UKC

In reply to Wilbur:
werent they orginally aid bolts?

Stevo

In reply to CurlyStevo:

don't know - i imagined them to be for leading before people realised how brittle the rock was?

In reply to Wilbur: Aye, they have been there for a looong time. Have a look at them, they aren't your modern bolt & hanger. Crappy route too.

In reply to Wilbur:

From the current southern sandstone guide "Ethics and Things" section:

"The choice lies between top-roping or soloing, with the exception of Temptation at Bowles Rocks [this is the line of bolts in question] which can be eld clipping the in-situ bolts"

The route description says "an impressive and technical climb, which can be led"

So it seems that the 1994 guidebook thinks they are still okay to lead on. I suspect they were originally placed for aid practice, that area of wall overhangs very slightly and is very blank (its english 6b the route in question, and is 5b even if you use the bolts as hand and foot holds) so its the kind of place where you might have once thought "it'll never go free, lets practise aid on it"

AJM

In reply to AJM:

cool - cheers

In reply to Wilbur:

They look like they have tags on them, any idea what they are?

In reply to AJM:

We had a play about on this route in 1987 trying to free it, close but no cigar.

I know the bolts do hold large falls as my feet scraped the ground in 1 fall; when my belayer got distracted by the sight of some female flesh, I fell from near the top.

In reply to Wilbur:

looks like a nasty runout in between bolts :0

In reply to NIGBEE:

I think Bowles outdoor centre tests all the in-situ kit at the crag, so an individual ID tag for records?

In reply to NIGBEE:

The tags are little notes saying "don't use me for leading and expect me to stay here fool."

Or words to that effect anyway.

In reply to craig h:

It looks like an awesome route. So blank, but I've seen it climbed so smoothly as well.

Last 2 times I've been there, over the summer, saw a guy trying and failing on toprope, and another guy who just walked up to it and toproped it clean - he said he had done it the previous year, but he obviously still had it wired, just flowed up it.

Must get back on the sandstone this Easter. Its always a good laugh, and I keep hoping that if i climb it enough then one day something will click about the friction and I'll be able to climb it. Anyone know whether the sandstone is drying out yet?

AJM

In reply to Wilbur:

They were put up as a practice aid route - but don't see much traffic these days!

The route is 6c - forgotten the name but it's good. If you climb the bolts themselves it's 5c. (doing this from memory so give and take)

In reply to AJM:

I've had 3 good days on the SS so far this year - last Sunday the conditions were v. good at Under Rocks and Bassets Farm/Spring Wood look good as well (and the usual suspects of course) - go to it!

(felt v. weird on Sunday - we were climbing in t-shirts, but had been trudging through Welsh snow the weekend before!)

In reply to Lego:


It's called Temptation (but I thought it was 6b??)

In reply to Wilbur:

considering people seems to think its ok to use the bolts as hand and footholds i wouldnt use them for falling on.

In reply to palomides:

Quick check and yup you're right - funny - always thought it was harder!

In reply to Wilbur:
They are old aid bolts, theres a few dotted around esp at high rocks.

The route is Temptation (the temptation being to grab the bolts!!) and is graded 6b (UK)

The tags are disclaimers saying your clipping this at your own risk. (Yes, they actually make clipping a lot harder and cause quick draws to twist up and not lie flat!)

People do lead it, but rarely, the thought being, if the bolts were tested, and passed, it might be E4, If one failed it might be E5+ (Now theres a debate for the pub if ever there was one!)

Please don't test them!!! It will really spoil the rock if one did fail... Obviously, if you plan to lead it, you must take into account they are not tested. I.e. its not a route to dog your way up!

One final point to note is the first, bottom bolt is close to the fault line and does have a fracture line running through the placement. Given its maybe 15feet up, this is not a bolt to be falling on to!!

Hope that clears things up...

Adrian

In reply to Adrian Paisey:

Don't know if it's *that* rare to lead it. I must have seen it led maybe 10 times in the last 3 years or so.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
seen anyone fall off it?

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Seen anyone onsight it?

In reply to CurlyStevo:

No...the people I've seen do it tend to be pretty confident they're not going to fall off it before they try it.

I wonder why?

