This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hi All,
It occured to me the other day that it might be the case that when a new sport route is put up and bolts placed, no records of the bolts being placed are kept or potentially no cycle of checks / maintenance are done to make sure the bolts havent deteriorated.
I've read of a few fatal incidents happening recently in the US where climbers have taken falls on old bolts which were placed over 20yrs ago and never checked upon since- having either failed due to metal fatigue, corrosion or damage to the rock itself.
It would appear to me that no record is kept of when bolts are placed on routes in the UK...
Is this correct?
Is there anyone keeping track of this?
If not- does there need to be a new database set up to make sure (at a very minimum) the age of bolts placed on a route is known and therefore this might give an indication of the need for replacement to prevent such failures which might lead to serious injury or death?
Interested to know what people think.
Cheers,
Paul
It occured to me the other day that it might be the case that when a new sport route is put up and bolts placed, no records of the bolts being placed are kept or potentially no cycle of checks / maintenance are done to make sure the bolts havent deteriorated.
I've read of a few fatal incidents happening recently in the US where climbers have taken falls on old bolts which were placed over 20yrs ago and never checked upon since- having either failed due to metal fatigue, corrosion or damage to the rock itself.
It would appear to me that no record is kept of when bolts are placed on routes in the UK...
Is this correct?
Is there anyone keeping track of this?
If not- does there need to be a new database set up to make sure (at a very minimum) the age of bolts placed on a route is known and therefore this might give an indication of the need for replacement to prevent such failures which might lead to serious injury or death?
Interested to know what people think.
Cheers,
Paul
6
7
In reply to pwhite85:
I asked the UIAA to establish a database where developers could log new and known existing bolting worldwide and failures so we could get a picture of the extent of the problem with corrosion etc, they had no interest claiming it would be too expensive to set up and maintain.
I asked the UIAA to establish a database where developers could log new and known existing bolting worldwide and failures so we could get a picture of the extent of the problem with corrosion etc, they had no interest claiming it would be too expensive to set up and maintain.
2
In reply to pwhite85:
A database of all of the bolts in the UK?
As much as your intentions are clearly good, that sounds totally unworkable.
A database of all of the bolts in the UK?
As much as your intentions are clearly good, that sounds totally unworkable.
3
1
3
In reply to pwhite85:
Seems like it might be easier to add an extra field for information about bolts to an existing database - like the one on this site - which covers most sport routes in the UK than to set up a new database. If bolt funds required that the information was logged for any bolting they funded then it might quite quite quickly become a useful resource.
Seems like it might be easier to add an extra field for information about bolts to an existing database - like the one on this site - which covers most sport routes in the UK than to set up a new database. If bolt funds required that the information was logged for any bolting they funded then it might quite quite quickly become a useful resource.
14
4
In reply to pwhite85:
Hi All- thanks for those comments. Yeah It would be a mammoth task to set up and to start filling in- but some info would be better than none. And also if a database is established, then any new routes or replaced bolts which are put in (from now on) could be entered as it goes along- so yeah it might take a few years or even a decade if it was done like this- on a voluntary basis.
However I think there could be the potential to source project funding to establish the first database of its kind in this respect. And this might include a survey retrospectively of bolts already in place. I believe ultrasound devices can detect bolts which have potential weakness in them- so there could be a way of examining them in situ. Yes it would be a mammoth task- however if someone was funded to do so- it might be possible (with a couple of years of intensive work) to do a reasonably good survey of bolts all around the UK.
I think the problem here lies with accountability if a sport bolt or top anchor was to fail- which has happened alot recently in the states. With Trad- its all about the individual and how well they have placed their gear. However with sport- it is the reliance on how well someone (an unknown length of time beforehand) put in the bolt and whether they chose the right bolt for the job. So when someone who comes along to a route and climbs it- they cannot know for sure whether the bolt (i.e. THEIR protection) was well positioned in the first place and whether it has deteriorated or not- and thus putting their complete trust on a piece of protection which they know nothing about.
I think it's something I'd like to speak to the BMC, MCofS about.
Something has to be better than nothing. Especially if it has the potential to prevent a fatal accident like has been seen overseas.
It would certaintly make me feel safer when climbing sport routes in the UK!
If anyone has any further suggestions, I would be keen to hear them!
Hi All- thanks for those comments. Yeah It would be a mammoth task to set up and to start filling in- but some info would be better than none. And also if a database is established, then any new routes or replaced bolts which are put in (from now on) could be entered as it goes along- so yeah it might take a few years or even a decade if it was done like this- on a voluntary basis.
However I think there could be the potential to source project funding to establish the first database of its kind in this respect. And this might include a survey retrospectively of bolts already in place. I believe ultrasound devices can detect bolts which have potential weakness in them- so there could be a way of examining them in situ. Yes it would be a mammoth task- however if someone was funded to do so- it might be possible (with a couple of years of intensive work) to do a reasonably good survey of bolts all around the UK.
