UKC

Following on from last week's Peak Limestone debate.... let's talk about Pembroke and that pesky sea air!

Both the CC and Rockfax are due to bring out new guidebooks for Pembroke soon. Lots of new routes since the last guidebooks, so that's great. However...

How are they going to treat the issue of rotten fixed gear?

My personal take on this is that routes which rely on fixed gear should not be described, nor starred and should have a great big dagger next to the route name, unless the guidebooks writers have recently climbed the route, or have very recent 2nd hand knowledge of the state of the fixed gear. Rockfax is a commerical organisation, which effectively profits from route descriptions. Is it responsible to promote routes that rely on fixed gear, which is currently in a dangerous state?

I got the feeling that every route in the recent BMC grit guides was checked (much easier to do of course, because of the nature of grit). Perhaps this is not possible to the same extent, but the guidebook writers should have at least identified routes where the fixed gear has a big question mark over it.

I've seen a manuscript of the CC guide (it's in the CC hut and I assume it is being widely circulated?). But I'd be interested to know (and it's worth highlighting this issue more widely I think), whether the starting point in the next CC guide is to print the original description, unless there is more up-to-date info? This looks to be the case, but I really hope it is not.

What about the case for fudging it? Describing a climb, but not mentioning the fixed gear (yet the first ascent relied completely on fixed gear). This is pretty irresponsible in my opinion. Or describing something as a 3 star E5 or E6 and to just state something along the lines of "fixed gear in a poor state" is also irresponsible.

The fact is that many of the pegs/threads are now useless (25 years old). Not 'dodgy' or 'suspect', but patently dangerous. Huntsman's Leap is an obvious example of this, where many of the routes of E5 and above are now effectively unprotected and not the grade they were originally given. They rely heavily on pegs and threads which have rotted. It's not always easy to see from the ground (as I found out yesterday on Monster Growth of the Underbeat that the fixed gear is shot).

This debate extends into whether or not the pegs should be replaced. For now though, I would be interested in people's views on whether the routes in question should be described at all in the guidebooks?

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Threads and pegs are different, of course. Threads only ever expected to have a temporary life span and its always possible to either place your own on lead or on abseil. The difficulty is with pegs, which are not likely to ever get replaced.

I don't see the problem with giving routes the old grade so long as mention is made of reliance on fixed gear though. Put a dagger in as well if you must and upgrade when the route has been repeated without the fixed gear. I can't see a case for not including the route at all, though.

In reply to Tom Briggs: E? tech grade...... then original grade in text and note about fixed gear. Updated when it has been repeated in its current state.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

This is a good point Tom. I only placed maybe half a dozen pegs on my new routes down there. I believe the one on Minotaur has gone. The two on Equilibrium have fallen down with the route. There was a peg on the belay ledge of Dogs of Hoare, but was unnecessary. Enter the Goat is probably the only one that's survived, though it's over 20 years since I climbed there and have no idea whether it's the original...? Can't think of any others, but there may be one or two...

I think first of all, let them rot - it's the only way to go. They should not be replaced as it's just a temporary measure and they will deteriorate again. However, I think the routes should be described for historical accuracy. They will be re-climbed anyway at a higher grade, so there's no problem, BUT you're right, the guide should point out that they are / were there...

Threads are completely different. If I was to climb again in the Leap, I'd go armed with tape and cord and replace them on the routes I was going to do. If, of course, the rock has broken, then that's different.

Bottom line - no routes should be left out, BUT the climber must be aware...

In reply to Tom Briggs: yes, all routes should be described and descriptions should make reference to any fixed gear and detail if this can be backed up or whether it is crucial and, if so, what kind of condition its in.

more generally, the whole issue of peg replacement needs to be sorted. just leaving things to rot whilst the grade creeps up and number of ascents decrease is not the solution.

In reply to GrahamD:


I'd agree with that. If you don't want to blow the onsight get a mate to replace them.


Only problem I can see is if it doesn't indicate whether the grade takes into account the state of the gear or not. Routes which rely on fixed gear for protection should be clearly identified. There's not really an argument for not including them, it just needs to be very clear what you're up against.

In reply to ksjs:

There are a limited number of solutions:

1. Go and break them off / remove them. Who is going to do that?
2. Replace them - IF youcan get them out without snapping them off.
3. Leave them to rot and make sure the climber is aware of the problem.

The third is the only workable solution.

In reply to Tom Briggs: Or describing something as a 3 star E5 or E6 and to just state something along the lines of "fixed gear in a poor state" is also irresponsible.


That doesn't sound irresponsible to me. Short of wholesale stripping or re-equipping it sounds a practical, responsible and proven solution to an unsatisfactory situation especially as the guides will still be being used long after any intial assessment of the state of the gear is made.

Re your othe point is describing a route the same as promoting it ? I don't think so. Its your choice and extra wad points to go for ground-up attempts on the more obscure routes that have fixed gear.

In reply to katonka:

My argument is that they shouldn't be included, unless they have been checked out. How can you know what you're up against if the guidebook writer has not checked them out? Maybe I'm totally off the mark here, but I'm just wondering whether the new guidebooks are going to include accurate appraisals of the routes included. Or whether those that have been checked out will be in with accurate descriptions, and those that haven't... well they'll go in anyway.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

But the original description will mention the fixed gear. The writer(s) can't check EVERY route in an area like Pembroke. It is sufficient to simply point out those routes with fixed gear. All fixed pegs will be suspect, so there's no point in trying to check them. Even if you did, they might look OKish on the outside but be completely rotten on the inside, so who can make that judgement. RF and the CC would be taking an enormous burden on their shoulders if they were to imply that this or that peg was safe. No, they must all be treated the same. Let them rot (in peace).

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Very interesting Tom, and equally applicable to the Devon and Cornwall seacliffs, where the CC and Rockfax will be publishing new guides over the next year or so.

At the last but one BMC SW Area meeting there was a debate on fixed gear (pegs/threads). I stand to be corrected but the consensus was that fixed gear should not be replaced on the West Cornwall granite/Killas and greenstone crags, and be removed as and when necessary: an example of this might well be the removal of the fixed peg on the ever-popular Little Brown Jug. Alternative protection can be found nearby, but the grade might just creep up a notch to HVS. However, on the Atlantic and Culm coasts where high standard development continues, those involved were in favour of leaving the placement of pegs up to the individuals concerned on a crag by crag basis, but that it would be clearly stated in route descriptions whether or not the gear was in situ or removed. Eroica, for instance will be described as a 3* E3 6a now that the aid peg has gone and will not be replaced, but the unrepeated Exman Cometh, Crocker's E7 tour de force at Exmansworthy will go in with its original description (many in situ and removed pegs) plus a dagger. Anyone aspiring to the route should note the date and make their own judgment.

At the higher standards where fixed gear is an issue, guidebook authors have a problem; a guide has a shelf life of up to 10 years, whereas a perfectly good peg in a seacliff has one of perhaps 2/3 years max! For my own part I firmly believe that the individual climber on trad or adventure routes has the responsibility for making his/her own judgment on protecting their chosen route. A lot of modern FA descriptions in the upper E grades now include the size and type of protection used at various points on the route. Surely it is up to the individual concerned whether or not they choose to follow that advice? It's the same with pegs and threads. Never rely on them. All CC guides emphasize this last point.

Perhaps the popularity of sport climbing is leading us all into a false sense of security about making our own assessments on protection. Personally, I would like to see a gradual move away from the use of pegs, but leaving out route descriptions that do have pegs would be counter-productive. As more and more people share climbing information via forums, wikis and the like, issues such as this will be resolved more quickly. In fact the days of the definitive/selected paper guides with their lengthy compilation times, unwieldy formats and outdated info may well be numbered!

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I'm in complete agreement with Tom that "routes which rely on fixed gear should not be described, nor starred and should have a great big dagger next to the route name". The first ascentionist hasn't really "established" a route in a form that can be realistically climbed by other people in anything like the original form.

We've had this debate before about pegs becoming useless rotten ironmongery on sea cliffs - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=248001&v=1#x3650888

The only way to discourage placing new pegs on sea cliffs is to openly acknowledge the fact that such routes are not repeatable in the original form and should not be described in the same manner as routes that have been protected cleanly.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I don't agree and this is what I'm getting at. You flick through a guidebook spread of Huntsman's Leap - arguably the jewel in the Pembrokeshire crown - and you'd get the impression that there are multiple 3 star E5s and E6s to go at. The reality is that the Leap is a total mess. Half of the routes are unclimbable in their current state. I don't call a 3 star E5 (Monster Growth.. 2 stars in the Rockfax) an obscure route, nor do I go on it for extra wad points. It relies completely on threads and pegs for the first 40 foot, all of which are utter sh*t.

I think it gives a false impression of the area to describe routes as anything like they might have been when first done.

In reply to jon: im pretty confident that with the right tools you could get a fair number of pegs out. id be happy to invest time to remove / replace.

another option is to add pegs below / above as appropriate (if possible) with suitable permission / agreement.

another option is to use a bolt and please - nobody - no bolting debate; 1 bolt doesnt mean grid bolting (witness Malham, Dinbren or Pen Trwyn and so on).

In reply to Tom Briggs: agree with you 100%

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Fair points - I haven't seen the guides or the Leap recently. You still get extra wad points from me whether you want them or not.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:
The first ascentionist hasn't really "established" a route in a form that can be realistically climbed by other people in anything like the original form.

That's not true. If it was there'd be hundreds, no, thousands of non-routes around the country. They established a route. If the pegs disappear and the route gets done at a higher standard, then so what? Rock also changes. Take Lord of the Flies. Once reasonably well protected, now a lot of the placements have gone... Does that mean Ron didn't make the FA?

In reply to jon:

What the description needs to say is that the route relies entirely on fixed gear. My scare was on a route where you couldn't back up the fixed gear at all. It had threads, but these had rotted and one pulled through the rock. The peg was shot. I had no way of knowing that I couldn't supplement the fixed gear with wires etc. I.e. the guidebook descriptions in both the CC and Rockfax were completely inadequate.

We all know that pegs are sh*t on sea cliffs, but at places like Gogarth you can usually supplement them with wires/cams.

Routes were forced in Pembroke during the '80s that relied entirely on fixed gear (some of it drilled). It's probably the same on the Culm coast. You can't get anything else in. These routes are effectively obsolete. Why describe them in the guidebooks and tempt people into a dangerous situation?

In reply to ksjs:

Having put a number of them in, I disagree with you. They will usually break off. What is replacing them going to achieve? It just shifts the problem a few years down the road. At the time when I placed mine I never considered the problem. Now I realise it was the wrong approach and think the only solution is to let them go. If you feel like breaking a few off before your ascent then so much the better, it'll just speed up the process.

In reply to jon:

Agreed!

In reply to Tom Briggs: Some fair points Tom. I think you need to change both grade and stars to reflect the current position, presumably giving the original grade/quality in brackets or in the text. The precedent is surely there already with climbs like The Cad where the grade is dependant on the presence or absence of a bolt.

Whilst I can see the argument that the new description will become out of date as the fixed gear changes over time, I think that's a pretty poor reason for not changing it. We wouldn't leave route descriptions unchanged after rock fall on the grounds that a bit more might come off and change the route again, would we?

Iain

In reply to jon:

Don't leave them to rot because:

1. When the head breaks off a placement is now blocked.
2. As they decay they leave horrible rusty iron stains on the rock.
3. People will clip them, a few will fall on them and someone will get hurt.

Don't replace them because next year all the above will hold.

Take them out because:
1. Once in place the damage has been done to the rock, so 2,
2. Modern gear (micro cams, offsets) can offer protection in peg scars - constructive cleaning a la Yosemite.
3. A degree of responsibility for his/her fate is restored to the leader.
4. If the head snaps when taken out, then one less dangerous peg is in situ waiting to be clipped.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I don't think obsolete is necessarily the right term. Most of the threads could probably be replaced, OK, the peg's gone. That just changes the E grade. E3 to E7 in one go, maybe... What about Ghost train and Boat to Naxos. Different circumstances, but brilliant routes have come out of Gary's impatience. Not obsolete at all.

You're right, though, the guide must be very clear on this point, but must incude the routes.

In reply to Tom: Good topic.

