UKC

I would like to try these for protection in my local rock, which people in my climbing club dismiss as no use for very much at all and only good for top-rope climbing. However, I have actually located a decent 20 metre slab which I and various friends have climbed and which has several routes around VS and HVS levels.

One particularly bold climbing partner did manage to lead it and placed some protection, getting half-way up before asking me to lower him off because the onset of drizzle made the rock very greasy. The rock is "mostly igneous and metamorphic rocks from the late Precambrian, known as the Uriconian, which are around 680 million years old". It was originally sediment that overlay a volcano and got heated, compressed and moved around a bit, so it's hard and quite fractured.

Moses claim that their Tomahawk pitons don't need to be hammered - they can be hand-placed and cleaned up afterwards without damaging the rock any more than other trad. protection. They look as if they could be placed in the very thin seams and cracks that are a feature of the rock in question, where even micro-nuts would often be too big.

I'd like to try Tomahawks out, but they're not cheap and I'd have to order them online. Before I do that - has anyone here any experience of using them?


P.S. Obviously with rock of this type, placing such devices behind small flakes could easily break the rock, so please, no excursions into 'elf-n-safety' as that might distract answers from the kind of useful information that I hope to elicit here.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I have two Tomahawks, size 1 and size 3.

The size one is rather small and does not inspire a great deal of confidence (read bloody terrifying, might as well not bothered) if you were to fall onto it. The problem is not that the hardware seems weak (it's made of chrome-molybdenum steel - like modern pegs - and is probably bomb proof) it's more the quality of placements to which it is suited. Very thin seams and peg scars which either would take either a peg (compression fit and therefore dabbling in the grey areas of ethics) or a microwire. More times I have found placements where a (tiny) microwire would be more secure. 'More secure' is obviously relative.

The size three is a lot more useful. I've only placed it on winter climbs where the alternative would have been a peg. The tomahawk is easier to clean with an axe blow than a regular peg I think which gives it the advantage, however, pegs could be easily as secure in the placements I've found. Again, microwires are the alternative in this situation. DMM peenuts are great as the really small sizes are similar to the tomahawks beak although, in terms of absolute strength, I suspect the tomahawk may beat the small peenuts.

As far as what you're suggesting I'm unsure whether these are what you want. If the routes you are attempting are VS/HVS and the protection is that poor I suspect the tech grades are only around 4a/4b in which case I suggest this may be one of those bold routes in which you pick a good day, drink your tin of ManUp™ and go for it. The tomahawks may provide some psychological protection but as far as lobbing onto one goes, it's really going to take a lot of practice to get something that isn't going to follow you on your speedy trip to the ground.

If the rock you are climbing has some larger but parallel cracks, an equally abstract piece of gear which may suit you are the Loweballs. I have a few of these and actually use them from time to time! I've even fallen onto one of them, god forbid! It did not hold however.

I hope this helps.

In reply to gdnknf:

Thanks for this - the Loweballs look interesting if expensive - I shall keep that information up my sleeve for the time when (if) my valour starts to get the better of my discretion in the routes I select.

I'll probably go back to the rock I have in mind and check it out when the weather improves to see if it really is suited for tomahawks, so your advice will be useful there. There's something magical about climbing at your local quarry, even if it's not a place anyone would travel to climb at. Takes me back to being a kid and sliding down the walls of a gravel pit in an old car bonnet

In reply to Andy Morley:

The #3 Tomahawk is a standard on my winter alpine rack. I've found it works very well on iced up cracks. Easier to place and more secure in winter conditions than micro nuts or ball-nuts.

In reply to Kai:


Yes, what you're saying and what gdnknf is saying corresponds pretty much to the reviews and company literature that I've seen for Tomahawks, which often say that #3s are highly respected by those who use them in winter climbing. But I'm thinking differently here. I like the idea of the Tomahawk because I like elegant design and I like cunning simplicity. In rock where there is a dearth of protection, I like the idea of a simple hook that can be inserted in a thin crack just above a marginal constriction and that will stay there when loaded by virtue of its design geometry.

So, I'm looking at the #1 I guess and for summer climbing. If any of you that has one or more of these items, climbs anywhere in the vicinity of the West Midlands (Western grit, Stiperstones, even the Wye Valley possibly, though not limestone) and would be prepared to spend a day climbing with me so I could try them out, that would be fab! Otherwise, when I get round to it, I'll probably end up ordering one, just to try it out.

As for the terrifyingness of the #1s, they've gotta be a whole lot better than skyhooks I would have thought (thinking of recent Dawn Wall exploits).