I think the problem here lies with accountability if a sport bolt or top anchor was to fail- which has happened alot recently in the states. With Trad- its all about the individual and how well they have placed their gear. However with sport- it is the reliance on how well someone (an unknown length of time beforehand) put in the bolt and whether they chose the right bolt for the job. So when someone who comes along to a route and climbs it- they cannot know for sure whether the bolt (i.e. THEIR protection) was well positioned in the first place and whether it has deteriorated or not- and thus putting their complete trust on a piece of protection which they know nothing about.
I think it's something I'd like to speak to the BMC, MCofS about.
Something has to be better than nothing. Especially if it has the potential to prevent a fatal accident like has been seen overseas.
It would certaintly make me feel safer when climbing sport routes in the UK!
If anyone has any further suggestions, I would be keen to hear them!
In reply to pwhite85:
If having a complete bolt database is too much, you could just have a list of suspect/damaged bolts? That way the right people can be informed, bolts could be inspected and the relevant or willing rebolter could run down and have a look.
Database looking something like:
Area/Crag/Route/Which bolt(Pitch-Number)/Flagged-Inspected-Safe.
If having a complete bolt database is too much, you could just have a list of suspect/damaged bolts? That way the right people can be informed, bolts could be inspected and the relevant or willing rebolter could run down and have a look.
Database looking something like:
Area/Crag/Route/Which bolt(Pitch-Number)/Flagged-Inspected-Safe.
2
In reply to pwhite85:
It is a strange thing but having got used to just clipping bolts I don't think too much about it beyond checking the hanger's still held on and the bolt's not moving. But it made for an interesting conversation with a friend who had just started climbing.
"So who puts the bolts in" - Whoever put up the route
"So do they have to have training first" - Er, no
"Well how do they get their qualification?" - Er...what qualification?
"Ah, so someone comes along later and checks them afterwards?" - Er...no
"But someone must test them to make sure they're safe" - Er...no
"So basically any t*sser with a drill can put them in, without any training or testing" - Well it's not quite like that.....
"So how is it different?" - Well obviously people who do the route will be able to see.........er
"OK so some other poor sod v checks them by falling off and if they don't get killed everyone else does it?" - Now you're getting the hang of it.
It is a strange thing but having got used to just clipping bolts I don't think too much about it beyond checking the hanger's still held on and the bolt's not moving. But it made for an interesting conversation with a friend who had just started climbing.
"So who puts the bolts in" - Whoever put up the route
"So do they have to have training first" - Er, no
"Well how do they get their qualification?" - Er...what qualification?
"Ah, so someone comes along later and checks them afterwards?" - Er...no
"But someone must test them to make sure they're safe" - Er...no
"So basically any t*sser with a drill can put them in, without any training or testing" - Well it's not quite like that.....
"So how is it different?" - Well obviously people who do the route will be able to see.........er
"OK so some other poor sod v checks them by falling off and if they don't get killed everyone else does it?" - Now you're getting the hang of it.
31
1
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
Yes sounds good. Although who would be the right people to inform? as there's no one who is really looking after these routes or takes responsibility for them once the original route setter puts the bolts in place
Yes sounds good. Although who would be the right people to inform? as there's no one who is really looking after these routes or takes responsibility for them once the original route setter puts the bolts in place
A separate bolt database just isn't going to happen, its far too much work.
A workable alternative - just make a comment on the ukc databases when you log a route.
Note if the bolts are good, or old, or dodgy. If something is obviously dangerous, then start a special thread, and our amazing local activists may be able to help out.
A big thankyou to everone who has donated their time to equipping/ re-equipping UK routes. Have a look at the Slate Wiki for an example of a well organised local rebolting campaign - but remember this is a small number of motivated locals, which is what would be needed anywhere else.
A workable alternative - just make a comment on the ukc databases when you log a route.
Note if the bolts are good, or old, or dodgy. If something is obviously dangerous, then start a special thread, and our amazing local activists may be able to help out.
A big thankyou to everone who has donated their time to equipping/ re-equipping UK routes. Have a look at the Slate Wiki for an example of a well organised local rebolting campaign - but remember this is a small number of motivated locals, which is what would be needed anywhere else.
3
In reply to pwhite85:
You could have a bolt on section (cough) to the sports pages in the log book here and at least hassle the FAs to see if they can remember what they put in and when? People could report dodgy bolts as they crop up and rebolting can be logged. Can't see anyone hanging off a top rope with an ultra sound though, that would take a lot more organising.
You could have a bolt on section (cough) to the sports pages in the log book here and at least hassle the FAs to see if they can remember what they put in and when? People could report dodgy bolts as they crop up and rebolting can be logged. Can't see anyone hanging off a top rope with an ultra sound though, that would take a lot more organising.
In reply to pwhite85:
As some people have pointed out, a bolt database would be expensive and labour intensive to maintain. This is why we need to bring climbing under government control and establish a ministry responsible for monitoring and maintaining standards.