In reply to ksjs:

I'm less confident in my ability to remove rusty pegs in one piece. But so what? A new peg will have a working lifespan of, say, 3-5 years, do you repeat the exercise every 3 years?

Hugh's is an excellent solution. The first ascentionists who used multiple pegs on these routes knew theirs was a very temporary solution. They knew the pegs would deteriorate and soon the routes would have to be climbed without. It strikes me they were too keen to get their names into the guide so they cheated their way up these routes. I hope Pembroke activists of that time (like Jon) contribute to this thread.

In reply to jon:


I think there are hundreds of non-routes, but they were nearly all put up a very few people.

In reply to duncan:
>
>

I agree. Imagine the Leap with no fixed gear. All those stunning, unclimbed E7-E9 lines waiting to go...

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I would expect a route description in a new guide to be correct!!

If the route name, description, BIG warning about the fixed gear and a record of the original grade was included then that should be enough for someone who had never been to Pembroke to make an informed judgement if the route was for them.

It would be a shame if routes got harder as the gear rotted, it's not like the routes in question are a push over even with good fixed pro.

A good idea would be to replace the fixed gear with something that will last longer. Stainless pegs

In reply to jon: but brilliant routes have come out of Gary's impatience

And would a brilliant route not have emerged anyway from the same pieces of rock at some point anyway ? And at what price ? He was the first to climb them but that doesnt mean they wouldnt have been climbed subsequently. Worse, that impatience led him to create routes that he could climb. I saw Gibson at work on an ab rope in the Leap with a peg hammer (probably the route Tom was on) and it overstepped the mark of vigorous gardening. He made the routes fine for him to climb at the time and notched them up at a furious velocity and now a mixed legacy.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I completely agree, but that doesn't mean the route description is obsolete... as I've said too many times!

None of the routes concerned are mine, so no personal involvement there. They were mostly the work of my old adversary Gary (and of course MC, but much later). Gary and I were at each others throats during much of the time I was preparing my '86 guide. (I'd like to think we wouldn't be now...)

To the person who complained that we knew it was a temporary solution and just wanted our names in print, this is not true, nor is it the point. It's just a cheap snipe at everyone who has bothered to do the routes that you enjoy at the moment.

In reply to Simon Lee:

But that's how climbing is. People improve on other peoples performances all the time. The same thing can be said for all the old aid routes on limestone and grit. Does it mean the so and so should not have aided routes on Raven Tor? No. That's how it was. That brilliant routes have emerged is all the better.

In reply to jon:

OK, maybe obsolete is the wrong word. What I meant was nowhere near possible as described.

In reply to jon:

Those Peak routes were established in the '60s. The history of Pembroke is short. It will not be remembered as a forcing ground in the '80s, but it could have been in the '00s if those Leap lines had been left.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Hindsight is a great thing... (complete the quote...)

In reply to jon:

I'm judging things from when these routes were being put up not with hindsight and the sentiments I expressed are the ones that I had 20+ years ago and were commonly shared. By contrast aid climbing at Raven Tor was an acceptable pracice at the time it was popular.

In reply to duncan: perhaps you and jon are right and im just unrealistic; i agree there is little point in replacing pegs only to repeat the process a few years later. does stainless not though get round this to some extent?

i just dont like that there are some total classics at my limit that depend on fixed gear where i cant happily set off 'knowing' that the fixed gear is solid. but maybe im being selfish and, as suggested, people need to get better to climb routes without reliance on old gear.

i hadnt really thought of pegs as cheating; theyre almost painted as honourable in british climbing folklore. some of the comments on here indicate otherwise...

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Tom,

From a practical point of view what you suggest is pretty much impossible and certainly not desirable. As Iain points out, a guidebook has a 10 (or 14 in the last case) year life span. Describing gear as of today is pointless and dangerous for people in the future. It is impossible for any organisation to check all the routes in a realistic time span (think Forth Bridge painting on that one).

The routes in the Leap make a good case study. The gear I described in 1995 was pretty accurate then, but so what? The feedback I have had from James McCaffie, Pete Robins and Jack, who have done most of the West Wall routes in the last few years, has given me a pretty good idea of what much of the gear is now. Much of the old gear has rotted and the routes have mostly been climbed without, in fact I think all of the routes have now been done, so it is wrong to describe it as a mess. These climbers just tackled the routes as they found them and didn't rely on a 10+ year old route description in a guidebook. That is basically the way you need to treat all sea cliff climbs that rely on fixed gear. There is nothing I could have written in 1995 that would have made things better today.

The problem with information like this is that, by including it and making out that it is detailed, reliable and accurate, it removes an element of decision making from the leader, yet the possibility for errors is not only high, it is inevitable in the long run. Routes that aren't singled out may be assumed as safe on hand-placed gear might not be if you don't have the correct-sized runner, or aren't very good at placing wires, or don't see the horizontal slider slot out right, or have drifted slightly off line, or ...

Don't ask guidebooks to give you this level of information.

In the new Pembroke Rockfax we will be describing routes with full descriptions, as ever, the fixed gear will be mentioned as best we can. We will show the lines of the routes, but you will need to make your own decision as to the state of the gear. Don't rely on us to make that decision for you.

Alan

In reply to ksjs:

There's a strong distinction here between pegs on sea cliffs and those on other types of rock. The period of reliability of pegs on sea cliffs is potentially very short. I think the main point is to discourage the placing of new pegs on sea cliffs.

I've had plenty of experiences similar to Tom's whereby an attempt on a sea cliff route with fixed gear became a nightmare as you increasingly realised that the fixed gear was worthless and there was nothing else to back it up. It's not unreasonable to expect a guidebook to tell you whether you're getting on an E3 or an E5. The confusion tends to result in such routes rarely getting ascents, as you simply have little idea of what you're letting yourself in for.

In reply to Tom Briggs:
i think that the reliance is on the guidebook writers to effectively describe the routes as at the time of publishing, and for climbers to accept responisbility that they might not be checked by the writer...

in my opinion, i would assume that if the discription made reference to fixed gear in one of these areas then it is likely to be (nearly)cucial and i would bear that in mind as i made my attempt.

obviously there are routes that when newly equiped could be substantially easier (safer) than 20 years down the line.

a selective guide book has more responsibilty to check every route it describes imho, whereas a comprehensive one is much harder, and should use daggers when info on a route is old or unknown

but i think that all routes should/can be decribed even if reliant of fixed gear assume all fixed gear is poor...

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

What if I checked the route last week and decided it was okay at E3. However after a winter of weather it isn't okay next May.

Is that useful information? Or is it in fact worse than, "there is a peg on the crux that may be in a bad state".

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I would have thought if a route is going in a selected guidebook, it had been checked recently. I would certainly hope so.


Good - that's what I'm asking. I suspect there will be a lot of E7s and E8s down there now. I don't suppose either The Subterranean or Half Man, Half Beast are still E6. At least on these routes you can see that the pegs are shot though. Nor Light at the end of the runnel still E5 as that first peg (which you totally rely on at the start) must be useless now.


If the guidebook describes a route that relies heavily on fixed gear, at the very least it should say whether or not you can back it up. If what was an E5 has been upgraded in the guide as the fixed gear is now knackered, then fair enough. I look forward to seeing the guidebook (Pls check my notes on Monster Growth )


I personally don't think that's a good idea, nor do I see how we can make a decision about the fixed gear without an accurate description? That relies on recent checking of routes. Which is back to my original point, which is that routes that rely on fixed gear should not be described (as the assumption is they are very unsafe), unless they have been climbed and checked recently. I.e. don't start from the point of the previous guidebook.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I understand the point you are making, but when a new guidebook comes out, people will assume the info is up-to-date. They know when looking at one that is 10 years old that things might have changed.

I also think that we have seen the dramatic decline in the fixed gear in Pembroke in the past 10 years. Hopefully the new guides really highlight this, as I think it's had a big impact on the area and its attractiveness.

Obviously in 2019 when you're looking at your guidebook, you are going to assume that things have changed again. Hopefully by then all of the pegs will be long gone and it will be easier for the guidebook writer and the climber to make an accurate assessment of the difficulty.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I think it's fair enough that there are limits upon what can be expected of a guidebook. It is however not unreasonable to expect that a guidebook should at least highlight the ambiguity in such fixed gear routes. In many guides these type of routes are described using the first ascentionist's original description, grade and starring.

It's also not unreasonable to expect the producers of a guidebook to give some consideration to the likely state of routes with fixed gear throughout the period that the guide may be used.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I agree with Alan. What is required of guidebook authors is that they should describe any route as accurately and honestly as possible. The whole process involves checking out routes, consulting with as many people with local and up-to-date knowledge as possible and attempting to give Joe Public some idea of the technical and objective difficultiesof any given route.

When it comes to whether or not a climb has become obsolete due to the lack of fixed gear and should therefore be excluded is an arbitrary decision fraught with potential problems. One could argue that the presence of fixed gear on a number of classic, hard SW granite and Culm routes provided the incentive for people to go out and climb them clean. Mark Edwards repeated a whole load of his own previously bolted/drilled peg routes clean, often with a quantum leap in seriousness. I certainly won't be excluding them on the grounds of obsolescence.

Take some of the Lakes 3* classics in the low to middle E grades. Many are rarely climbed, and have all but disappeared under a cloak of vegetation, because this generation of climbers are no longer interested. Should they be left out of modern guides?

I guess Tom's OP came about because of an unfortunate experience that could have had serious consequences, and doubtless the authors will take note when they describe that route, but we have to accept that the unforeseen is one of the reasons why climbing, thank God, can never be completely categorized.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Although I agree with most of what you say Tom I am puzzled as to why an ab' inspection by your partner didn't happen (I'm guessing it didn't)? Both guides are 10-15 years old and any info RE fixed gear is well out of date surely. The guidebook text presumably had indications of fixed gear, the route is fairly easy to check on a rope and by having your partner do this preserves your O/S ground up ethic.

I had similar decisions over the weekend. Sat I decided to ground up a route, with sketchy gear, at a crag with a TR prior to lead history/ethic. Thankfully, your words of gear dependability we're spot on & it was a good call.

Yesterday we chose to ab a line that relied on fixed gear as it hadn't had a repeat in 20 years (previously banned crag). Thankfully again, a good call.

The point is we make judgements on what we know, draw on experience, ask around, use wiki's etc. The pegs/fixed gear on sea cliff debate will go on and on. I'm not sure a definitive resolution will ever happen particularly in Devon. The approach should be one of caution, worst case scenario.....yes, all the fixed gear will be rubbish as its on a sea cliff and its 20 years old etc etc. X route could be be E6 or E7 now... I need to prepare myself for that being a distinct possibility......then any good fixed gear becomes a bonus.

Even if it were possibble, I'm not sure we can place so much emphasis and responsibility on guide book writers and there route descriptions.

I have just come back from my first trip to pembroke and we supprised at the number of new and old absail steaks, particualy around huntsman leep.

Could this not be consideresd fixed gear also. No one seems to object to their replacment?

Obviously they are a safty feature but are pegs not the same?

Just a thought.

In reply to Rich Kirby:

In this case, it would have been difficult to ab the line as there is no stake above the arete of the Monster Face - the stake is off to the side, and the rock at the top is loose, so you couldn't easily ab the line. It's a fair point though that a lot of the time, you could ab the line first or see the state of the fixed gear from the ground.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Which is something no guidebook can ever offer you - as Alan says it could only take one winter for the fixed gear to be deemed unreliable.

I agree that it would be useful for guidebooks to give an indication of whether the pegs can be backed up, but personally I've always taken "relies on fixed gear" to mean just that - backups will be few and far between. It would be useful where possible to suggest what grade the climb might warrant if the fixed gear can't be relied upon, because obviously that's going to be very specific to the route in question.

Personally if I want to do a line in Pembroke relying on fixed gear I would either speak to a mate who'd done it, or get someone to ab down the line to make a judgement for me. I'd rather trust a friend than a guidebook writer on this, especially since even if the guide was printed recently it might have been a while since their inspection, making their safety call obselete.

There's no reason not to include the routes just because they can't be climbed in their original state, but it makes sense to be clear about just how much you need to rely on the fixed gear.

