RRC Archives

Can we please start arguing about manufacturing routes now!!!

Andrew wrote:Can we please start arguing about manufacturing routes now!!!

Dood, we got all winter ahead of us. Don't blow it all at once.

climb2core wrote:
-Be responsible for the gear you climb on. Do not assume it is safe.
-Do Not "donate" any aluminum gear to act as fixed gear for any route.
-Try to limit your project draws to about 30 days.
-Limit fully equipped steel gear to the very steep and chains/cleaning biner to moderately steep.


(The only difference from the original proposal, is the gear tagging has been removed)

We are getting somewhere here Ian but I still don't like this solution. See, you are still implying that there is a time standard, not a quality of gear standand. Time should not be a factor because safety is not closely correlated with time yet by setting a time frame we imply there is a correlation. The real correlation would be popularity of the route, plumbness of the line, state of the gear before it went up, material of the gear, etc. Your new plan still implies draws (probably) are recent additions to the route thus safe. If we can assume as a community a draw has been up for less than 30 days, doesn't that still imply a lot of the same issues I expressed before. Also your stand implies that steel is safer. Steel can be just as dangerous and worn as aluminum, and if we are encouraging a trust in fixed gear, whether it is expressed trust or implied, we are not promoting safety.

If the goal is to promote safety then the proposed norms should be:
-No permanent/project draws, period
-If you happen to come across draws hung, be responsible for the gear you climb on and like all gear (bolts and anchors included) do not assume it is safe.

Unfortunately I think that is a hard sell so settle for:
-If you happen to come across draws hung, be responsible for the gear you climb on and like all gear (bolts and anchors included) do not assume it is safe.


I am not trying to be a jerk here but let me explain why I think you are getting such backlash out of this. It feels like you are trying to set up a safety watch. I know you say you are not trying to be security guard, but it feels that way and regardless of your intended response it is the response that you are getting. This leads me to think the psyche that would form as a result of these changes is one that makes climbers feel that there would be a group/person/community monitoring the safety of our climbing environment. This psyche is counter productive to safety because it would feed complacency. You wanna make a change, just educate/scare the shit out of people. I at least think it would be more effective. I also think it would the first step of getting people behind the ideal safety scenario of no fixed gear. If you wanna be more proactive than that start stripping draws at a rate that makes people scared to leave them out of fear of them being taken.

Several thoughts:

1. Please tell me what in the above ethics proposal gives a psyche of a group or person watching out for them and mitigating their responsibility. I am honestly asking, because that is obviously counter productive.

2. A suggested guideline for project draws is reasonable IMO. First it is just a suggestion and you can do as you wish. 2nd, the longer project draws are left up, the more likely they will become mank and the less likely that they will ever be retrieved.

3. The crew pulled draws at will. It polarized the community. We need to thoughtfully sort this out.

4.). Steel is safer. It wears 10 times slower. That means sharp edges will develop more slowly giving people more time to catch it. And the only reason I am proposing steel is because aluminum will go up in its place.

We need to do two things to make the Red safer for all.

A). Increase awareness and personal safety
B.) Devrease mank gear

Oh and on a personal note... I would be totally cool with no fixed gear as the ethic. But unfortunately I don't think that will fly.

+1 kafish2

I would also like to point out that to follow the debate on the facebook page one must like it, but liking it implies agreement with the proposed policy. Agreement should be tracked by another means so that people can follow the debate without having to approve of the proposed solution.

Join in and choose the option to not like the proposal. Trying to find some common ground that majority will support AND is not the same ethic as we currently have.

Holy
Shit
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe the solution is to bring back the distinction of "red point" vs. "pink point" - ray can reconfigure the guide book so all the point lovers out there can get double point bonus - or a triple point bonus! for their red points. Then they'd have the extra incentive to hang their own draws each and every time

Or maybe the solution is to encourage an ethic of on sighting rather than projecting. I mean - who really wants to go to the same crag week after week doing the same climb over and over and over again. that must be so boring. If everyone on-sighted (or attempted to) they wouldn't want to leave their gear at the cliff since they wouldn't be going back for a while.

Or maybe we should emphasize the traditional climbing at the red. After all, there are still more trad routes here - right? We could get some big name athletes to come in and do all the exciting trad lines and then everyone will want to be just like their favorite rock star. then it won't be cool to leave their gear behind (or maybe if they do, they could be nice and post it in the "ye ol' booty thread" so others could add to their collection)

After 14 pages surely there are some other creative solutions Re-hashing the same stuff is making for dull reading for those of us arm-chair climbers who never really get past 5.11 into perma-draw land anyway.

This will take much longer. After all, it is guys debating. Communication has never been our strong point. I will say der über is doing wonders with his memes though.

The current "ethic" is not the problem... Change for changes sake is not the solution.



And where and when does the coalition weigh in on its stance as the "land owner" in this exploration?

I also find it interesting that no where does anyone consider the issue of trad mank and how those that climb traditional routes deal with the situation. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from that micro-community?