Routes with insufficiently robust safety features would have to be eliminated, but that is a small price to pay for guaranteed protection.
In time it should be possible to have a national database of "trad" gear placements. Micro nuts don't really count as protection and tricams are weird so some lines would have to be dynamited, but it is for the best.
Proper bolted belays and wall walkers at every crag would not only improve safety but make a serious dent in the "unemployed/student climber" problem.
I think it's a great idea and I will be writing to my MP.
As some people have pointed out, a bolt database would be expensive and labour intensive to maintain. This is why we need to bring climbing under government control and establish a ministry responsible for monitoring and maintaining standards.
Routes with insufficiently robust safety features would have to be eliminated, but that is a small price to pay for guaranteed protection.
In time it should be possible to have a national database of "trad" gear placements. Micro nuts don't really count as protection and tricams are weird so some lines would have to be dynamited, but it is for the best.
Proper bolted belays and wall walkers at every crag would not only improve safety but make a serious dent in the "unemployed/student climber" problem.
I think it's a great idea and I will be writing to my MP.
4
1
Sounds like a lot of work to gather the data. I'd be interested in building the database system, sounds like something worthwhile doing if the data gathering problem could be solved.
In reply to pwhite85:
interesting what effect it would have on liability. If a climber fell and got seriously injured on a damaged bolt that had been logged in the database (and the climber did not know about the database), would insurance pay out?
interesting what effect it would have on liability. If a climber fell and got seriously injured on a damaged bolt that had been logged in the database (and the climber did not know about the database), would insurance pay out?
In reply to pwhite85:
The only way to inspect bolts in place is to test them to failure, you can visually inspect and make an educated guess but a guess is still all it is. I don´t know of any ultrasound testers suitable.
> And this might include a survey retrospectively of bolts already in place. I believe ultrasound devices can detect bolts which have potential weakness in them- so there could be a way of examining them in situ.
The only way to inspect bolts in place is to test them to failure, you can visually inspect and make an educated guess but a guess is still all it is. I don´t know of any ultrasound testers suitable.
2
In reply to pwhite85:
Great idea. I offer to put together a team of climbers to check every bolt in the UK. We will need to be fully funded and have resources such as motor-homes, specialist ultrasound equipment, drills and bolts to replace those deemed to be unsafe (by what criteria I am not sure), all our climbing and rigging gear, catering staff etc. etc.
In fact it is such a great idea, I also offer to check out, with my team of fully funded and resourced climbers, every gear placement on every trad route in the UK.
Being facetious? A bit. Whilst I realise your idea is made with good intentions, it is not workable or realistic. What is the intention of the database? To know when a bolt was placed and by whom? For what reason, safety, liability, allow a climber to decide if a bolt is too old to trust? Whilst no expert, I do know that some bolts can last a year, whilst others many years. It depends on many factors as to how safe a bolt is and its longevity.
It is the responsibility of the individual climber to decide if a route, bolt, piece of protection, whatever, is safe to climb or use.
> Yes it would be a mammoth task- however if someone was funded to do so- it might be possible (with a couple of years of intensive work) to do a reasonably good survey of bolts all around the UK.
Great idea. I offer to put together a team of climbers to check every bolt in the UK. We will need to be fully funded and have resources such as motor-homes, specialist ultrasound equipment, drills and bolts to replace those deemed to be unsafe (by what criteria I am not sure), all our climbing and rigging gear, catering staff etc. etc.
In fact it is such a great idea, I also offer to check out, with my team of fully funded and resourced climbers, every gear placement on every trad route in the UK.
Being facetious? A bit. Whilst I realise your idea is made with good intentions, it is not workable or realistic. What is the intention of the database? To know when a bolt was placed and by whom? For what reason, safety, liability, allow a climber to decide if a bolt is too old to trust? Whilst no expert, I do know that some bolts can last a year, whilst others many years. It depends on many factors as to how safe a bolt is and its longevity.
It is the responsibility of the individual climber to decide if a route, bolt, piece of protection, whatever, is safe to climb or use.
4
1
In reply to jimtitt:
Ultrasound would bounce of the rock. X-Ray is more realistic to investigate a bolt.
Ultrasound would bounce of the rock. X-Ray is more realistic to investigate a bolt.
In reply to nutme:
Ultrasonic testing is the standard way for testing rock anchors in the tunnel and mining industry, for our purposes a) there isn´t a suitable tester on the market that I know of, b) you need a calibration piece and with unknown bolts this is a bit difficult. X-ray wouldn´t work.
Normal wedge bolts they can anyway be tested simply with a torque wrench. Other bolts are more difficult. The drawback with inspection is to know what inspection interval gives a reliable result without introducing a false impression of reliability. What is safe one day may not be the next and if you don´t know the mechanism of failure then it all still a guess.
> Ultrasound would bounce of the rock. X-Ray is more realistic to investigate a bolt.