In reply to Tom_Harding:


a) It doesn't affect the climbing.

b) Replacing a stake in the ground is a lot easier and less destructive than doing the same with pegs - especially since the ground will recover between successive stake replacements, something the rock won't do.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Of course Hugh, this is absolutely obvious and something that we will always do. What I cannot guarantee though is that we will get it right down to the detail level that Tom appears to be requesting.

Alan

In reply to katonka:

No suggestion of the reliance on fixed gear:
http://www.rockfax.com/databases/r.php?i=17829

I've just said that we couldn't ab the route.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I'm not asking for detail. What I'd rather see is routes left out (especially from selected guidebooks), rather than a laissez faire approach of leaving them in without having recently checked them out.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

My view is that any guidebook producer absolutely has a responsibility to make their descriptions as accurate as possible. If authors aren't prepared to check routes or seek accurate info then they shouldn't include them.

Alan's argument that this is not possible is rubbish - just look at the recent Gogarth guide. Perhaps never has a guide been so well checked out, and by an independent guidebook publisher.

His second argument that change over time make it pointless is also rubbish. Why does he think people buy new guides? Climbers are not idiots, they understand that old info will not always be accurate, they buy new guides to get the most up-to-date info.

What is not acceptable is rehashing old descriptions with caveats about old gear. I can do that myself with an old guide.

On the wider pegs/ threads/ bolts debate, I think there is a tendency at the moment to make sweeping decisions that do not bear srutiny. The BMC line of funding bolt replacement but not pegs is one example. All forms of fixed protection detiorate to uselessness over fairly short timescales (0 years). Suggesting the one which usually lasts the longest is 'good' and the rest are 'bad' is over simplistic, especially as the shortest-lasting (threads) does the least damage to the rock.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

With over 1000 routes, including 230+ of E4 and above, then you can't possibly expect a single person, or even two people, to have repeated or abseil the routes within the space of a year os so. If you wanted that to happen then you'd need a huge team of paid workers which is way beyond the finances of a small guidebook. What we can do though is set up extensive databases to gather feedback from people as and when they do the routes and that works incredibly well. The UKC logbooks are also very valuable to get the impression of which routes people actually climb.

Case in point:
I'd already decided that Monster-growth was an extremely dodgy route. The info in my 1995 guide came from my observation having repeated the E3 to the right, and spoken to Gary. I knew that the key gear was likely to be crap, and I knew that it probably hasn't had an ascent for years, hence the new guidebook was going to include only a brief mention of the route with no stars.

Your other feedback regarding From a Distance:
This is going into the book at E7. I watched Erik Svab climb it 2 weeks ago, but we already had upgraded it anyway following feedback.


Again, this sort of detail is impossible to be consistent with without repeating all the routes within the space of a short period of time. Being inconsistent in my opinion is worse than not giving that level of detail in the first place.


Well of course you start from the point of the previous guidebook, then you make an assessment as to what it might be now. In some cases this means leaving routes out, in others it means putting in slightly vague comments about the state of the fixed gear, in others feedback is solid.

However, I certainly now put more vagueness into descriptions of gear and protection simply because of the points I have made about a guidebook with a long life-span.

Alan

In reply to Adam L:

Tom set off up Monster-growth because it was written up in 1995 as a 2 star E5. In 1995 it WAS a 2 star E5. In 2009 it isn't.

The problem is that a lot of 2 star E5s in 1995 are still 2 star E5s, maybe Monster growth would have been had it got onto people's tick lists, but it didn't hence it probably hasn't had an ascent in 10 years and is now a dangerous E6 (possibly).

No-one can predict how different routes will pan out in this respect hence it is better to cover it in a manner that leaves the ultimate decision to the climber.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

As I'm sure you know, the BMC, CC and latterly ground-up all manage to recruit teams of volunteers to do much of their checking for them. Why not Rockfax? Is it not possible for Rockfax to create the grass-roots local networks that this kind of thing depends on?

>If you wanted that to happen then you'd need a huge team of paid workers which is way beyond the finances of a small guidebook. What we can do though is set up extensive databases to gather feedback from people as and when they do the routes and that works incredibly well.

True, this is a great facility and one I've contributed to.

>Being inconsistent in my opinion is worse than not giving that level of detail in the first place.

I wouldn't agree, its easy to word descriptions to imply how vague the information is. Saying 'it can't be perfect, so I won't bother' is a big cop-out.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Agreed. If you take the responsibility away from the individual climber you will open up an enormous can of worms. Guidebooks can only aspire to be accurate and up-to-date on the day they hit the bookshelves. This is true for ground Up and all other publishers. I suspect that there may well be a route or two even at Gogarth where the description is no longer 100% accurate.

In reply to Adam L:

Well that is what the Online Databases are all about - we want the help of everyone and have spent a lot of money making it easy for them to give their feedback. But of course, actually talking to people who climb in certain areas is exactly what we do as well - hence the PDFs from the guide that are currently flying around getting great feedback.

So yes, we do use volunteer feedback extensively.


That isn't what I am saying though.

Include information but leave it at a level which can be consistent for each route. Hence when people come across a peg in a description, then they should always have the same degree of scepticism, despite the fact that some pegs may be much better than others. No-one can possibly assess each peg, so it is better in this case to presume it might be bad and leave the final decision to the person it really matters to.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:


For clarification, will the grade in a Rockfax Pembroke guide then assume that any peg mentioned will not hold a leader fall? Or does the grade assume that pegs mentioned will hold a fall?

In reply to Tom Briggs: I'm one of the people who are helping to produce the next CC Pembroke guide, so I shall comment on a few of your points.

The script in May Cottage is not the text which will eventually be published, it is the starting point from which that script will be prepared. It is mainly, as you suggest, a compilation of all the route information that has currently been printed together with any new information found in the various new route books. The published text for each area of Pembroke will be prepared by a person with expert knowledge of the area, using the initial script as a starting point. In the case of Range East the final text will be written by Gary Gibson.

The purpose of the May Cottage script is twofold - firstly to inform CC members of new developments since the publication of the last guide and secondly to provide a place where people can feed back information about any changes to the routes or any regradings which they think are appropriate. We have repeatedly appealed for feedback on the grades of the routes - if you look at the 'guidebooks in preparation' page on the CC web site you will see an email address to which you can report any regradings which you think need to be made.

As you say, fixed gear on sea cliffs presents particular problems since it deteriorates so rapidly. I don't lead E5 myself, but I am well aware of the problem on a route such as Enter the Goat where the peg was in good condition when I led the route 10 years or so ago but was looking very dodgy when my mate led it a few weeks ago. In situ slings are a different matter - I believe the consensus is that if you do not have recent information confirming a sling to be in good condition either you or your belayer should ab down the route before your ascent, equipped to replace any rotted slings. In some cases this may involve tying a rope between two separate stakes, then attaching your ab rope to an intermediate point on that tied off rope.

I do not think that simply not describing a route is a valid option - the purpose of a definitive guide is to describe the history of climbing in a particular area, and just as sometimes a hold breaks off a route thereby changing the grade so a new edition of a guidebook should regrade any route on which a peg has rotted and not been replaced. This can only be done however if we receive the widest possible feedback from experienced climbers who have attempted the routes in recent years.

On one further point, it's good to see a large number of people attempting leads of routes from E5 to E7 as occurred at the weekend in Pembroke. One sometimes hears people claim that hard trad climbing is dying out, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case in Pembroke at the moment.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I just had a chat with Tom on the phone and as a result have been through our new guide looking at every route that relies on fixed gear.

There are remarkably few actually - The Leap, Star Wars Face, Stennis Ford and a few other places. I have pretty good up-to-date information on most of these routes and will be describing those as described to me by feedback which assumes that the pegs aren't good, or crucial.

Where I don't have information, the route will be described as best we can with a caveat about an unknown peg. For example, the route Bristol Cream on Mosaic Wall has a peg on its lower section. I don't know anyone who has done the route, nor do have any intention of doing it myself (if only!) However, I want to include the wall since Wallbanger is a good little route that people do, so we might as well put the rest on that wall in. I can't guess what the grade would be without the peg so I'll leave it as it is and let E6 leaders (who can generally look after themselves) make their own judgement.

To be honest, we are far more concerned about the routes in the HS to E1 bracket with this guide since those tend to have been taken for granted by previous guides, including my own.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC: 'To be honest, we are far more concerned about the routes in the HS to E1 bracket with this guide'

Indeed. Our biggest upgrade of an easy route so far is of Judith's Slab in Flimston Bay. It's probably going to be upgraded from HS 4B to E1 or E2 5A.

In reply to John2: Good to read all this - a topic close to my heart.

I tend to agree with what Tom is saying, the problem in Pembroke isn't so much to do with what state the fixed gear is in - you can pretty much assume it is all rubish - it is whether there is gear avaliable to back it up.

Many of the original pegs were not placed because they were essential even with the gear at the time, it was so people like Gary could make semi sport climbs and these routes would be a pretty similar grade without any of the fixed gear, on other routes this is not the case.

I think it is ok for guides to include routes with fixed gear but if it has not been checked (for state of gear and whether other gear is avaliable) it should be very clearly stated in the text that this is the case. If guide book teams are not prepared to ab a route (you don't need to lead it to work out the gear) I don't think it is fair to include it with only a mention at the start of the guide saying 'don't rely on fixed gear'

I have done a couple of the routes Tom mentions, I did 'Monster growth...' about 10 years ago and felt it was tough for E5 but the fixed gear is pretty vital on it so it could easily be harder now. I have also had a pretty harrowing experience on 'Light at the end of the runnel' just a few years back - This relyed heavily on fixed gear and I couldn't back up any of it on the last section to join witch hunt.

I would like to see people being encouraged to remove fixed gear (pegs and threads) and reclimbing the routes in there new state and I certainly feel no more pegs should be placed on new routes.

In reply to Ben Bransby:

I intend to judge each route on a case by case basis. Where information is known (for example, Light at the End of the Runnel has now been climbed without the lower peg, and at a claimed E5 grade (sounds dodgy to me too)) then the route should be described accordingly. If the state and implications of a peg aren't known then the route description should say so.

Abbing a route can give some useful information, but wouldn't give the detail of information it appears that some of the E5+ leaders on this thread are after.

Alan

In reply to Ben Bransby:

Not quite sure I agree with threads not being replaced - why not? It's been mentioned above that some routes are difficult to rap down... well they were rapped down when the route was first done, why not now. As I said above, if I climbed a route in the leap again that relies on threads I would automatically replace them myself. People are beginning to become just consumers and think they can just turn up and expect everything to be hunky dory. Replacing threads is the least we can do and it ensures the route being climbable for another few years till it needs it again.

On the consumer thing, (this isn't directed at you, Ben!) it's the same with guidebooks. I think here the clue is in the name... It's a guide. Don't expect it to give you a blow by blow description. Take some responsibility yourself for your own actions. Alan, I'm sure is going to produce a brilliant guide, but it's unrealistic to assume there won't be the odd error.

In reply to jon:

I don't think it's a consumer thing - I have replaced plenty of threads in the past before doing routes ie Pulsebeat and I have abbed down routes I have climbed in the past at a later date to try to replace the insitue gear for others eg Souls, I just don't like the use of fixed gear anymore. Pegs have issues with regards to life span and difficulty with removal etc which may not apply to tat to such a degree however I would like to see them all go!

I also think with such limited rock in the Uk then climbers opperating at the higher levels are looking to improve on styles of ascent rather than do lots of new routes I don't want to have to ab a route to check/replace the gear I want to try it onsight, and I don't want to have to make my mates ab down stuff for me, it's not lazyness.

I am prepared to ab routes now and remove gear and reclimb/grade routes in a clean state, so the correct information is there, for others to then try them onsight (especially if other people are doing the same) but I think guide book teams/writers need to be making positive steps to get this info.

Guides shouldn't give blow by blow beta on moves etc you are right there, but they should give realistic ideas on the grade and nature of a route. To simply say 'we have no up to date info on the gear on this route but lets put it at the old grade with a dagger' is not great. As I said above though I think it is better to do this than not have them in.

would waffle on more but I need to get my daughter out of the bath...

