should do with existing routes - what this whole topic is about - is still an open question. I am only suggesting that moving forward letting the developer decide on the use of PDs on a particular route seems to be a viable solution to this problem.

Bump

Thanks climb2core.

Ray, could you paste this to the front page so it doesn't get lost bellow the other threads?

Andy