Ultrasonic testing is the standard way for testing rock anchors in the tunnel and mining industry, for our purposes a) there isn´t a suitable tester on the market that I know of, b) you need a calibration piece and with unknown bolts this is a bit difficult. X-ray wouldn´t work.
Normal wedge bolts they can anyway be tested simply with a torque wrench. Other bolts are more difficult. The drawback with inspection is to know what inspection interval gives a reliable result without introducing a false impression of reliability. What is safe one day may not be the next and if you don´t know the mechanism of failure then it all still a guess.
5
In reply to nutme:
Acoustic resonance testing has been used for much larger bolts in mines, maybe it could be developed for climbing bolts. Could be a nice signal processing research project for an engineering student.
> Ultrasound would bounce of the rock. X-Ray is more realistic to investigate a bolt.
Acoustic resonance testing has been used for much larger bolts in mines, maybe it could be developed for climbing bolts. Could be a nice signal processing research project for an engineering student.
In reply to Climber_Bill:
In France, last abseil station of 3, still a rope-length above the ground, I found one bolt of two spinning merrily. It was a memorable moment. The abseil line was not the same as the climbing line. How exactly do you suggest I should have assessed the safety before I got there?
> It is the responsibility of the individual climber to decide if a route, bolt, piece of protection, whatever, is safe to climb or use.
In France, last abseil station of 3, still a rope-length above the ground, I found one bolt of two spinning merrily. It was a memorable moment. The abseil line was not the same as the climbing line. How exactly do you suggest I should have assessed the safety before I got there?
Post edited at 09:44
In reply to pwhite85:
I think all the cost / logistic / general impossiblity issues that other have pointed out are a feature rather than a bug, because if such a database did exist it would be the already pretty fat end of an even fatter wedge of liability/bureaucracy/regulation issues that are best kept as far away from climbing as possible.
I think all the cost / logistic / general impossiblity issues that other have pointed out are a feature rather than a bug, because if such a database did exist it would be the already pretty fat end of an even fatter wedge of liability/bureaucracy/regulation issues that are best kept as far away from climbing as possible.
3
In reply to Dogwatch:
I have a little adjustable spanner as a standard part of my sport climbing rack
I have a little adjustable spanner as a standard part of my sport climbing rack
2
In reply to Dogwatch:
I am not suggesting you assess the safety before you get there. It is your personal responsibility to make the decision, before you leave the ground "Am I capable of dealing with any situation I come across on this route?" That includes dodgy bolts, rock, weather etc.
You have to have the experience to be able to deal with those types of situations. The bolt might have been perfect the day before, but now isn't. It may have been hit by a rock overnight and is now loose. How is a database going to help in that case?
If you decide, before you leave the ground, that you are not happy in case one of the abseil bolts is not safe or you come across loose rock, whatever, and don't get on the route, that's fine. That is what personal responsibility is about. It is about making judgements and decisions based on experience and looking after yourself.
I am not suggesting you assess the safety before you get there. It is your personal responsibility to make the decision, before you leave the ground "Am I capable of dealing with any situation I come across on this route?" That includes dodgy bolts, rock, weather etc.
You have to have the experience to be able to deal with those types of situations. The bolt might have been perfect the day before, but now isn't. It may have been hit by a rock overnight and is now loose. How is a database going to help in that case?
If you decide, before you leave the ground, that you are not happy in case one of the abseil bolts is not safe or you come across loose rock, whatever, and don't get on the route, that's fine. That is what personal responsibility is about. It is about making judgements and decisions based on experience and looking after yourself.
3
In reply to pwhite85:
I rather got the impression that, at least in the UK, word got out about dodgy bolts and bolting pretty quick? I don't think knowing the date of installation would have much bearing on my decision to climb somewhere, a bolt could be 30 years old and bombproof or installed last week and dreadful!
I rather got the impression that, at least in the UK, word got out about dodgy bolts and bolting pretty quick? I don't think knowing the date of installation would have much bearing on my decision to climb somewhere, a bolt could be 30 years old and bombproof or installed last week and dreadful!
In reply to Willi Crater:
You could, but how would a simple ban help to keep thousands of civil servants employed?
You could, but how would a simple ban help to keep thousands of civil servants employed?
In reply to jimtitt:
In rope access we pull-test all bolts used for suspension to 6kN for 15 secs every 6 months. The logic being that is the maximum load it will ever receive (as a result of EN 355), and rather than increasing the load we increase the time beyond what would be required.
I would guess the peak load during a sport fall could rise a bit higher, but I think a similar test would have some merits, and more use than NDT. When we did a BMC bolting workshop at Horseshoe I took along our pull-tester so everyone could test their bolts to failure.
In reply to:
I'm far from convinced that a database would require too much work. We already have a detailed database of first ascents which was crowd-sourced without drama. Most sport routes will have been bolted by the FA, whilst rebolting in the areas I', active in is always done by an amazingly small number of people. Going forward, to log any day's bolting/rebolting work on UKC would take 5 minutes.