In reply to Ben Bransby:

Can't think of an argument against your logic, except I don't agree. I see a distinction between threads and pegs (and wires and fixed hex 2s). But we can agree to disagree. I suppose it comes from me not having the same standard as you and would not be onsighting those routes - I'd be checking gear, working moves etc etc...! With age comes cowardice.

Why is it not possible for a guidebook team to check routes with fixed gear? Is that not what people who buy the book are paying you to do? I understand that for the latest GroundUp Gogarth book, EVERY route was checke, either on lead or on ab. It seems to me that if you produce a selected guide for an area of sea cliff climbing, you should be incluidng up to date info.

Clearly it gets tricky when the gear is going to deteriorate over the coming years, but there should be an idea of wether there is any other gear (i.e. nuts or whatever) available. Light at the end of the runnel is a good example. Down in the guide as a 3 star E5. My mate nearly cratered head first into the floor of the leap a few years ago when he bust the peg. Other mates have got up it, and described it as utterly harrowing (these are folk who have onsighted plenty of E6's and E7's). It is not E5, and it is never going to be E5 again. Incluidng it in a book as E5 is just pointless. Everyone knows it's not, but nobody really knows what the score is.

In my opinion, pegs have no place on sea cliffs. The current batch will eventually all rot away, and some routes will be more serious. Surely the whole point of bringing out an up to date guide is to highlight what routes this is?

In reply to Ben Bransby:

Er, when I said standard, that meant climbing standard, but in retrospect, take it to mean ethical as well!

In reply to jon:
I've placed one peg on a new route in Pembroke and I now regret it.
I propose a ban on all new pegs, a no replacement policy..guidebooks to publish a grade with the pegs and if climbed subsequently without.

I now believe placing pegs on sea cliffs is a selfish act which allows the first ascentionist to claim a new route, but doesn't allow subsequent climbers to enjoy the same experience with the same level of safety.

I would be happy to see all existing Pembroke pegs drilled out, but I guess that's too much effort. Fortunately not many climbs depend on pegs and those that do can always be reclimbed at a bolder grade. After all virtually all the routes which originally had protection bolts have been re-ascended.

In reply to John Alcock:
The idea of guidebook writers checking pegs is barking. You can't tell what a peg is like by looking at it. e.g. I suspect the peg on Enter the Goat is Jon's original. It would probably snap straight off in a fall, but it might not. If it didn't exist the route would be E3 5c and still get plenty of ascents.

In reply to GDes:

No. They are paying for a well-researched guidebook. If you want to pay for one where I climb or ab every route then that will charge you £200 per book. Actually quite a bit more than that since I doubt if I'd sell many, so say £10,000 per book (about right for 6 onths work).

There are hundreds of routes in our new Rockfax book a- we can't check them all over the period required to provide detailed information about each peg, and thread, and back-up runner placement.

It is not viable to pay people to do this.

Volunteers shouldn't be expected to do this (if they did then it would be a team of people and the information would be variable).

General feedback is all you can go on - we have lots of this.

We are talking Pembroke here! A place which 25% of the crags are shut for much of the time for bird bans; where you have to deal with tides and seas conditions; where the firing demands of the Army restrict you to a few well known crags for much of the time.

It is not possible to check every route before each publication. No-one ever has, including the Gogarth guide.

It isn't a coincidence that three of the people of this thread saying that people shouldn't expect such detail are three people involved in the production (not just writing stage) of guidebooks.


Well that's useful feedback. I have got the opinion that it is E5, however I will check this up again.


Well it isn't the whole point at all, but it is a useful side line and one which we are busy researching as best as we can. But that desn't involve me spending weeks and weeks abbing every E5 and E6 in Pembroke to see if there are decent runners.

Alan

In reply to John Alcock:

I agree with everything you say (except the dual grading thing as that would imply that the peg was good etc). Replacing them is pointless. Stainless doesn't work. I too regret my pegs in Pembroke as I've already said. But the routes shouldn't be ommitted from the guides. That's all. Oh and I don't think you'd have to drill them out. A good smack from a hammer (or just hang a quick draw on some of them) should do the trick.

In reply to John Alcock:

Nail on the head. I'll never trust a peg on Gogarth, Pembroke etc and I can't understand why anyone would rely on a peg of unknown history that is exposed to sea spray. Therefore there doesn't seem to be any point in placing them,

In reply to Adam L: 'Alan's argument that this is not possible is rubbish - just look at the recent Gogarth guide. Perhaps never has a guide been so well checked out, and by an independent guidebook publisher'

I agree that the current Gogarth guide has been extremely well checked out - I remember a couple of years ago asking Simon Marsh what on earth he was doing after watching him spend an afternoon abseiling down Gogarth main cliff, checking the route descriptions.

However, let's talk numbers. The new Gogarth North guide contains approx 650 routes, and presumably Gogarth South will contain a similar number. The guide was produced by people living within an hour or so's drive from the crag. These are cliffs with relatively few access restrictions. The forthcoming CC Pembroke guide will contain in the region of 6000 routes. Access restrictions apply to many of the crags in the area - Range East is only accessible at weekends and on evenings when no night firing is taking place (night firing is usually carried out on Tuesdays and Thursdays). In addition to that, bird bans make many major venues such as Mowing Word and Triple Overhang Buttress inaccessible until August. Then of course there are weather related problems. I wonder on how many days in a year it's possible to climb on Triple Overhang Buttress - maybe twenty? Only one of the people working on the CC Pembroke guide lives in the area - realistically, the rest of us cannot nip down there for the evening.

The new guide will be better than the previous one - I am certain of that, because I know of some errors that have been corrected. But it will not be perfect - it will be the best guide that the people involved were able to produce in the time available.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Hi Tom, nice to meet you and Ed at the w/e, BTW

Good points raised.

Surely all pegs in locations like low in the Leap should be discounted as reliable after only a year or two max, so 20-odd years on, climbers and guidebook writers equally should view them with extreme suspicion - climbers with regard to protection and guideboook writers with regard to grading.

I agree that replacing them in almost all cases is going to be a non-starter.

Unlike most pegs, however, threads can be replaced and their appearance can often indicate whether they are recent or not. (I had no trouble assessing those I clipped on 'Slap Up' last Sunday as totally shite before I left the deck!)

I don't necessarily agree that all threads be outlawed. Some are fairly 'crucial' at a grade and could not reasonably be replaced on lead.

Like you say though, the issue is about the grade quoted for a route. A route originally graded E5 on the basis of situ gear (now shot) should not be trotted out in a new guide as E5 if it is (almost certain) that an onsight would probably merit (say) E7.

I don't think you can discount history though, and ignore the first ascentionist's legacy, but any guide should accurately reflect the state of play (as all guides surely aspire to doing at the time of publication?).

Warnings such as:

"Originally graded E5 with xxx in-situ gear, now gone. Without this, it will be considerably more serious and is probably unclimbed in its present state",

occasionally apppear in guides and at least tell it like it is?

Perhaps such caveats should become more commonplace until repeats and concensus establish the 'new' grades of affected routes for future guides?

In reply to Ian Milward:

That's a far more reasonable approach. As far as I'm aware no one has had any ethical problems with threads as they are renewable and use natural features.

To Ben B, I see your reasoning about wanting to on sight and therefore would prefer not to have to check insitu gear first, but doing away with threads on the grounds of giving high end climbers a challenge is a very elite stance, and one frankly on dodgy ground. You would be robbing more moderate climbers of fabulous routes. Pegs, I can understand, threads no.

In reply to John2:

I understand John, producing definitive guides is a huge task as I well know, even if I live a lot closer to the crags I write up. Plus I'm sure many of those routes will never have been repeated.

My point was directed more at Alan who is producing selective guides which cover far less routes overall, and concentrates on more popular areas. If you are being selective to start with I don't think its a big ask to only select routes you have accurate info on.

In reply to Adam L:

But what's the point of assessing the state of a peg. It might be brand new on the day. Next year or the year after, when the guidebook, selected or not, is still the current one, the peg won't be in the same state... I believe it's just not workable. A standard sentence warning the climber, along the lines of the ones already mentioned by some people can be the only fair way to treat the subject.

im sorry but i would expect enough knowledge of a route in a selective guide to highlight if fixed gear is curicial on a route, at its given grade, if it has not been climbed recently, how has it been selected to be put in!

I would not expect them all to be checked and tested...

but a route that has no feasable leader placed protection, climbed on fixed gear at e5, should be higlighted as such in the script, then if i have a guide, 3,5 or 10yrs old it doesnt matter as i know that i need to be carful or check it first...

simply putting it in the guide as e5, not mentioning reliance on fixed gear is a recipe for disaster, as a visitor to the area will not know that the route, "is not e5 and never will be again"

In reply to EricpAndrew:

But how can you estimate the grade of the route pegless, if the peg is still there, no matter the state of it. You could have a stab at it - OK, it's E5 now, without the peg it might be E6... and if you're wrong and it's in fact E7, just imagine the shit that's coming your way.

In reply to jon:
>

So do wires and cams, and we try not to leave them insitue.


I am not saying we should only remove threads and pegs on high end climbs to make more challenges for top climbers, I am saying we do it on all routes of all grades so everyone, no matter what grade they climb, can try routes onsight.

If you are operating at say E2 and a climb you want to do relys on insitue gear you can face the same issues as an E5 climber on an E5 with lots of insitue gear.

If you wish to push your grade and are prepared to ab down the route first to do this then you can place as many threads/wires/cams on absail as you want, as has always been the case, and this doesn't limit climbing to absail/top rope inspected ascents only!

I know you are talking more about threads than pegs, and I agree the argument is less clear in this area - and I would still be very very happy if pegs were removed and threads simply replaced regularly, and even more happy if it was all removed!

John Alcock - As I guess you know I agree with you pretty much 100% on new routes with pegs, I don't think it should be done. I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone, we all climb for very selfish reasons. I climb because I enjoy it, and I guess people place pegs on new routes because they then enjoy doing the climb.

Adam L - again agree with your last comment. If the guide is a selected guide then you should only select the climbs which have been checked. I think for a definative guide you should include all routes (obviously!) and make it very clear when routes have not been checked at all (eg many new routes with no repeats) and when climbs may have changed considerably since the last guide and no new info avaliable (eg rely on pegs)

As I no longer live so close to Pembroke I don't think there is much chance of making an area meeting (I struggle enough to make the peak ones) but if the peg issue is raised I would be very keen to hear the outcome - I would be prepared to spend time removing insitue gear from climbs, but only if this is seen as a positive move by other climbers, I don't want to piss everyone off!

In reply to jon: True you will get a loss less stick by saying it is E5 when it tuns out to be E7, as everyone will be in hospital instead of at the pub!

Grades are always peoples opinions and can be wrong, but you have a far better idea if you actually ab down/climb it than by reading the text of the previous guide and copying that in.

I don't think we should be asking guides to check the quality of old pegs - you can get a pretty good idea from the first ascent date (or peg replacement date if this happens?) but rather the avaliability of other gear and the grade of the climb at the time of publication. "Many pegs and tat but plenty of other gear avaliable" so in 10 years time prop not much more than 1 grade higher "relys almost entirely on the fixed gear" considerably harder in 10 years time, get someone to ab it first or turn into James McHaffie

As you may gather from my posts above I would only see this as a minor improvement, I would like to see the removal of pegs and then we will not be having this issues again.

In reply to Adam L:

I can assure you that all the info we put in will be as accurate as we can make it. Our research will take account of our own experience, feedback from the databases, feedback from individuals reviewing our print-outs.

One feature of Rockfax books is that, when we put a section of crag in, we tend to try and cover more than just the classics. This is just to make a visit to a crag worthwhile and also give people an option for a second route, or a different route if they get inspired - spread the load a little. This does mean that some routes get included in our books that have few ascents (Bristol Cream at Mosaic Wall was an example I gave earlier). These routes are written up in such a way that anyone attempting them should be under no illusion what they are letting themselves in for, however we don't have super-reliable accurate information about them, and we are not going to get it either.

For routes where the grade is in question because there is missing fixed gear and no known recent ascensionist (Night Seeker in the Leap for example) the write up will be included simply to cover the line, and the grade is put in brackets.

