RRC Archives

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monograph ... 71-110.pdf
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monograph ... o71-71.pdf
http://www.chemcas.com/AnalyticalDetail ... 0&page=539
http://www.us.hilti.com/data/techlib/do ... 318_en.pdf
On top of this
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monograph ... 00C-14.pdf

I'm good.

Unfortunately the new one's a sleeve-style expansion bolt, so you don't get off the hook quite that easy, Mr. Taylor. Just lay off snorting that hole dust man!

For a 10 bolt route with quick links on the anchors.
I'm at about 120 bucks.
10 SS glue in bolts
4 quick links
1 tube a7
Drill bit
Glue tip
How much cheaper is it for you Howie.

dustonian wrote: Agree on this, which is why there will be a concerted push in the near future for community support of developers to promote the use of stainless bolts and hangers.... so I do not have any unrealistic expectations for people to pony up extra money for the longer-term reliability of the bolts they place.

dustonian wrote:Whoever said anything about a coalition? We're just talking about a low price on stainless steel bolts, one which will compete with the comparatively short life-span non-stainless options out there.

Community support is not a low price on stainless bolts from climbtech. A lower price option from climbtech is simply another company making money by normal economic means. Take a bigger portion of the market by improving product. Kudos to them, I buy my bolts from them also and will definitely try out their new bolts. What exactly did you mean by "community support of developers to promote the use of stainless bolts and hangers"?

CLIMBTRAD wrote:For a 10 bolt route with quick links on the anchors.
I'm at about 120 bucks.
10 SS glue in bolts
4 quick links
1 tube a7
Drill bit
Glue tip
How much cheaper is it for you Howie.

Most of my routes are ground up. How do you feel about hanging from a hook and waiting for epoxy to dry enough to climb above it?

not developer, or a bolter.

in response to "I'm not arguing that stainless isn't better. But why should all of the expense come out of my pocket. If someone wants to climb my routes and they want me to put in stainless, they should foot part of the bill. Subsidize the bolting and you get a say in it. Take up donations after the fact and you get to rebolt it."

But if you are a developer, and you aren't using stainless bolts in areas where it has been shown that conditions errode your equipment in short time... leaving the aftermath dangerous for someone else to fix and/or cleanup.... aren't you just littering?

Wouldn't it just come down to, if the land owner says to use stainless, you use stainless?

Howie Feltersnatch wrote:Most of my routes are ground up. How do you feel about hanging from a hook and waiting for epoxy to dry enough to climb above it?

Placing a removable bolt (ClimbTech or Fixe Triplex) and then swapping them out with SS on rappel later works great in this situation. In fact, the Triplex itself is all stainless anyway so you could just leave it. The new Legacy looks like it will be the best of both worlds.

anborn wrote:not developer, or a bolter.

But if you are a developer, and you aren't using stainless bolts in areas where it has been shown that conditions errode your equipment in short time... leaving the aftermath dangerous for someone else to fix and/or cleanup.... aren't you just littering?

Wouldn't it just come down to, if the land owner says to use stainless, you use stainless?

To address your second comment first... The land owner on the PMRP is "us" and the RRGCC is ambivalent and as such will not take any position on any type of standard for any type of gear... fixed or otherwise. So what ever change is going to happen, must be community/developer driven. The Webers at Muir Valley have chosen to go only with SS at this point so that is what goes in there. In the NFS, no new bolts are going in and replacing bolts should be done with the best option out there considering the difficulties associated with drilling even to replace (ie hand drilling, permits).

My understanding is that is not all developers agree that the SS bolt is clearly superior and don't like to be told how they are to bolt. Stating they are "littering" is a bit excessive. Eventually even the SS bolts will corrode and need replacing, but they do seem to be more promising. IMO it would be worth to subsidize the developers to encourage them to use them. But because we don't have any direct land owner willing to speak up, there can't be any mandate.

Howie Feltersnatch wrote:What exactly did you mean by "community support of developers to promote the use of stainless bolts and hangers"?

I can't speak for Dustin, but my understanding is:

The community chips in money that is then used to mitigate the cost of SS bolts. I would suspect that these community subsidized bolts would be intended for routes/crags that are intended to be for public use. I would love to see enough cash raised on an annual basis that established developers in the Red could get subsidized price for the SS bolts for cheaper than what a developer could get a zinc plated bolt for and equipment for rebolting for free.

climb2core wrote:

anborn wrote:not developer, or a bolter.

But if you are a developer, and you aren't using stainless bolts in areas where it has been shown that conditions errode your equipment in short time... leaving the aftermath dangerous for someone else to fix and/or cleanup.... aren't you just littering?

Wouldn't it just come down to, if the land owner says to use stainless, you use stainless?

To address your second comment first... The land owner on the PMRP is "us" and the RRGCC is ambivalent and as such will not take any position on any type of standard for any type of gear... fixed or otherwise. So what ever change is going to happen, must be community/developer driven. The Webers at Muir Valley have chosen to go only with SS at this point so that is what goes in there. In the NFS, no new bolts are going in and replacing bolts should be done with the best option out there considering the difficulties associated with drilling even to replace (ie hand drilling, permits).

My understanding is that is not all developers agree that the SS bolt is clearly superior and don't like to be told how they are to bolt. Stating they are "littering" is a bit excessive. Eventually even the SS bolts will corrode and need replacing, but they do seem to be more promising. IMO it would be worth to subsidize the developers to encourage them to use them. But because we don't have any direct land owner willing to speak up, there can't be any mandate.

I have no doubt that developers, nor anyone, likes to be told how to do what it is they are doing. I agree that stating its littering is also excessive.

is the RRGCC ambivalent because there are no facts supporting SS is better? or for some other reason. seems the land owner (or powers that be or whatever) would have an opinion on such matters.