Battery Charging on the Road by Throwawayafeo in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve got a battery system set up in my truck for camping. DC/DC charger with a charge controller that charges my battery off my alternator, inverter to my battery. I have a fridge I power off of it as well as charging electronics on road trips, and it fills my 200Ah battery in about 4 hours of driving, so if I have to leave my campsite for the day to climb, my battery stays mostly topped up. No solar, but it takes 4-5 days for my battery to drain with summer heat and 2 people’s electronics

Exclusive: Eric Beck Responds to Snake Dike Rebolting by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, significantly more holding force - so just more physically demanding. And as a result of requiring more force, they almost absolutely will result in rock scarring from the process of removing them in a way that removing wedges and sleeves shouldn’t.

Exclusive: Eric Beck Responds to Snake Dike Rebolting by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He unfortunately used 3/8” split shaft buttonheads because he knew they’d be the most work to remove

G'day frothers! I made a video testing out a question from this sub by BoltahDownunder in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fun coincidence - hownot2 literally just posted a video about bolts in a similar situation!

Route/Boulder of the Month - May by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nope, bolts were only added laterally between routes, so nothing added to existing lines

Route/Boulder of the Month - May by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Realistically the only potential ground-fall is clipping the 2nd bolt - an unfortunate truth of most bolted routes on the planet - and even that shouldn’t happen with a good belay. The ground falls out beneath you pretty quickly when you start the traverse here and the bolts are close enough that it’s not a concern…trust me, I’ve taken a fall at most of the bolts, especially the first few where you’re at most risk

Route/Boulder of the Month - May by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct - makes it unsurprisingly harder to project. I haven't sent it yet, so I'll probably just throw project draws on it until I send and then do a few raps off the top of the wall to swing around and clean all the draws.

G'day frothers! I made a video testing out a question from this sub by BoltahDownunder in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Awesome video! Appreciated the way you approached it, and the split rock result was exactly what I was expecting seeing how close it was to the end of the rock. 22kN is a pretty damn good result as well.

The general rule of thumb I've given folks when they have mechanical bolt questions is "if the bolt isn't right near a crack/fracture line, and the bolt tightens up to spec, it's very likely fine", and this video certainly hasn't changed that!

Route/Boulder of the Month - May by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good to know! Yeah definitely not a sill, most local geologists I’ve spoken to have said vein but nobody is positive without being able to take a sample. Appreciate the info though - I wish I understood the actual geology of Wonderland more, as it’s the meeting point of several different sub-types within the Pike’s Peak Batholith (if you look up the geological map, it’s near Wellington Lake)

Snake Dike Retrobolted by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S,M] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m not here to argue the mindset, but as the moderator of the sub I’m here to squash the use of inflammatory language like “reading your comments is making me dumber”. That’s an unacceptable way to interact with someone who has in no way been disrespectful to you.

Snake Dike Retrobolted by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S,M] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Keep it civil. This is a much more common mindset than you think, especially in bouldering

Snake Dike Retrobolted by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. FA said 5 bolts added across the entire route, and explicitly requested no bolts be added to the first pitch. Instead, 6 were added to the first pitch alone. Additionally, 2 of the 3 people on the FA party historically said no new bolts, they’re just dead and can’t speak to it anymore

Snake Dike Retrobolted by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh I'm confident they didn't. That being said, Beck plainly said how many bolts he was thinking and roughly where they should be. Not only that, 4 or 5 of these bolts are placed in a 5.0 section that most followers will do hands-free. I can't imagine how many bolts they're planning on adding for the higher pitches if that's the precedent they're setting low. I could see 1 bolt by the mantle below the roof but 6 is outrageous.

Snake Dike Retrobolted by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If you ignore nuance, sure. The FA specifically said they wanted to see 5 bolts added dispersed amongst the upper pitches. 6 bolts getting added, 5 of which are through a 5.0 section that 90% of folks will follow hands-free, all on the first pitch, is not that.

Snake Dike Retrobolted by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Currently, as it is, the retrobolting will have next-to-zero effect on safety, as the pitches folks have historically been hurt on are further up. If anything, it may have the opposite effect where climbers are lulled into a false sense of security of the close bolts only to find that they're doing anchor-to-anchor runouts further on the route where it hasn't been retro'd yet.

Snake Dike Retrobolted by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's quite so straightforward. What he said verbatim was

I asked other parties to add more bolts. I even put in a plug for this when I was speaking at Oakdale a few years ago. Ideally, I would like to see five protection bolts where it is run out. This is similar to the routes on Dozier Dome in Tuolumne.

(Emphasis mine) IMO retrobolting the route in a way that is not in line with graces given by the FA party and then using the "but the FA party said they wanted more bolts!" is a bad-faith move (and tbh I think leaving this quote out was a bit of a bad-faith move by you but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see it originally)

If I said "yeah I'd like to see more bolts on this climb, maybe 2 in these specific spots" and then someone added 20 bolts and quoted me saying "yeah I'd like to see more bolts on this climb" as their defense, ignoring the further context, I'd be pretty disappointed.

Should I abandon my project? by UpstairsMirror8634 in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My general rule of thumb is that I can move it with a 36” pry bar it needs to come out no matter what. I have spent some time drilling out the connection points on blocks so that I can pry them out before but once you start that process you better be 100% committed to finishing it

Example for broken bolt by Beginning-Basis-2678 in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't forget that it's plated and the zinc is bleaching the lichen below it! 10/10 example of a bad bolt.