Alan

In reply to jon:

Exactly. Any piece of fixed gear, even a bolt, is only as good initially as the rock it's placed in, its original condition and the person who put it in. With the continuing popularity of sport climbing there is a tendency to treat all fixed gear as bomb-proof. I've seen this happening too often on popular seacliff routes, where obviously dangerous pegs have been clipped, ignoring excellent wire or friend placements nearby. Removing such pegs can only be a good thing, but a description of any route, however accurate can never replace taking responsibility for one's own actions.

I agree totally with Tom's original suggestion that routes relying on fixed gear alone should be given hollow stars and/or a dagger symbol. Where I differ is in the suggestion that all such routes should not be given a full description or should have the gear removed. On the Culm and Atlantic Coasts that would mean popular climbs such as Crymtyphon at Compass Point, which is an acknowledged minor classic at E1 5b/c with 3 or 4 essential pegs (that are regularly replaced) becoming E4 with a potentially fatal ground fall which few would climb.

In Britain, given the huge variety of rock types, we appear to have adopted a reasonably workable consensus or compromise, whereby different 'rules' or ethics apply to different crags. The last thing we need is some sort of fixed gear inspectorate assessing routes throughout the country, removing pegs and ordering such routes to be deleted from the written record.

In 1966 on the FA of Right Angle, the only piece of gear I had on the top pitch was an old Cassin peg, found below the Main Face. It's still there! We've grown old together and I always give it a friendly shake as I pass by.

In reply to Alan James - UKC: Quick last post before I have to go do some work.

I tend to keep fairly clear of internet forum debates as I think they can get a little too heated and nasty where a face to face discussion is often far nicer. So just in case:

Alan: I think your guides are great

Jon: yours too

Gary: thanks for all the great routes (pity about the drill!)

Adam: thanks for the lion link

John: thanks for cooking all those meals for me

In reply to jon:
'But how can you estimate the grade of the route pegless, if the peg is still there, no matter the state of it. You could have a stab at it - OK, it's E5 now, without the peg it might be E6... and if you're wrong and it's in fact E7, just imagine the shit that's coming your way.'

Can you not see the lack of logic here? If 'the shit coming your way' comes your way for saying something is E6 when it should be E7, then reasonably there should be twice as much shit coming your way for sticking with the original grade of E5 when it's E7!
You'd be one grade closer to the mark than if you hadn't tried to adjust the grade wouldn't you!

But I don't think there would be any 'shit' if it's felt an effort has been made to deal with the issue.

My opinion is that a guidebook team can either be proactive about the problem of rotting pegs on sea cliffs by assuming the fixed gear to be worthless and adjusting the grade accordingly if no other gear options exist (which means checking the route); or you can not stick your heads above the parapet by keeping to an historical grade which doesn't reflect reality and so produce an inferior guidebook.

I don't think as many climbers would complain about the possibility of a route being overgraded as would complain about a route being a dangerous sandbag.

In reply to John2:

Whereas I appreciate that the new Pembroke guides will be massive in scope (6000 routes), just how many of those depend on pegs - because that is what this thread is about. The grades of climbs in a new book which RELY on dodgy pegs (lets assume no pegs) should reflect this fact. The loss of other pegs would be less drastic. Out of the 6000 routes - how many might rely on a peg ?

In reply to petejh:

...or you gather what information you can by checking yourself and talking to others and build up a solid opinion about the majority of the routes, and you include a few routes as unknowns just to inform people as to what is in the gaps, and a few as 'known unknowns' to inform people that the route has not been climbed in its current state.

Alan

In reply to John Alcock: FWIW i think the peg can be backed up (with a friend) and it looks pretty solid anyway so may have been replaced. by the way, this is such a cool wee route for anyone who hasnt done it...

In reply to petejh:

Of course I can see the logic and I'm the last person to advocate a sandbag grade, especially on serious routes where gear failure could mean death or worse. My point is that:

1. Checking each peg is worthless due to the reasons I already stated.

2. Estimating a grade is almost as worthless.

3. I'm NOT advocating simply keeping the original grade and leaving it at that.

I agree that writing - Light at the end of the runnel, E5 6b - and leaving it at that is wrong, but by giving the original grade in the text - along with technical grade - it would tell the climber what the route was like originally. Adding a standard warning that it relies on fixed gear that is now 20 years old and therefore useless, would alert the climber to the problems he/she will encounter. It's then up to the climber to judge whether they can have a go. Estimating a grade is pointless - we all know the E grade is only going to go up, but no one can tell how much. What's the point of saying "well it was E5, but now it could be E6, but maybe E7..." That achieves no more than a warning does.

Some people want the guide to be as accurate as it can possibly be, and refuse to tolerate errors, then you say Alan should estimate grades on serious routes... I'm not completely in the dark on the guidebook issue. I wrote the 1986 Pembroke one. At that time the problem of rotting pegs was nowhere as advanced as it is now. Routes were described either from my own knowledge or others who'd checked them or failing that the FAs description. We did our best. They weren't wildly innaccurate. It is different now and I think Tom was right to highlight the problem. In the end Alan has to chose a workable solution and it's up to us to help him.

Just as an aside... I downgraded one of Gary's routes, Vlad... from E4 to E3 after I climbed it. I got streams of abuse for that from Jim Perrin (who hadn't done the route), as it LOOKED much harder! Grading from photos, eh! Just wanted to get that off my chest!

In reply to Alan James
'...or you gather what information you can by checking yourself and talking to others and build up a solid opinion about the majority of the routes, and you include a few routes as unknowns just to inform people as to what is in the gaps, and a few as 'known unknowns' to inform people that the route has not been climbed in its current state.'


I disagree. Ab in to the 'unknowns', see if it relies on pegs for protection or if you can back it up with other gear, make an estimate of the grade (because that's all grades are, estimates) bearing in mind previous grade and all the other information you mentioned and call it good. What's so difficult if as you say it's only a few unknowns on a few crags?

Or leave out what hasn't been checked.

In reply to jon:

Light at the End of the Runnel has been repeated without the peg, and the person who repeated it told me it was still only E5 6b. This has obviously been disputed by some above. Since the E5 grade came from a slightly notorious under-grader, I have upgraded the route to E6. I had already removed any mention of the fixed gear.

8 Light at the End of the Runnel 3 Star, Strenny E6 6b
35m. Yet another stupendous climb which reaches the upper section of Witch Hunt via two prominent hollows. Climb up to the first hollow (gear), and then the second (rest). A move left gains The Black Lagoon at its reachy runnel.
FA. Martin Crocker 4.5.87. Original done with a peg at E5.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Alan, let me start by saying I think Rockfax guides are great, and I'm sure I'll buy the new Pembroke guide and have many happy weekends using it.

BUT...

I've got a lot of sympathy with what Adam, Ben and Tom are saying here. If I pay money for a guidebook I do have an expectation that the descriptions in that guide are accurate at the time of writing, and in areas like Pembroke this includes checking if the fixed gear is in a horrid state, but *more importantly* if it is crucial, or can be backed up. To me, this is one of the difficulties of writing and publishing a guide to an area like Pembroke. If you're not prepared to take it on, why not leave it for someone who will?

I also think that maybe you could look again at how much work it would actually be? As you say, you can get a lot of information from the databases and feedback. These work really well for the more travelled routes. The only routes you'll need to check are ones where no second-hand information was forthcoming, and which the original guide indicates relies on fixed gear. Perhaps there actually aren't more than 25-50 routes that need abseiling down, which could be achieved in two long weekends. No-one's pretending this would be fun, but you are doing this for a living, after all.

Bristol Cream, which you are toting as an example, illustrates my point perfectly. It's the only route which needs checking for you to have very reliable information for the whole wall. Presumably you have to go there to take photos etc, is abseiling down one route really that much more work?

Or, if I've under-estimated the number of routes then be more pro-active in using the internet to gather information; publish a list of routes you plan to include, which depend on fixed gear,
using a similar system to the routes database and make a pubic request for info on these routes. I'd be happy to check out one or two routes next time I'm down there, and I'm sure others would too...

I don't think people are asking for a lot of detail about these routes. It's too much to expect a new grade or descriptions of which gear is crap, but a statement for these routes which indicates whether the fixed gear is crucial and whether it looked ok or shocking at the time of writing would be a major help...

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Exactly Alan. I just picked LATEOTR out of the air - didn't know anything about it other than it had dodgy old pegs. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. But for routes that haven't been checked I think you are dodgy ground in offering a grade. Equally I think they shouldn't be omitted.

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

I think we need to get hold of Dan Middleton at the BMC, and call BMC CEO Dave Turnbull. Dan's job description needs revising.

It is clear that there is a need for all fixed gear on the UK's crags needs to assessed by committee - visually inspected, photographed, pull tested, and tagged (with date placed and inspected).

This information then needs to added to a database like the RAD at the BMC website so climbers can check the state of threads, pegs and bolts on the UK's crags - at whatever grade.

No longer can climbers be expected to self-assess fixed gear - they must now rely on others to do it for them.

Mick

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

That would make a lot of sense. Take the Light at the End of the Runnel example. I belayed Nic Sellers on it in 2005 and he decided to back off as he didn't trust the peg at the crux (now gone). I noticed this weekend his bail off biner (with yellow tape on it) still on the peg below it. So now we have 4 recent assessments on this route. To be fair, I should have updated the Rockfax dbase, but thesedays I tend to put any notes on the UKC dbase. Presumably Alan checks both. But a request for info on routes with fixed gear would be a good idea to prompt people to update the dbases.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

A rather pathetic straw man there Mick.

Someone above said estimating a new grade for a route puts you on dodgy ground.
Why? Any guidebook comes with the disclaimer that the information it contains could be completely erroneous and the climber should ultimately use their own discretion. Same for a VDiff as an E9.

In reply to petejh:


Yes, I did. If you have no idea, then you shouldn't. Like my example of Perrin a few posts above.

In reply to petejh:

Maybe - but that could be seen as the conclusion to this.

Grades are rough guides Pete - many think different, they are wrong. Rock is constantly changing, as is gear. Yes of course guidebook writers must make a best effort, and they do. Climbing is an adventure - not a sport with rules and regulations....some would like to change that.

Many climbers will not take the written word as gospel. I know I wouldn't. As has been mentioned above - as regards fixed gear, listen to those who may have been on the route recently - if really in doubt - ab and check it yourself.

Just don't expect to be mollycoddled.

Jeez - what would Jerry say? That would be Jerry Peel. Or what would Dave say? That would be Dave Barton.

'Don't be so bloody soft', comes to mind.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Useful contribution there Mick, nice one.

Alan, I don't think anyone's suggesting that you need to check every route in pembroke. But there are a fair few routes that peopl just dont know much about. If they're checked, some may turn out to be a lot bolder than thought, but some may turn out to be fine, get popular again, and spread the traffic.

This Light at the end... argument seems to be the classic one. It sounds like you were going to put it in at E5, with a very glowing description (3 stars etc). It seems clear it's very unlikely that most E5 leaders would get up this, and that it's pretty dangerous. My comment on the database from a coupe of years ago suggests this strongly.

If every route on Gogarth Main Cliff can be checked, surely the 25-50 (or whatever) at pembroke can be checked, in order to give a real reason to get the new book, and contribute towards the body of knowledge on the area?

In reply to Ben Bransby:


Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that all currently 'situ' threads are left in.

However, some are quite 'crucial' at a grade, can't realistically be backed-up or replaced on lead. I suspect most climbers would wish that these should stay in, stay in the description as such and climbers should be willing to replace them when they consider them suspect.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Yeah, you're a hundred percent right Mick. This is just a completely nit-picky discussion about rotting fixed gear on sea cliffs. Much better to just repeat the original descriptions and grades (even if they're 20 years out of date and 2 grades out). That'll make the new guide really good.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

....and then in another 20 years time the new guidebook will be out of date and the gear still rotting...

If you want to do a route that relys on fixed gear - check it yourself.

Don't expect a guidebook description to give you an assessment.