The issue here going forward would not be workload it would be fear of liability.
>"So basically any t*sser with a drill can put them in, without any training or testing" - Well it's not quite like that.....
It's exactly like that. Thankfully those doing most of the work are pretty sensible, but bolts appear every year with unsuitable fixings, homemade hangers and incompatible combinations of metal.
In rope access we pull-test all bolts used for suspension to 6kN for 15 secs every 6 months. The logic being that is the maximum load it will ever receive (as a result of EN 355), and rather than increasing the load we increase the time beyond what would be required.
I would guess the peak load during a sport fall could rise a bit higher, but I think a similar test would have some merits, and more use than NDT. When we did a BMC bolting workshop at Horseshoe I took along our pull-tester so everyone could test their bolts to failure.
In reply to:
I'm far from convinced that a database would require too much work. We already have a detailed database of first ascents which was crowd-sourced without drama. Most sport routes will have been bolted by the FA, whilst rebolting in the areas I', active in is always done by an amazingly small number of people. Going forward, to log any day's bolting/rebolting work on UKC would take 5 minutes.
The issue here going forward would not be workload it would be fear of liability.
>"So basically any t*sser with a drill can put them in, without any training or testing" - Well it's not quite like that.....
It's exactly like that. Thankfully those doing most of the work are pretty sensible, but bolts appear every year with unsuitable fixings, homemade hangers and incompatible combinations of metal.
1
In reply to pwhite85:
Just shove a top rope on it, it'll probably be there from you working the route first, it's just the same. What we need is easier ways for the sport climbers toget the top rope up, then they don't have to drill all the bolts along the way.
Just shove a top rope on it, it'll probably be there from you working the route first, it's just the same. What we need is easier ways for the sport climbers toget the top rope up, then they don't have to drill all the bolts along the way.
1
In reply to jimtitt:
Any indication of testing torque, Jim, please ?
Industrial Hilti through bolts have a tightening torque of 25Nm for M10, 50Nm for M12, which is presumably the ideal torque for holding the hanger in place. When placing thro bolts, I usually tighten the bolt fully ( to say 80Nm ) , slack off then retighten to 25Nm for M10s.
Glue ins can be tested by torquing to 150Nm for 60 seconds +/- 5 seconds, if I recall the test procedure correctly.
> Normal wedge bolts they can anyway be tested simply with a torque wrench. Other bolts are more difficult.
Any indication of testing torque, Jim, please ?
Industrial Hilti through bolts have a tightening torque of 25Nm for M10, 50Nm for M12, which is presumably the ideal torque for holding the hanger in place. When placing thro bolts, I usually tighten the bolt fully ( to say 80Nm ) , slack off then retighten to 25Nm for M10s.
Glue ins can be tested by torquing to 150Nm for 60 seconds +/- 5 seconds, if I recall the test procedure correctly.
In reply to davidbeynon:
Well, someone would have to police it.
> You could, but how would a simple ban help to keep thousands of civil servants employed?
Well, someone would have to police it.
In reply to Climber_Bill:
No. If it had been hit by a rock there would have been some sign of that and there was not.
I didn't say a database would help. I doubt it would. What I take issue with is the idea that individuals climbers can and should be able to detect dodgy bolts or deal with them where they find them. Go down to the Cuttings one day and look at the range of experience levels climbing there. This is "Plaisir" climbing for many if not most people and the whole point of that is that is removes the trad expectation of self-reliance. This is the situation that has been created by bolting of relatively easy routes years or decades ago and somehow or another it needs to be dealt with before bolts start failing in numbers. Which, left to nature, is going to happen sooner or later. Or are acres of rock at Portland just going to be abandoned? I guess sooner or later it's all going to fall down anyway.
> You have to have the experience to be able to deal with those types of situations. The bolt might have been perfect the day before, but now isn't. It may have been hit by a rock overnight and is now loose.
No. If it had been hit by a rock there would have been some sign of that and there was not.
I didn't say a database would help. I doubt it would. What I take issue with is the idea that individuals climbers can and should be able to detect dodgy bolts or deal with them where they find them. Go down to the Cuttings one day and look at the range of experience levels climbing there. This is "Plaisir" climbing for many if not most people and the whole point of that is that is removes the trad expectation of self-reliance. This is the situation that has been created by bolting of relatively easy routes years or decades ago and somehow or another it needs to be dealt with before bolts start failing in numbers. Which, left to nature, is going to happen sooner or later. Or are acres of rock at Portland just going to be abandoned? I guess sooner or later it's all going to fall down anyway.
Post edited at 12:54
In reply to AlanLittle:
Good idea but wouldn't have worked. Couldn't even get it finger-tight.
> I have a little adjustable spanner as a standard part of my sport climbing rack
Good idea but wouldn't have worked. Couldn't even get it finger-tight.
Hi Jazz- I appreciate your comments and those of everyone else. Yes in part it is wishful thinking- however what you suggest is not outwith the realms of possibility because there are funding streams available which could fund paid people to go out and inspect bolts.