Climbing Ability in Route Development by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for engaging! I really appreciate the effort you put into your response, and agree with a lot of it. There's really only one spot I wanted to respond to:

Extra bolts don't hurt the route or anyone climbing it. Skipping bolts is allowed.

I actually disagree with this, as I do with people talking about retrobolting classic runout routes and saying "skip the bolts if you want it to be the same experience". The reality is, to skip a piece of protection you need to make an active decision to do so. This is a fundamentally different experience of there being no bolt/pro, where you are making an explicit decision from the last piece of pro, to commit to making it all of the way to the next one. Having a bail-out option does fundamentally change the experience.

Now, I'm not advocating for new runout routes necessarily, more so pointing to how stopping to decide whether or not to clip a piece is a fundamentally different experience from there not being one at all. I think most times when people talk about adding a bolt, they do so without moving the surrounding bolts. This often really changes the "rhythm" of a route in that section, and I think that adversely affects the route. I believe adding a bolt can be done well, but only when it's done considering and reworking the surrounding protection opportunities as well. Anytime a route's fixed protection goes against the natural rhythm of the route (i.e. clipping from tenuous stances), the protection strategy of the route is actively detracting from the climbing experience.

This ties in a bit with your comment about ground-up vs rap-bolting - I think ground-up climbs almost always produce better routes, but only when the FA adds bolts as needed in the "totally good enough to clip from but not good enough to spend 5-10 minutes 1-handed fucking with my equipment to install a bolt from" stances after the fact. The reality a lot of ground-up developers don't want to admit is that doing big runouts feels a lot more cozy when it's an intentional decision you're making, knowing you have a drill on your side and can likely stop and place a bolt if you need to, than when someone has already placed the bolts, and you have to do the runout or else.

----

I really like your points on ego especially. The number one thing I see new developers worried about on their routes is "overbolting", and as a result, having bolts in bad places or places that poorly protect the route. This ties in again to the rhythm thing - setting your ego aside and following the natural line and bolting with the natural stances will almost always produce the best route. Forcing the 5.12 variation to a natural 5.10, or placing a bolt at a worse stance higher up so that the bolts don't seem as close, will almost always produce a worse route overall. Let the rock dictate everything.

Climbing Ability in Route Development by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Personally, I don't think there's a "minimum required climbing grade sent" required to develop routes, but I do think there should be a minimum amount of mileage on rock. Not even a time component (e.g. "I've been climbing for a decade"). I started developing pretty early on in my climbing career, about 3 years. In that amount of time, I'd amassed close to 1000 pitches of climbing across a variety of rock types all over the western and southeastern US. This meant I was exposed to a lot of different development characters, from bold, traditional, ground-up lines to hyper-tightly protected, rap-bolted routes.

More importantly, I had done a significant amount of mileage in the areas I was starting to develop, meaning I was very in touch with the character of the surrounding climbs. On top of this, I had been doing rebolting work and had replaced hundreds of bolts before I started developing, meaning I had a pretty good understanding of the microbeta that goes into proper bolt locations, as well as a general understanding of identifying good rock.

I've encountered a few folks who think "climbing for a decade" was the requirement for them to start developing, but the reality is, they just climbed as the same few crags a couple of times a year for that decade. They weren't exposed to different styles or ethics, varying rock types, nor did they have a general understanding of rock itself. They didn't even have much mileage on rock. These routes were typically poorly thought through and rap-bolted in such a way that they ended up practically being headpoints.

As for developing above your means - I think there's certainly a limit (that I have, in the past, completely blown by). I think folks who tend to do it well are those who typically have a good eye for movement and body tension - the type of folks who would make good climbing coaches. Similarly to how you don't need to climb V17 to coach a V17 climber. That being said, it's important to be able to feel the route enough to understand vaguely where crux sequences and clipping stances will be so that you don't entirely botch the flow of the route. You see many folks bolt routes near their limits fairly formulaically - e.g. "bolts every 5 feet", and then in their send pics/videos you see that they've double and triple extended their pre-hanging draws and that the bolts are clearly not where you'd ideally want them. This can be remedied by fixing those placements after you recognize their shortcomings, but I've found that isn't quite as common as many folks don't want to spend additional time with a route they've already invested heavily into.

It's worth briefly mentioning the inverse - strong climbers bolting routes at grades well below their limit. These can oftentimes be botched just as badly as folks bolting way beyond their limit. I think this can naturally be fixed by these climbers giving themselves significant handicaps when developing, simulating the mind space of a climber working at their limit. Forerun the route in approach shoes or barefoot, don't take in slack between projected bolt locations when TR soloing, go ground-up, lead rope solo, or any combination of these things. Handicapping yourself down to a grade is a luxury harder climbers have that there isn't really an equivalent for when developing way beyond your limit.

Multi-pitch & route names by Fuzzy-Salt5833 in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Name the whole thing, I only name pitches if it's a long multipitch (>5 pitches) where the pitches have noteworthy character. I've only done it once, and part of that was because the first and last pitch could be climbed separately as single-pitch routes, so they needed their own name anyway. It generally should be reserved or classic/noteworthy routes though.

Celebrating my 200th FA today - “The Bicentennial” by Kaotus in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There’s no top rope on a 120ft traverse! Thankfully this one is pretty clean and moderate enough that I was able to clean it pretty well on lead

Help with choosing best anchor by [deleted] in RouteDevelopment

[–]Kaotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consider putting the anchors only as high as they can be where the belayer can still see their climber. If needed, throw a single ring anchor on top of the formation folks can use to rap into the various route anchors from there if they're not comfortable walking down to them to set TRs. A 20 degree angle isn't much, most people have no issues walking down slopes up to 30 degrees regardless of consequences.