In reply to jon:
it should be graded for "as it is" at the time of writing...
however it should be highlighted if the fixed gear is vital/important
then I can make an assesment as to how i want to approach the route...

for example....
guide published 2009
a-route E5 6a (fa 2005)
bold climbing to two fixed pegs, crux followed by easier climbing above.

would tell me that at the time of writing the fixed gear was important at the grade, but was probably in reasonable condition.
a few years down the line however i would look at the same route, and probably conclude that the fixed gear is likely to be poor, and if i wanted to do the route i would be able to decide to pre-inspect or expect to do the crux possibly unprotected.

however if the descripton read
a-route E5 6a (fa 2005)
bold climbing to crux followed by easier climbing above.

i would have no idea that it was reliant on fixed gear, might assume i would get "some" gear in that crack at 2/3rds hight, and arrive there to find two rotten pegs

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Have a proper read of this thread Mick. Then you'll be able to make a sensible contribution.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

I have..... on both counts.

In reply to EricpAndrew:

I thought that was what I said. If I didn't I apologise.

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

This is obviously a good idea so I have put a list up here http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=359824

I still think though that no right-minded climber should ever take the word of anyone, including guidebook writers, regarding the importance and reliability of fixed gear. I would never do this, I'd either ab the route, or try it and make my assessment onsight, backing off if it was too tough.

I made the mistake in 1995 of writing a very detailed gear description for the route Orange Robe Buring at Trevallen. Ever since then people have told me that they did it differently, or the thread wasn't a long reach, or the lower rib wasn't bold, etc. The point is that my assessment was made as I found the route, but by adding too much detail I made the situation worse for others who were expecting things that didn't materialise. That is why I favour a more vague approach and leave the important decision making to the leader.

Another example of gear on hard routes: imagine a peg had a slot next to it like the one on The Promise at Burbage. That line was inspected by Adrian Berry and James Pearson and neither found or trusted the runner. As has been proven, the slot is good. Imagine then that this was the crucial runner on a now-pegless route in Pembroke. The only useful information that we should add in such circumstances would be "now protected by size 3 slider in slot right of peg" not "the peg can be backed up" since the chances are that a leader wouldn't have the right gear or know about it. I personally don't want guidebooks to give detailed gear beta for hard routes and I edit that information out. This is because time and again, the gear for one climber has proved to be subtly different from the gear for another climber and slightly wrong information is worse than no information.

We are not trying to pass the buck here. Mike and I have been down in Pembroke checking plenty of routes for the new guide but we have concentrated on the easier routes since these are the ones that I overlooked in 1995. I could abseil all the E6s with pegs in but I don't think that would actually give me any useful information, my workload for this guide is already huge, and I don't feel that experienced climbers should expect to be spoon-fed in this way.

As I have stated, it is no coincidence that the people on this thread who are stating that climbers shouldn't expect this level of information in their route descriptions are the ones who actually produce guidebooks.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I don't think people are asking for an assessment of the gear, just information as to wether they rely on fixed gear rather than it being possible to place your own. This is simply a case of taking route X that was first done with pegs, and seeing if it is still climbable at that grade with natural protection, or if it needs mentioning that the route is now more dangerous due to the deterioration of fixed gear, which can not be backed up.

Pembroke is probably the only plac in the country where onsighting E5 is commonplace, so it seems a shame to gear the guide so much more toward the lower grades. Let's be honest, Pembroke is pretty average for sub E1, it really comes into it's own above E3, so why not celebrate that, and try and improve the knowledge of the area for the future?

In reply to EricpAndrew:
You already have most of that information.
Publication dates of all the relevant previous editions are printed at the front of CC guides.
Fixed gear is mentioned in the description, or if it has disappeared or is unsafe then that will be included in the route intro.
Where a route has changed substantially due to rockfall or removal of gear but has not been checked or re-ascended the CC use a double dagger symbol, again explained at the front of the book.
Extending the hollow stars to include such routes (suggested by Tom) is a good idea, and these could be augmented by a simple ? mark against the grade.
If all the above is applied to your "a route" I cannot see why a prospective E5 leader couldn't make a reasoned decision on whether to climb it.
BTW. I've been climbing at Lr Sharpnose for over 30 years and the twin cracks of Clawtrack and Lunakhod have widened over that period. They haven't appeared on the other face.....yet, but it's only a matter of time. Maybe we should start giving whole crags the dagger/hollow star treatment!

In reply to GDes:

Which is pretty much what we are doing, except with a degree of vagueness for reasons which I have already explained. See the list on the other thread for some that need a little clarifying - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=359824


I think when you see the guidebook you'll agree that celebrating the place is pretty much exactly what we are doing. And you will also see that this guidebook adds a lot to the knowledge of the area for the future.

The majority of people who climb in Pembroke operate in the HVS/E1/E2 grade. We have found so many great routes below E1 which were given no stars in the past.

Check logbooks to see which routes people climb:

Govans - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=7
Scareys - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=801
Trevallen - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=710

and then the really big numbers...

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=434

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I might have missed it higher up, but has anyone run a word search on either of the new guidebook texts to ascertain how many routes do mention pegs or PR ? I'm guessing its a pretty small number - especially given the debates revolving around a few routes in the Leap ?

In reply to Alan James - UKC: I agree that's what the majority are climbing, but it's a pretty unique area in that there are so many good harder routes.

As for big numbers like that, I think I'd have to invest in one of those Beastmakers

In reply to GDes:


Not entirely true. The classic E5s of the Atlantic coast and West Cornwall/Lundy granite get regular onsight ascents. Lundy would see far more if access was easier. I would also suggest that Pembroke is unsurpassed for the sheer number of quality E1s and 2s, a standard that many more climbers are capable of, and they need up-to-date accurate guides as well.

In reply to Iain Peters: Really? On a given weekend in spring/summer, there are crags with lots of E5's getting several ascents per weekend?

In reply to GrahamD: I've just found 266 occurrences of the upper case string PR in the Range East script. You doing anything next weekend?

In reply to GDes:

I omitted to say that there is nowhere near the quantity of quality high grade routes, but onsight ascents of Il Duce, Darkinbad, Black Magic and the various E4/5 testpieces in West Penwith are 'commonplace.' I also didn't mention the Bristol limestone areas.
I do agree with you that guidebooks should acknowledge the importance of places like Pembroke that have a deserved reputation for onsight climbing in the higher E grades, but they also need to address the requirements of lesser mortals.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Good to see that going.

>

As said before it s not the quality of the fixed gear so much as whether the route is graded assuming the gear is good/if it can be backed up etc ie whether the "E5 6b" is really an E5 or actually somewhere between E6 and E8! I will still make my own decisions as I climb the route regarding the quality of the gear, how to do the moves...


Don't need to tell people the exact gear, however if very strange gear is needed it could be an idea to let people know without give the complete details.

>

Good job finding quality easier routes, my dad was climbing in the vs/hvs grades when I was most active in Pembroke and we enjoyed many quality unstared routes together.

We don't want to be spoon fed info - the whole point is I want to be in a similar position to most other areas in the country (and on most of the 'easier' (<E2) climbs in Pembroke which rely much less on pegs and tat) where I have a resonable idea of the grade of a route (a guide book which gives the route roughly correct grades) and can try it onsight, not abbing down the route which is much more spoon feeding of the information in my mind

and the ones who are requesting more are out trying these routes onsight and getting severly sandbagged. You know myself and Tom (and others on here) climb extensively throughout the uk and world and are not asking for the guides to the Lakes, the Peak, Yosemite etc to be changed.

regarding LATEOTR I remember that the first peg wasn't the problem, but the ones higher, shared with the black lagoon which were particularly bad!

In reply to Ben Bransby:

I don't think that I can do that, even with abseiling the route. However I can indicate where there is some doubt.


You are never going to get that sort of information for sea cliff routes which rely on fixed gear.

Alan

In reply to Ben Bransby: 'I want to be in a similar position to most other areas in the country (and on most of the 'easier' (<E2) climbs in Pembroke which rely much less on pegs and tat) where I have a resonable idea of the grade of a route (a guide book which gives the route roughly correct grades) and can try it onsight'

Ben, you seem to me to be putting an unreasonable weight of expectation on the guide book writers. The unusual feature of the harder Pembroke climbs which you and others are getting sandbagged on is that a large amount of fixed gear was employed when they were first ascended. This gear was not put in the routes by the guidebook writers of the time, but by the first acensionists. The guidebook writers of the time recorded the grades reported to them by the activists.

The role of the guidebook writer has not changed in the interim - it is to gather as much information as possible about the current state and difficulty of the routes, bearing in mind any changes in climbing ethics. If people are repeating the routes and are not feeding back their experiences to the various guidebook teams, that is hardly the fault of the guidebook writers.

E5 is not a beginner's grade - it is reasonable to assume that by the time a climber is leading at this level he is capable of making his own assessment of the probable reliability of any fixed gear. I agree with Alan that a VS leader who finds himself on a route which should have been graded HVS is potentially in just as much trouble as an E5 leader who finds himself on what should be graded E6. I can assure you that there are plenty of undergraded easier routes in Pembroke still, together with plenty more where the description should contain a warning about the solidity of the rock.

Finally, I think we can all agree that the debate on this thread has been carried out in a good spirit and that a useful intiative has resulted from it.

In reply to John2:

John, I agree with all you've written, but I do think that Alan and your positions are not the same. If I buy a definitive guide I understand the limitations and the impossibility of checking every route.

But if I buy a selective guide my expectations are different. I expect that the routes have been cherry-picked as the best around. And I would expect this to be based on sound information, not just bunging in an unknown E5 because its neighbours have gone in. Perhaps overstated but you get the point - simply including a route in a selected guide assumes a certain level of knowledge about its state and quality.

In reply to Adam L:

I suggest you wait until you see the guide before you make judgements about the quality and they way the information is presented.

We have quite a good record of knowing what information to put into guidebooks to keep people happy, and presenting it in a way that enables people to properly assess what is before them.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Alan, I did word that carefully because I was trying to make a general point about selective guides without causing offence to Rockfax - I appreciate the work you put in here and you have a right to be sensitive to criticism.

But your answer there doesn't really relate to what I wrote. Have I got the wrong end of the stick with regard to what a selective guide is all about?

In reply to Adam L:

Selective guides can be very different from each other - some are the best routes only, others give much wider coverage to selective crags or buttresses. The latter is the approach favoured by Rockfax (as our publications have made pretty clear over the years, in fact a lot of our grit guides are not really even that selective any more, they just aren't definitive).

I am not so keen on the selective route-only guides since I always to prefer to get a better picture of what is in front of me when I arrive at a crag. I find it more inspiring and it also makes me consider other options.

The FRCC Lakes guide looks great but only has a few routes per crag which I think is a shame if you have made the effort to get to one of these high mountain crags. I favour giving the reader a fuller picture of what is on the crag, but highlighting the best and most accessible routes using stars and descriptions. I also think that it makes photo-topos much clearer if you describe the majority of the routes on a section of crag including the less good ones, especially if they follow distinct features. We have included many routes in our books which are mainly just there for navigation purposes. If they really are crap, then we will say so, but we may still list them.

For example, the route Night-Seeker in the Leap is a bit of an unknown at the moment due to the missing pegs. If we didn't describe it then people using the guide would naturally wonder what the hell went up that huge and impressive corner, especially since virtually all the other routes on that wall are in. By including it with caveat text about the grade it provides interesting information for Leap enthusiasts, it also sets it up for a clean ascent one day for anyone interested. It is obviously a great route so there is no need to fudge the stars. I now regard it in the same way as I would a new unclimbed line - we can mention the gaps but it isn't the job of the guidebook writer to suss out the gear possibilities on the new line, selected crag guide or not.

Alan

In reply to Adam L:

He may have a right to be sensitive to criticism - but I am not sure who grants that right!

But seeing as I sit next to him at the moment, I would say that a better description is that he is responsive to criticism or more correctly feedback, and almost immediately responds.

He rarely gets wound up and is intent on providing the best information for climbers, for the routes covered, at whatever grade.

A good example is this topic - but the truth be known it is an old topic.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

....Like a good wine,(but unlike a good peg) improves with age (Alan or the topic....?!)

Iain

In reply to John2: i hate to resurrect this but i dont think Ben has unreasonable expectations; on routes where fixed gear is crucial it is reasonable to expect that guidebook producers make every effort to assess whether that gear can be reliably backed up. it seems that this is all that many on here are asking for.

In reply to ksjs:

I disagree. I don't think that guidebook writers should do gear inspections for prospective ascents. If it was my prospective ascent then I wouldn't either trust or expect it.