However I disagree with the conclusion that it is the responsibility of the individual climber to make a judgement call.
I think anyone making a judgement call on bolts is not able to make an informed decision- as I've mentioned (and others have to) one does not know when the bolt was placed, how it was placed and what equipment was used, who placed it (and their skills), how many people have taken heavy falls on the bolt, and what condition the bolt is in (both visible and non-visible- i.e. beneath the rock).
There are so many factors that make it impossible to judge adequately whether bolts are still safe or not.
Yes that maxim might apply to trad climbing where the individual climber takes ultimate responsibility- however this is entirely different because with trad they will know the condition of their gear (i.e. their protection) that they are placing, and it is up to them to ensure that the gear has been adequately placed to protect a fall.
Again the question of liability comes up several times. At the moment (because it is very difficult to know who put the bolts up) it is a established norm that climbing is an assumed risk sport- i.e. that the liability is solely upon the shoulders of the individual climber.
Two points to remember:
1) In the UK- differing from most countries- we have free Rescue services and free healthcare- therefore climbing injuries are dealt with regardless of who is to blame. And there are no subsequent costs to be paid if the climber was "at fault" for causing the accident and thus the cost of mobilising rescue services.
2) Yes- establishing an organisation which would administer the database / carry out safety checks would potentially therefore take on liability. However I think people have to stop thinking worst case (i.e. US style legal compensation) because in my experience (and from speaking with friends who are lawyers), the UK legal system takes a common sense approach to liability- especially regarding outdoor sports. If all efforts are being seen to be made (within reason) to prevent an accident from occurring, it would take a strong willed judge to prosecute someone who is working towards making the current bolt situation safer (bearing in mind the limited resources available to do so) considering that up to now, no efforts have been made to check on existing bolts / prevent potential fatal injuries. I think they would take into account that some information is better than none and that it might not be humanly possible to inspect all the bolts (as there isnt unlimited funding to do so).
Liability is an issue which would need to be addressed yes- but saying that it is a complete block to doing anything- when doing something could potentially save someone from a nasty accident- I find is quite negative and depressing. I think we should be trying to be proactive- and as I said above, my experience of the legal system in the UK is that there is a common sense approach when it comes to risk in the outdoor industry and assumed risk activities should not be prevented solely because people are afraid of liability.
However I disagree with the conclusion that it is the responsibility of the individual climber to make a judgement call.
I think anyone making a judgement call on bolts is not able to make an informed decision- as I've mentioned (and others have to) one does not know when the bolt was placed, how it was placed and what equipment was used, who placed it (and their skills), how many people have taken heavy falls on the bolt, and what condition the bolt is in (both visible and non-visible- i.e. beneath the rock).
There are so many factors that make it impossible to judge adequately whether bolts are still safe or not.
Yes that maxim might apply to trad climbing where the individual climber takes ultimate responsibility- however this is entirely different because with trad they will know the condition of their gear (i.e. their protection) that they are placing, and it is up to them to ensure that the gear has been adequately placed to protect a fall.
Again the question of liability comes up several times. At the moment (because it is very difficult to know who put the bolts up) it is a established norm that climbing is an assumed risk sport- i.e. that the liability is solely upon the shoulders of the individual climber.
Two points to remember:
1) In the UK- differing from most countries- we have free Rescue services and free healthcare- therefore climbing injuries are dealt with regardless of who is to blame. And there are no subsequent costs to be paid if the climber was "at fault" for causing the accident and thus the cost of mobilising rescue services.
2) Yes- establishing an organisation which would administer the database / carry out safety checks would potentially therefore take on liability. However I think people have to stop thinking worst case (i.e. US style legal compensation) because in my experience (and from speaking with friends who are lawyers), the UK legal system takes a common sense approach to liability- especially regarding outdoor sports. If all efforts are being seen to be made (within reason) to prevent an accident from occurring, it would take a strong willed judge to prosecute someone who is working towards making the current bolt situation safer (bearing in mind the limited resources available to do so) considering that up to now, no efforts have been made to check on existing bolts / prevent potential fatal injuries. I think they would take into account that some information is better than none and that it might not be humanly possible to inspect all the bolts (as there isnt unlimited funding to do so).
Liability is an issue which would need to be addressed yes- but saying that it is a complete block to doing anything- when doing something could potentially save someone from a nasty accident- I find is quite negative and depressing. I think we should be trying to be proactive- and as I said above, my experience of the legal system in the UK is that there is a common sense approach when it comes to risk in the outdoor industry and assumed risk activities should not be prevented solely because people are afraid of liability.
In reply to Dogwatch:
It was an example of what might have happened. You were there, the bolt was loose, deal with it, which you clearly did and thankfully all was well, I assume. As an experienced climber, you accepted the risks that were involved and had enough experience to deal with the loose bolt.
