UKC

I am looking at developing a small indoor commercial climbing centre that will include lead climbing.

Is 10.5m in vertical height enough - the building basically has a flat roof which means there is loads of scope for walls of this height but no scope for higher climbing at the apex like there is at many other walls around the country.

What are peoples thoughts?

In reply to kenneM:

Good routes, well set & regularly changed in nice surroundings & decent prices, with no other wall for miles - yes.

Crap routes, badly set in crap surroundings with loads of other walls nearby & charging the earth - no.

Height is just one factor among many.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Agree with Chris, he's pretty much said it.

10.5m isn't bad, the one I go to is 12m. Height isn't the end of the world imo, in fact I'd rate well-set problems as much higher on my agenda.

In reply to kenneM:

Make it really overhanging - that'll help.

In reply to kenneM:

If you use the height well with climbing right to the very top 10.5m vertically is plenty. A 30deg overhang (besides being pretty bloody steep) is 12m.

There's always potential to be creative and add length with bits of roof, 3d weirdness and a hanging fin in the roof space.

Higher would be better though if you have a choice of buildings.

Will roped climbing attract enough extra custom to justify the additional rent (bigger building) and running costs (staff, training, inspection, equipment etc) over a good dedicated bouldering center?
jk

In reply to I like climbing:

...that'll help getting rid of women, skinny climbers and generally people who don't like routes designed as physical tests only.

In reply to kenneM:

I reckon that's OK, the lead walls at Big Rock are I think 11m and I don't find that limiting. Indeed, I quite enjoy climbing shorter but more interesting stuff on the 8m training/top rope walls.

Neil

In reply to kenneM:

Dig down!

In reply to kenneM:

if you fit a steady 30 degree wall, that'll be a 12.1m wall

In reply to kenneM:

Why stop at 30 degrees? Make it 45 degrees and it will be even longer!
Its not how big it is its how you use it etc.

In reply to naffan:

Yeah, though an awful lot of us couldn't climb a 45 degree overhanging 12+ metre wall. No issues with there being a couple of panels like that for those who can, but if you do that with most of your wall you'll shut out those who find that kind of thing really hard. Best to have a mix.

Neil

In reply to drolex: think there'd be quite a few women that would disagree with you on that one

In reply to pork pie girl:



Aye

In reply to pork pie girl:

Oh I have no doubt about it but for having followed a meeting at my wall in France, I also know quite a few who agree on that.

It is just generally, women have less strength, men have less flexibility etc. Hence the tendency to add overhanging sectors to the routes to increase difficulty tend to impact women more than men

In reply to katec:

Ok that was a poor generalization from me. But from what I have understood, the general idea that overhangs have more impact on women than men should still be correct

In reply to kenneM:

HAve a look at White Spider to see how to get a lot of wall into a standard industrial unit

In reply to kenneM:

I think it is an absolute min. i.e. check that you can get 10.5m. Do you need to account for floor build up, services in the roof space etc. Assume that the finished floor level to U/S ceiling is more than 10.5m, else look for another building?

In reply to Lukeva:

My local walls 8 meters. Does the job.

In reply to drolex/trollex

Let's just agree on the first sentence and quietly ignore the second. Generalisations are generally a poor idea and are generally of little help to the original poster or the debate, in general.

In reply to kenneM:

some of my favourite indoor climbing walls are short routes, with lots of features rather than just holds

In reply to drolex:

Speak for yourself, Women and skinny climbers have no problem with overhanging routes.
Some people prefer climbing things other than 4+ jug fests!

In reply to nniff:

Second this for whitespider, fantastic use of the space.

In reply to katec:
Wise words.

In reply to naffan:

a slab is the same length as an overhang...

In reply to kenneM:

Depends on other things of course, but generally speaking, no, 10.5 is not high enough for me. The routes in such places tend to have very hard moves for the grade, and a grounder is possible right until the last few metres. So there's very little scope for carefree experimentation and training, which is what I visit these things for.

In reply to Donnie:
Each to their own but sounds shite to me, sorry but 8m for me is way too short. Would rather boulder. 12-15m is the norm, for a lead wall. I've climbed at Big Rock which is 11m, seems short.

In reply to katec:

Ok, last try. I suppose I explain very poorly. I am not talking about particular individuals, just generally :

1/ overhanging sectors are more demanding in terms of upper-body strength
2/ some categories of the population have less upper-body strength than other (for example women)
3/ hence these categories are more affected by the overhanging nature of these sectors

I will happily accept I am wrong if you can point an error

In reply to kenneM:

If you do pop into White Spider for a look, I believe Nigel who still works there also worked on the original build. It could be worth asking for him. He's generally happy to help.

Sam

In reply to kenneM:

Agree that it's all about the setting. Go and visit UCR in Bristol to see how a fairly short wall can be maximised to give really good routes for both training and fun. Lots of sideways, and good use of volumes, roofs, hanging fins etc.

In reply to kenneM:

If the routes are well set it shouldn't be a problem. If you have lots of space you could include an overhanging arch feature, that will add some length to your routes. Seen it in a reasonably low gym, looks spectacular also!
@drolex; Skinny climbers can excel at climbing overhanging terrain due to being relatively light. Same could be said for some women. It's all about strength to weight ratio.

In reply to douwe:



^^^This^^^

In reply to kenneM:

To paraphrase W.E. Bowman, some are high enough, some are higher than most, and some are as high as most. But all climbers are expected to go high.

In reply to Donnie:

As I said above, an 8m wall isn't in itself a problem if you set good, interesting routes on it. I'd rather a well-set 8m route than 12 metres of simple vertical thuggery. Think long bouldering routes with ropes in how you set them.

Neil

In reply to Lukeva:
I believe Big Rock would love to get hold of the automated Blum warehouse at the end of the road - that would allow higher routes! But seriously, I think some of the 8m training wall routes are better than some of the 11.5m ones in the pit. It depends who set it.

If you want a 16m route, you can always climb it twice. I find I get knackered on stuff that's too long.

I think Big Rock have made a pretty good job of building a wall in a town with almost no high buildings, and certainly none of the sort of abandoned church towers, bus depots and the likes that result in higher walls in older towns and cities.

Neil

In reply to kenneM:

I've climbed at walls that are about 10m and they've been fine, but I tend to enjoy something a bit heigher.

Could you dig down?

In reply to Kieran_John:

Dig down - that's what they did at Ratho !

In reply to Scott_vzr:

True, but I don't think it was a climbing wall when they did that!

I personally don't like leading short route as they tend to be boulder problems on lead. would be great if you could use the roof thou.

In reply to Fraser:

They dug down during the climbing arena construction.