Gather information fed back from other climbers - yes.
Get what they can by personal experience - yes.
Inspect every peg on the included routes in the guidebook to see if there is alternative protection - no, it wouldn't give reliably useful information anyway, and it would soon be out of date.

Feedback received stimulated by this thread has basically confirmed this. There have been some useful comments, but most have confirmed what we were already publishing.

Mother Carey's chapter here for comments - http://www.rockfax.com/publications/miniguides/item.php?id=165

Alan

In reply to ksjs: I'm really not sure that you appreciate the many obstacles that the people who produce guidebooks are up against. For instance, by great coincidence this morning I was attempting to draw the topo line for the following route description (in the end I passed) -

?? ?? feet E4/5

The slim groove right of A Mild Scramble, possibly swinging right at a roof.
F.A. B Bransby
Ben admits to having a poor memory over this route, and also thinks it may well have been climbed earlier.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I agree that it's unrealistic to expect guidebook writers to assess the state of fixed gear. I think the main point is that where fixed gear is both particularly important and likely to become unreliable within a short period, then it would seem to make sense to highlight the situation.

You may well have being intending this anyway in the new Pembroke guide. However, the approach used in many previous sea cliff guides has been to simply document the routes as if they were in the same state as when the pegs were first banged in. This seems a pointless exercise in documenting the state of things as they once were.

The approach that you are now using in trying to gather information via UKC on specific routes and their reliance upon fixed gear, seems to me to be the most sensible approach.

My main hope is that if the rotten state of all this fixed gear becomes highlighted in new guidebooks then it will discourage people from banging any more into new routes on sea cliffs.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

You document the date of the first ascent, then if any fixed gear has been known to have been replaced since then you document that.

That's as far as it should go.


Have been using Hugh, not 'now using' as if this is some new development, although repetition and reminders are essential. See the Rockfax Pembroke route database, and the UKC one as well as forum threads. PLUS of course consultation with many climbers with direct experience....as well as Alan's and Mike Robertson's own experience.

M

In reply to Alan James - UKC: but you cant then put a route at a given grade in the guide without being explicit about the limitations of the route comments / its grade. if Rockfax / other guides do this then that is a step in the right direction. i think we're back to the point Tom started with though as many have said stuff shouldnt be left out.

the Mother Carey's section looks great - i'll have to give Just Klingon a go at 7a+ next time im there...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: as i replied to Alan, you cant have it both ways: appearing to be definitive whilst at the same denying all knowledge. unsuitable choice of words but you get the point...

In reply to ksjs:

There is only so much knowledge you should give, could give even.

That is when the gear was placed, if you know when and you cannot always know.

You cannot comment on how reliable it is, that is up to your judgement, yours alone.

If a route is popular you could give info on whether the fixed gear is the only gear from preventing a ground fall or serious potentential injury.

As we all know, these routes aren't sport climbs, if you want an onsight on a route that has fixed gear that is crucial, do it at your own risk.

Anything else is pandering to a ticking mentality.

Long live adventure and keep (some) climbing real and uncertain.

Keep British climbing, well, unique and British - some foreigners love that as we witnessed last week.

Video and report coming up soon.

Mick

M

In reply to ksjs:

Yes very unsuitable.

Definitive doesn't mean that you can check all fixed gear, pull test it, and assess every route for alternative protection. Word of mouth rules especially at E5 and above.

I can assure you that Mike and Alan have done a sterling job.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

'Definitive' doesn't mean that any of the routes in the book have actually been checked - just that all the routes the author was aware of have been included.

Chris

In reply to ksjs:

We are being as explicit as we can, however there are certain routes that have pegs, that get few ascents, that are just going to be written up with their grades in brackets.

Two more I discovered today at Govan's East:

Sea Fever, E5 6a - a single peg on the upper section.
Hotspur, E5 6a - a single peg at the bottom of the arete.

I doubt if either route has had an ascent for 20 years, yet they are both likely to be good routes offering good climbing. Their main problem is the fact that there are better and more 'tickable' E5s nearby.

Alan

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I know what definitive means Chris.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I would hope so. I was helping the guy earlier who seemed to suggest that in a "Definitive" guide every route (and therefore all fixed gear) gets checked.


Chris

In reply to Tom Briggs:

If I see fixed gear mentioned in any seacliff route description I assume that it's probably going to be crap. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised, usually my assumption is correct. I do remember once using the phrase "the pegs are there just to show the way" or words to that effect.

I realise that this begs the question of whether pegs should be placed on any seacliff, but that's a debate that will run and run and.....

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: are you saying that the guide should make no attempt to clearly show that, as a result of the passage of time or the fact that the guidebook producers werent able to check the route or whatever, the grade for a route which relies on fixed gear is no longer likely to apply?

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I realise this is starting to go round in circles now, but i think this is exactly what our collective point is. What's the point in just bunging it in anyway, when we don't have a clue if it's E5 or E7! Surely the number of routes that fall into this category is reasonable enough to do some checking? It just seems utterly pointless to put them in, the guidebook isnt telling us anything.

Mick, you still seem to be missing the point of this completely, but to use your line "if you want an onsight on a route that has fixed gear that is crucial, do it at your own risk", that again is just the point. People feel that an up to date guide for an area like this should be able to include info on wether the fixed gear is crucial or not. We're not asking for it to be tested, as it's clearly safest to assume that it's all fecked. Just if it is going to be considerably more dangerous without it. Obviosuly there;s some routes with pegs where you dont really need them.

If you're going down the line of including it but not really knowing anything about it, why bother?

In reply to GDes:

The guidebook will tell you where the route is, where it goes, and what sort of climbing it involves. For these unknown routes, that are mostly routes which haven't had an ascent for 10 years, the guide will indicate that the fixed gear is probably not trustworthy so treat the grade with caution. This applies to about a dozen or so routes in total. They are being included since they once were good routes, and they may make good routes again and, as I explained in a long post yesterday, I include the majority of the routes on a buttress as part of our policy of giving a full picture.

If you still doubt the merit of this then you'll just have to trust me - I do have a reasonably good record of publishing useful guidebooks.

Alan

Having read back through all this I can't believe some of it. When Gary covered the Leap with threads a few eyebrows were raised, but once people had started to climb the routes and realised the quality of them, it was '...thanks Gary, you're a star!'

Then along came Martin Crocker who produced a string of even finer routes, '...Martin, your are indeed a god amongst men!' (apart from me, who wished they could have been that bit easier...)

Now it's '...you cheating bastards, you've robbed us of superb new hard routes.' How fashion changes. Don't you realise that the things you do today will be criticised tomorrow?

Now that your thrust on that flank has exhausted itself, you turn on Alan and expect him to describe in the minutest detail every speck of rust... Surely the point about on sight climbing is that you don't want beta - that destroys the onsight. You know the pegs are crap, now you want to know if there's a possibility of getting a filed down no. 1 Rock, two centimetres to the right of it... Jesus, do you want Alan to go and climb it for you?

The book will be brilliant - you can even see an example of it. Just go out and climb, which is exactly what I'm going to do now that I've got that off my chest.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I pretty much agree with all you said, I just have a slightly different take on it to you...


I have never asked for people to test the quality of pegs, as said on posts above I tend to assume it is all shit.
It would be good to do this on the less popular routes too, might mean they get some more ascents...


Hence my request for guides to be current and up to date, rather than having to (as people have suggested above) absail down all routes prior to my ascent
I think what foreigners love is the adventure and exciting ethics we have in the uk (as well as the best climbing in the world!) so lets try to keep it that way. I think what is British is going to the bottom of a great looking route, trying to climb it onsight, and not using bolts, fixed gear, ab inspections...

In reply to jon:

Brilliant!

Alan

In reply to Chris Craggs: i didnt mean definitive in that sense hence my comment about bad choice of words

In reply to Alan James - UKC: bracketed grade for 'unknown' stuff is a good idea. yeah, youve got to have some of the slightly weirder / off the beaten track routes in there too - its always great to get on something you have no real knowledge / expectations of and find it to be unsung brilliance (ok, not always the way but when it is its a real treat).

by the way, your patience and posts are much appreciated Alan (and if that sounds sarcastic it isnt).

In reply to jon: Having read back through all this I can't believe some of it. When Gary covered the Leap with threads a few eyebrows were raised, but once people had started to climb the routes and realised the quality of them, it was '...thanks Gary, you're a star!'


Nice rant / brain dump.

No one had a problem with natural threads. Drilled threads, pegs and chipped holds another matter. Gibson has left a mixed legacy. Crocker's pegs likewise - though he did use stainless ones later on IIRC. If you were unaware of criticism levelled at Gibson at the time beyond raised eyebrows I am very surprised.

I would rather a route was pegless and graded E7 so I could walk on by rather than E5 and I had a go not appreciating that a rusty peg was the only thing that stopped it being E7. Re the guide as long as Alan can flag up some warning re routes of this nature that is enough for me. I'm sure he takes pride in his output and the Rockfax brand.

In reply to John2:

Ha ha, only just read this. Tried to clear this up for you in emails in the past. It isn't just that I have a poor memory for this route, I honestly can't remember ever climbing a route to the right of 'A Mild Scramble', is it possible it is a double entry for AMS? this climbed a slim groove but swung L at the roof at the top...

In reply to Ben Bransby: Hi Ben, glad to see you realised that it was intended humorously. There is a groove right of AMS, but the roof above it is truly enormous. As you say, probably best to treat it as a double entry.

In reply to jon:

I agree with all you said re the people who originally placed the pegs I have no issues with what Gary, Martin etc did when placing pegs and tat (except any drilling they did which was completely unaceptable)

At the time placing pegs in Pembroke was the norm, they were going out and doing great new routes. I think it is fair to say that in retrospect placing so many pegs was unfortunate, and having seen how badly the state of fixed gear has affected these routes I don't think any more pegs should be placed on sea cliffs, sure I would love it if there were loads of new E4 and E5s still to do in Huntsmans Leap but I can't and don't complane about that.


Have you not read what I have written? I don't want Alan to look at the state of the pegs, (I know they are pretty much all shit!) and I don't want Alan to tell me what other gear is avaliable and where. What I want is for guides to tell me the grade of the climb at the moment (is this not what guides are for?) and how much that is dependent on the fixed gear, so if I am trying the route 10 years down the line I can reasses the situation.

To be honest what I really want is all the pegs removed! but that is a seperate issue I guess.

As Alan is saying there is only 20 or so routes for his guide that fall into this catogry, and also states he can not judge the quality of wires to asses how important the pegs on a route are (I'm kinda joking there Alan!) I am prepared to go and check all the routes in question by abing down them (or climbing them if I get a lot fitter/braver than current form) for the cost of my petrol and food rather than the 10K Alan was talking about!

In reply to Ben Bransby: To be honest what I really want is all the pegs removed! but that is a seperate issue I guess.


Its bound up though. It would make things less confused and a more level playing field all round. Threads are more straightforwardly replaceable and their condition more visibly obvious although I can see a strong case for them coming out too. Clearly this would take some routes outside some climbers onsight capabilities (or what they are prepared to attempt) but overall it would seem to be a price worth paying for a less cluttered ethic for trad sea cliffs.

In reply to Ben Bransby:

But nobody knows what grade most of these routes are since no-one has re-climbed them, and a route needs to be re-climbed before a proper grade assessment can be made.

What grade is Night Seeker? No-one has climbed it in years. I could ab it, you could ab it, but that wouldn't tell us what grade it was. If you abbed it then you could make an assessment as to whether it was suitable for a re-climb by yourself, but your grade guess would still be speculation. If I abbed it then I could make a guess too, but I'd hate to think of someone setting off onsight on the basis on my inspection if I reported it in detail.

However this misses the point.

As a climber, I don't expect a guidebook to give me long term information about the state, reliability or importance of fixed gear, hence, as a guidebook author, I write guides that fit in with my expectation. In this case that means grades in brackets for routes where the original grade is in doubt for any reason - fixed gear or a rockfall.


That is a generous offer, the only problem is that you only have three weeks to do it, however I'd be happy to fund a trip.