My climbing is also "pour le plaisir et la jouissance", whether it is sport or trad. However that doesn't take away my responsibility as an adult to have to decide for myself what is appropriate for me to do. If I do not feel that something is within my comfort zone, I don't do it, that includes sport routes.
Your argument seems to be that because it is for fun, then an individual should not have to take responsibility for themselves and it is someone else's responsibility to say if a particular route or bolts are safe. The Cuttings in Dorset, on the scale of things, is a fairly safe venue, but things can go wrong and there has to be some personal responsibility which comes from experience and a level of competence. If an adult does not feel competent then they should be with more experienced climbers, friends or instructors. I have come across a number of climbers over the years in Wallsend for their first time, having only ever climbed at The Cuttings or another one of the upper crags. They have been a bit intimidated by the whole sea cliff thing and decided they needed a bit more experience before climbing there. Those were good decision made by adults thinking for themselves.
We seem to be coming from different angles or climbing backgrounds on this. I certainly do not condone dodgy bolting, whether bolts are in poor rock, wildly spaced out, not placed correctly, glue not set properly etc. etc. But I do expect adult climbers to be able to make an adult decision about what they are doing. If they are unsure if a bolt or route is safe, they need to get guidance, instruction, training, whatever, from more experienced climbers. Then hopefully, they will be able to make decisions themselves in the future based on their new experience and knowledge.
There should not be the expectation that "someone else" or "some organisation" is taking away that personal responsibility.
> No. If it had been hit by a rock there would have been some sign of that and there was not.
It was an example of what might have happened. You were there, the bolt was loose, deal with it, which you clearly did and thankfully all was well, I assume. As an experienced climber, you accepted the risks that were involved and had enough experience to deal with the loose bolt.
My climbing is also "pour le plaisir et la jouissance", whether it is sport or trad. However that doesn't take away my responsibility as an adult to have to decide for myself what is appropriate for me to do. If I do not feel that something is within my comfort zone, I don't do it, that includes sport routes.
Your argument seems to be that because it is for fun, then an individual should not have to take responsibility for themselves and it is someone else's responsibility to say if a particular route or bolts are safe. The Cuttings in Dorset, on the scale of things, is a fairly safe venue, but things can go wrong and there has to be some personal responsibility which comes from experience and a level of competence. If an adult does not feel competent then they should be with more experienced climbers, friends or instructors. I have come across a number of climbers over the years in Wallsend for their first time, having only ever climbed at The Cuttings or another one of the upper crags. They have been a bit intimidated by the whole sea cliff thing and decided they needed a bit more experience before climbing there. Those were good decision made by adults thinking for themselves.
We seem to be coming from different angles or climbing backgrounds on this. I certainly do not condone dodgy bolting, whether bolts are in poor rock, wildly spaced out, not placed correctly, glue not set properly etc. etc. But I do expect adult climbers to be able to make an adult decision about what they are doing. If they are unsure if a bolt or route is safe, they need to get guidance, instruction, training, whatever, from more experienced climbers. Then hopefully, they will be able to make decisions themselves in the future based on their new experience and knowledge.
There should not be the expectation that "someone else" or "some organisation" is taking away that personal responsibility.
1
In reply to pwhite85:
I think you are overoptimistic about the general sensibleness of both the climbing population and the British legal system, and it would be a catastrophe if the general "assumed risk" norm were to change.
It's not the liability of the database maintainers I'd be concerned about so much as that of the original bolters, provided they were bolting to some reasonable approximation of whatever was best practice at the time. People bolting with blatantly sub-standard crap is certainly a problem, but it's one I'd sooner see addressed by community censure than via the legal system.
> Again the question of liability comes up several times. At the moment (because it is very difficult to know who put the bolts up) it is a established norm that climbing is an assumed risk sport- i.e. that the liability is solely upon the shoulders of the individual climber.
I think you are overoptimistic about the general sensibleness of both the climbing population and the British legal system, and it would be a catastrophe if the general "assumed risk" norm were to change.
It's not the liability of the database maintainers I'd be concerned about so much as that of the original bolters, provided they were bolting to some reasonable approximation of whatever was best practice at the time. People bolting with blatantly sub-standard crap is certainly a problem, but it's one I'd sooner see addressed by community censure than via the legal system.
In reply to pwhite85:
An interesting post.
Personally, I fundamentally question what the intention of your idea is.
I climb because it's different and not a bubble wrapped health and safety nightmare yet. I make my decisions and will accept the consequences. If I don't accept the inherent level of risk due to gear failure than I don't climb (could be a certain route, venue or even how I feel on the day).
I appreciate that some people are more risk averse than others, but bringing bureaucracy, liability and workload into my climbing equation ... that I would find depressing!
Leaving aside the feasible aspect of your idea, or even the practical aspect of it , I think it is timely to reflect on the motivation one has for climbing. There is a practical solution to your dilemma which does not involve giving up climbing- indoor walls. In there, it IS someone's job to do what you suggest.