In reply to palomides:

Nope. Everyone I've seen lead it has top-roped it loads of times first!

In reply to Wilbur: The caption's wrong - the climber is on Digitalis.

In reply to Rob Naylor: The thing is Southern Sandstone would be better off bolted, with big secure bolts, and top roping banned. Its the only way to go to prevent the immense erosion that top roping causes on the soft rock. Many climbers would think twice about doing a route if top roping was banned and they had to lead, even with bolt protection. Controversial and discussed before ( I didnt win the argument against the conservative head in the sandstone climbers).
Its ironic that Ken Wilson, one of the main outspoken protagonists of sensible bolting, still endorses top roping on SS, the main cause of the massive erosion on Sandstone!

In reply to Al Evans:


The reason why the erosion has occured is because people have not used extended slings from the bolts over the edge of the rock. There is an ongoing campaign to educate people to do this, but unfortunately quite a few still fail to follow this good practice.

I think your proposal would result in very unsightly damage to the rock, but maybe a compromise would be to move the existing belay bolts to just below the top edge?
That way people could still top rope, but it would be impossible for them to set up the belays incorrectly with rope drag over the edge.

Just a thought.

In reply to Trangia:


Its not, you'd still get the erosion of the holds!

In reply to Al Evans: Alternatively force people to solo, an even better erosion preventative!

In reply to Al Evans:

You will never totally elliminate that unless you ban climbing altogether!! What you are suggesting is to reduce foot passage by making it more risky in the eyes of some - but would that stop people reverting to top roping, and more seriously not following the code of practice? I think lines of huge bolts would do a lot more damage than the gradual errosion of holds. By far the greatest damage has been the rope grooves over the tops caused by the saw effect of the moving ropes.

In reply to Trangia: I'm suggesting making anything less than soloing/bouldering banned. Rangers to patrol to enforce this and allowing multiple bouldering mats if neccessary which preserves the ground below the routes too, Ok a troll in a minor way but the point is serious, I think we should discourage top-roping on SS.

In reply to Andrew McLellan:

Nope - i was there when they were trying serenade arete and remember him going up the arete itself. Probably the angle of the photo makes it look like it's not but it is..

In reply to Wilbur: Then he's seriously off route - he's on the holds from which you make the difficult reach for the crux layaway, nowhere near Serenade Arete. Which is, as the name suggests, an arete - does he look like he's climbing an arete to you?

In reply to Al Evans:


I'm afraid I've forgotten the various arguments. Why couldn't something like Czech sandstone rules be adopted? That would involve a bolt or two per route and much lower traffic. Unless it's very different sandstone, in which case the pro should of course be mats.

In reply to Witkacy: Good point!

In reply to Al Evans:
It's a tired old argument Al. Why can't Southern Sandstone remain an anomaly?
We don't all want to bolt everything in sight. In some respects bolting crags is just as bad as toproping, you're still bringing the rock down to your comfort level. Why not solo the crags instead of bolting them?
The nature of SS would require long bolts that would just increase the damage significantly.
Live and let live.

In reply to Graham Ad: That was part of my post, I think, its top roping that is creating the problem, soloing is obviously an answer, but why not solo with a rope so lesser climbers can follow? Its then just like leading with no protection and is way better than toproping. By the way, how are you mate, long time no see

In reply to Andrew McLellan:


Seriously - he was climbign the arete! I accept he might have traversed in slightly but he definitely ended up on the arete..

In reply to Trangia:


lots of problems with this. The main one being that if the top rope anchors are to be of any use then you have to be able to get to them safely. There are points where you might get a sling or screwgate on to a belay point just bellow the edge without too much risk. however there are also lots of points where you couldn't and most people wouldn't instead they would resort to belaying on trees further back from the edge (even easier now with longer ropes) leading to even more damage. Also bolting would make everyone think it was just another sports crag and so they would lower off really trashing the climbs.

In reply to davidwright: They trash the climbs anyhow, by top roping thing far too hard for them and hanging on the rope, why is that and then being lowered off any different? how have these apalling ethics evolved on SS.

In reply to Al Evans:
I think the real problem would be with groups abseiling (in trainers etc) not climbers.

I quite agree that trying climbs too hard for yourself does lead to a lot of rock damage on SS.