.... but.... I can't guarantee that I will publish what you report although I am sure your comments will be useful. Telling me that the pegs on Night Seeker are in a poor state, and other gear is not equivalent, would prompt me to include the route with its old grade in brackets, and the description identical to what we currently have. The same could be said for most of the routes below.

For some of them I have feedback already; statements along the lines of, "I got to the peg on this and didn't trust it, and couldn't find anything else so I backed off". Result - grade in brackets, description stating that the route has probably not been climbed in its current state. An abseil inspection would not change this information, although it would provide a second opinion and second opinions are always useful.

As a guidebook writer my current priority list has a whole load of things above checking fixed gear on hard routes that were often ignored, even when the gear was good. Getting the lines right on HVSs for starters.

Anyway, here is the list again. It is similar to the other thread with some additions, and some removals due to good information.

Mosaic Wall
Bristol Cream

Rusty Wall
Rust

Hollow Caves Bay
The Obsession Box

Star Wars Area
Empire Strikes Back
Eat, Drink and Beat Gary
Big in America

The Leap
Night-Seeker
Half Man, Half Beest

Stennis Head
Grey English Morning

St. Govans
Shot by Both Sides

St.Govans East
Sea Fever
Hotspur

Mowing Word
Seaside Salamander
Tie Me to the Tyburn Tree

Thanks

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Not sure if the new guide goes as far north as Craig llong? If so the original pegs on these climbs are in a very very poor state. I abbed down Impetus Now (E6 6b) a few weeks ago and clipped one of these to keep me near the rock as i went. It unfortunately then shattered.

The guide book says seven pegs but i now count five (not including the one I broke).

Is the consensus of the above posts that if someone was to reclimb this it would be better to do so purely on trad placements (theres not that much) and remove all the pegs, or just to regrade it in its current (rusted to hell and back) form, clipping what they can and placing gear where they can?

Or, as a third option, should they attempt to repeg the route?

In reply to Simon Lee:

Simon, I was in Pembroke for a large part of the 80s - until I discovered the delights of Cheedale, due to moving to Tideswell! Of course I was aware of the criticism levelled at Gary at the time - it mainly came from me! The 'raised eyebrows' was an attempt at humour which, in your case, sadly failed. My guidebook was panned by Perrin in his review due to the odd reference to Gary's routes in slightly less glowing terms than those of Pat.

In reply to Ben B:

If you look at my post again you'll see it wasn't directed at you - or anyone in particular... It was a general rant at everyone who has taken what I consider to be a rather unreasonable stance.

In reply to jon's earlier rant:

I’ve been thinking about this, and I think your rant has clarified my thoughts, Jon!

If you look back at the history of climbing in Huntsman’s Leap, there have been two very distinct approaches adopted by those keen to take up the challenge of the unclimbed lines.

The first approach was that taken by the likes of Pat Littlejohn, and later Jon de Montjoye, George Smith and Crispin Waddy. Those pioneers were satisfied to rely on the relatively abundant natural protection when prospecting for new lines, and in the case of the Littlejohn routes, what they achieved climbing on sight and ground up was on a par for pure difficulty with many of the later creations.

The second approach was that adopted by the likes of Gary Gibson and Martin Crocker, which involved the extensive use of pre-placed in situ protection – pegs, threads, and sometimes even bolts.

Fast forward 20-25 years, and the routes pioneered using the former approach are just as accessible, safe, challenging, rewarding and enjoyable as at any time in their history.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the routes pioneered using the second approach. They are now characterised by rotting tat, rusted and broken pegs and an inherent unreliability, which often makes attempting them on sight pure folly.

It is interesting that looking back on the routes I most enjoyed in the Leap, it is the former which stand out – Woeful; Head Hunter; The Minotaur, and most of all the Darkness at Noon – which for me is the best route in the Leap.

I’m glad that these great routes are still available to be enjoyed by the next generation, but what if I was a young trad climber just discovering Huntsman’s Leap now, and capable of climbing E6 on sight? I think I would feel pretty let down by the way so many of the other great lines here were greedily snaffled back in the Eighties using an approach which has rendered them all but redundant by the Noughties.

Sure, youngster John Very Big Strong Arms can now brush away the rust and create a headpoint E8 from the remains of his chosen Eighties E6, but it’s not really the same, is it?

Neil

In reply to jon: I didn't really think it was specifically at me, it just seemed like it was missing the point of the thread a little, it's not about the ethics of Gary et all back in the 80s it is about the state of fixed gear now and what we do about it now.

(Just got back from Chee tor and it was pretty good although not a complete delight! Wading the river bare foot was probably the low point (def in temp) for me, and having just moved from Tideswell I had to do an extra 15mins drive to get home)

Alan, I understand some of your issues about trying to tell the grade of a route from an ab, however you are already given the grade of the route from when the pegs were good (or at least new) so it is now a case of assesing how much reliance there is on the insitue gear and how much this effects the route. It is still a little tricky to do but not as much as it would be trying to guess the grade of an unclimbed line from ab.

It just feels strange to me that you are producing a new guide including routes where you have very little idea on the grade or state of the route, even more so where it is a selected guide (Although I would like 100% of routes checked in a definitive guide I know this would be close to impossible in Pembroke, and would prefer the routes included than left out in this case)

I do think that by having this thread we are showing there is a real issue with the state of the fixed gear in Pembroke. Guide book writers saying they are unable to grade certain climbs, some climbers after information on the quality of the pegs, others not worried about peg quality but wanting info on if other gear is avaliable, others suggesting always abbing routes with pegs on them...

Maybe with the upcoming launch of the two new guides it could be a time to debate* what possible solutions there are to this issue - especially as this sort of issues is also starting to spread across the uk (recent talks about Central But, Cheedale...)

*I am sure this has already been covered in some of the SW area meetings, maybe we need a nation wide debate? Maybe I should just start removing pegs myself

In reply to Neil Foster: You posted while I was writing (I write even slower than I climb)

Well said

As Tideswell is now at the heart of this thread maybe we should all just get together in the pub!

In reply to Ben Bransby:

Indeed, but whilst you would have an extra 10 minutes drive, we'd have to fly Jon in from Vallorcine....!

In reply to Neil Foster:

I'm not coming if you shout at me.

In reply to Ben Bransby:

You've lost me a bit here, ... but I think that you are still straying into the area which I think has nothing to do with a guidebook writer - an old route with rotten gear is effectively a new line waiting to have its first ascent.


Well I think we know a lot about all the routes and the state of the gear. Just not the finer implications of what old gear might mean for the grade, in most cases because no-one has climbed the route for years.


Alan

In reply to Neil Foster: You're right to highlight the contribution of the likes of Littlejohn. His approach to ethics did not permit him to use chalk at first, let alone place fixed gear. It was not until his ascent of White Hotel in 1984 that he even permitted himself to use chalk - having failed on the route at first due to a couple of wet pockets, he was persuaded to borrow his second's chalk bag and succeeded at the second attempt.

His ascent of the even more difficult Terminal Twilight earlier that year was possibly the hardest first ascent ever made without the use of chalk - the route's second ascent did not occur until 2005, and that ascent required an intermediate belay not taken by Littlejohn.

In reply to John2:

What a legend. 25+ years later, I seem to recall the hotel wasn't even a bunkhouse for Ben!

In reply to John2:

In 1984 I lived in one of the staff houses at PYB, next door to John Barry, the director at the time. One day JB came round with Pat. JB said 'Go on, ask him', Pat mumbled something quietly. JB said again 'Go on', again Pat mumbled. JB repeated himself, I could see him sucking in breath in anticipation... 'Can I borrow a chalk bag' said Pat, extremely embarrassed. JB now exploded, howling with laughter, the two of us in a state of uncontrollable giggles.

Pat never looked back. He did, however, if I remember correctly, place a bolt on the Lleyn, only to have it removed by an angry local...

In reply to Alan James - UKC:


Alan,

as its such a small number of routes and an offer is in place could you do some
sort of errata page/insert/web-update and in the main guide leave space/format it such that
people could update their copy with a pen easily.


also given inevitable delays - it may become possible to update the main text but would serve
the hard climbing community as the updated info would be available online quickly


you may have a process for this already but thought i'd mention it

And now that I think of it, whilst not wanting to defend Gary - I'm sure he could do that himself if he wanted - but for historical accuracy, I wrote this in the Historical section of the 86 guide:

... (It might be fair to say at this point that although many of these threads are not necessary, many are, and also that Gibson's threads were not the first in The Leap).

I can't remember who placed the first, in that case - any ideas...?

In reply to lithos:
>


I suspect you misunderstand!


Chris

In reply to lithos:

We haven't yet made books out of ink repellent paper so it should be possible for guidebook owners to scribble a little note on the grades without altering the format.

I still think you are missing the point though. The routes in that list need reclimbing by someone to establish what grade they are without the fixed gear. This will be a long slow process over the next 10 years or more, and some of the routes will never be reclimbed. When they do get done they can be reported here and on the Rockfax DB.

It is an on-going process, just like aid-point eliminations were in the 70s and 80s. The guidebooks just report the conditions as they are and the climbers can go and sort out reclimbing the routes. Abseiling inspecting the routes will not establish a new grade.

Alan

The White Hotel, jeez. I think I have spent 3 days on this now. High point was day 1 about 12 years ago when I fell off the last move (on my 2nd go I think) but I have never managed to get that far again. It has always been wet, and I tweaked my finger, dropped my rps, the sun was shining in my eyes, my belayer pulled me off... ...one go I even ran out of chalk


In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Sorry, trying to write whilst looking after May/cooking dinner/packing the van to go away so not always completely clear.

What I was meaning(with example):

Peggy Hunt E6 6b
Climb groove,peg and tat, to a thin break and 2 peg runners make blind and hard moves up (crux) to a good flake which is followed to top
FA Gary Crocker 1986

You already have a grade for the climb when it was done and the pegs were good. If there is other gear (reasonably good) near the 2 pegs in the break and gear near the peg and tat below chances are it is still around E6, If the lower groove is a lot bolder but the climbing doesn't look to bad it could well be E7, if no gear by the pegs in the break but good runners a bit below in the groove again chances are E7, no gear on groove or at break then E8. I know it isn't science and you have to make judgments based on where the gear is, quality of the gear etc but with the climbing experience of most guide book writers I would have thought this would be possible.

The grade might not be 100% accurate but how accurate do you think a Martin Crocker (6ft plus) grade is for me (5ft 5)? The grade is used as a guide and so that hopefully you don't get on something you think is E5 and turns out to be E8 (insert any 2 grades 3 grades apart)

My big issue isn't with guides to be honest - for a large part of my climbing in Pembroke the guides have been fairly out of date in regards to fixed gear etc. When I first started climbing in Pembroke the guide (Jons one?) was out of print, I spent 4 hours on Souls trying to climb directly above the peg as I had read in a Fliss column in ote something about not moving left, eventually down cimbed and found someone with a guide to borrow and went back up... For the last 5+ years the CC guide was begining to feel a bit out of date...

I just feel if we continue to ignore the problem it is only going to get worse and worse.

>effectively a new line waiting to have its first ascent.

Maybe by letting people have a new grade and there name included in future guides (after the FA and with something like First clean ascent?) it might encourage more people to spend the time and effort to reclimb these lines although the only way to make a clear distinction was if all the fixed gear (def all the pegs) were actually removed before the ascent. (honestly this isn't an idea just because I want to see pictures of myself in the mags etc there is far too much of that already, it is a bit embarising going into Outside and May says "is that you on the cover daddy? Why not? Are you inside...?)
Sorry for long post - better go pack the van now

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

So is the Pembroke guide going to have one of your snazzy icons to highlight routes originally climbed with peg(s) for protection?

With the implicit or explicit statements that in Pembroke pegs would generally only be placed where natural protection was deemed to be inadequate by the first ascentionist, and that the integrety of the peg may be in grave doubt?

This would be a great help to me,and I suspect many others to walk on by and choose another line without having to read the full description.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Out of interest, how will the book differentiate between routes that have been reclimbed and regraded with the assumption that pegs aren't there, and those that haven't ?

In reply to GrahamD:

Grades in brackets for routes where the grade is unconfirmed and text in the description. Routes which have been done without gear where we have good knowledge will just be written up as they are now with a note in the historical section if the upgrade is significant.

Alan