One point to make is that I don't think any bolts would last a lot of lead falls in many areas of the crag. The actual 'rock' under the crust of SS is pure unconslidated sand in many areas of the crag. If you gently rub this with your finger it just falls away easily (not like grit or any other sandstone I've seen)

In reply to Al Evans:

Lowering off would be worse for 2 reasons

firstly you would have a moving loaded rope running over the rock which is what really causes the damage to the rock.

secondly you have the repeated passage of feet over the rock with maximal area of contact in exactly the same mannor as absailing.

I am not sure that failing on a route, hanging, working out the move, climb on, top out sequnece is worse for the rock than the climb, fall, lower off, try again which is what you appear to be recomending. Doing that you will get repeated passage of moving loaded ropes over the rock. Taking aid from the rope (being draged up a route) will give rise to the same issue. With the sports climbing style you would get repated falls on to the fixed bolts again giving more movement of loaded ropes but in an even less controled manner. You will also (given the nature of the rock) get bolt failures which will really make a mess of the rock.

If people are going to try and climb routes at or slightly beyond their limits (and they will) then the serries of bolder problems then link on a top rope aproach seems to be less damaging to the rock than any other if the system is set up correctly and no aid is taken from the rope other than controled rests.

In reply to Al Evans:
Hi Al - nice to hear from you again.
With regard to the ethics, I think you have to look a bit harder into the history of sandstone climbing. The earliest guidebook by Sheffield and Bryson in 1936 states:
'For a beginner, a rope is essential on most of the climbs unless he is skilled in the esoteric art of coming off and dropping thirty feet without injury.'

So the use of a rope was set back then. Of course, not everyone uses a rope and by no means does everyone 'dog' routes but it is fairly common I agree and I certainly would not defend the practice, as you say, it is very damaging.

SS is somewhat isolated, esoteric and out of the mainstream of UK climbing and also has more than it's fair share of non-climbing visitors and younger 'erbs who, like I did, took a rope out and went climbing. We only copied what we saw.

Sport climbing has also evolved some strange ethics where routes are firstly bolted to lower the risk to what is considered acceptable and then routes are frequently dogged so it doesn't only apply to the sandy stuff. In all areas of climbing there have been some 'dodgy' ethics brought in by newcomers.

See you on SS sometime? maybe for the 8-outcrops walk in September?
Cheers, Graham.

In reply to davidwright:


Obviously sport wouldn't work and nor would solo only. But why wouldn't Saxon rules work? These rules are a hundred years old and are related to old British trad rules. Nowadays they're applied firstly to protect sandstone. There are places where national park authorities only permit climbing because these rules are followed.

In reply to Witkacy:

That's a rhetorical question, designed only to provoke isn't it?

In case it isn't (and assuming "Saxon rules" means knotted cords only):
Can you imagine the difficulty of persuading many hundreds of climbers that they are no longer allowed to climb something safely, and instead should be forced to accept a higher level of risk?

Considering that a high proportion of SS users are urbanites who will have started climbing indoors. It would be near impossible to impose these rules.

You'd be more likely to be able to establish a Friend ban at Stanage.

In reply to Wilbur:

Digitalis and Serenade Arete finish at the same place...

In reply to Wilbur:

This argument is old and frankly pointless - the SS ethic has been set, and we won't be changing it now, certainly not by bolting.

SS is very soft, softer even then the Czech/German sandstone where knotted slings are used (so i'm told). The only way it can be adequately protected is by toproping or mats when not too high.

The issue is to get climbers to do this in the correct way and limit the damage, and most of them (the regulars at least) do.

In reply to Lego: No they dont, and thats the point!

In reply to Al Evans:

Erm, can only speak from my experience, but i am seeing more home made rope protectors/btis of carpet etc. used at the belay then before, and am seeing less and less poor belays.

Now don't get me wrong - it still happens but i have never come across a party who didn't listen and change their habits once you've explained the problem to them - we can all see the erosion.

I just think we need to keep up the methods of educating users to the right technique.

Bolting is so not the answer (though there are some lines i'd love to lead!). Maybe i'll try out the notted slings thing this weekend - jam one behind the flakes and jump on it maybe...?!