Again, I have to state that this is a deeply personal answer to your post. I live in an overly accountable world, seemingly led by spreadsheet obsessed people already. When I go climbing I leave that (crap) behind and enjoy myself in the moment. I am no thrill seeker/ adrenaline junkie type - at least I don't think I am- but I enjoy this small part of unknown, I enjoy that I have to gauge this with sometimes less than adequate knowledge. I enjoy the two very different decision taking process: long and reflective before committing to climbing, fast and instinctual whilst climbing.
Selfishly, I hope that this will never change and no "powers that be" can ever interfere with my climbing bubble- my pure form of escapism.
An interesting post.
Personally, I fundamentally question what the intention of your idea is.
I climb because it's different and not a bubble wrapped health and safety nightmare yet. I make my decisions and will accept the consequences. If I don't accept the inherent level of risk due to gear failure than I don't climb (could be a certain route, venue or even how I feel on the day).
I appreciate that some people are more risk averse than others, but bringing bureaucracy, liability and workload into my climbing equation ... that I would find depressing!
Leaving aside the feasible aspect of your idea, or even the practical aspect of it , I think it is timely to reflect on the motivation one has for climbing. There is a practical solution to your dilemma which does not involve giving up climbing- indoor walls. In there, it IS someone's job to do what you suggest.
Again, I have to state that this is a deeply personal answer to your post. I live in an overly accountable world, seemingly led by spreadsheet obsessed people already. When I go climbing I leave that (crap) behind and enjoy myself in the moment. I am no thrill seeker/ adrenaline junkie type - at least I don't think I am- but I enjoy this small part of unknown, I enjoy that I have to gauge this with sometimes less than adequate knowledge. I enjoy the two very different decision taking process: long and reflective before committing to climbing, fast and instinctual whilst climbing.
Selfishly, I hope that this will never change and no "powers that be" can ever interfere with my climbing bubble- my pure form of escapism.
5
1
In reply to pwhite85:
So who is going to check and test all these bolts? What are their qualifications for doing so? Where is their public liability insurance if they certify a route is safe and then someone is injured because a bolt fails? Who is going to pay for all this?
This just encourages the idea that it is someone else's responsibility, and reinforces the myth that sport climbing is completely safe.
.
So who is going to check and test all these bolts? What are their qualifications for doing so? Where is their public liability insurance if they certify a route is safe and then someone is injured because a bolt fails? Who is going to pay for all this?
This just encourages the idea that it is someone else's responsibility, and reinforces the myth that sport climbing is completely safe.
.
2
In reply to pwhite85:
I see no reason why an already existing database such as the UKC logbooks could not have a 'report dangerous bolt/anchor' option on sport routes.
Its little work, to amend an already available database, rather than create a whole new one. Doesn't have to be a fix, but it ensures people are aware that there is inadequate protection. Of course this relies on user supplied information and to a limited audience, but is a better start than nothing!
I see no reason why an already existing database such as the UKC logbooks could not have a 'report dangerous bolt/anchor' option on sport routes.
Its little work, to amend an already available database, rather than create a whole new one. Doesn't have to be a fix, but it ensures people are aware that there is inadequate protection. Of course this relies on user supplied information and to a limited audience, but is a better start than nothing!
1
In reply to French Erick:
Hi there- I think my last response was strongly worded because I feel a bit saddened by what was initially a well intentioned post which is now being argued against because its "too much paperwork" when ultimately I'm just trying to do something good which might one day save someone's life / prevent a fatal accident.
The main emphasis of raising this point is NOT to take away the responsibility of the climber with regards to their safety and it is also NOT about suddenly wanting to hold those who put the bolts in place to account or have more liability issues. Also I hate paperwork as much as the next person- so trust me- I dont want it to be all about that either!
It is from the awareness that several bolt failings have happened recently in the US and that the majority of climbers in the UK do not have the knowledge or training to adequetly assess the safety or stability of a bolt that has been in place- to which (unless they know the person who put it in) they wont know anything about it.
You simply cannot tell the stability of a bolt from just looking at it or giving it a tug/pull (which only generates a fraction of the force that a Force 1 fall would have on a piece of protection).
There are so many factors which affect the stability and strength of a bolt- the type of metal used, the shape of the bolt, what weather it has been subjected to, how well it has been placed in the rock, corrosion, metal fatigue, damage to the rock surrounding the bolt, wear and tear (i.e. falls).
Alot of these factors aren't visible to the naked eye.
I dont say these words lightly or without knowledge as I used to work as an outdoor instructor and many times we were suprised by bolts which we had put in ourselves only a few years ago- which had then failed under annual stress tests at strength points much lower than expected.
All I am hoping to suggest is to have some way of keeping track of bolts. YES its a mammoth task! But surely having some information available to climbers so that they can make an INFORMED decision about the safety of a sport route is better than nothing.
Ultimately this is about preventing a similar accident happening here- i.e. someone falling to their death because of an unsafe bolt or anchor placement- which looked safe but turned out not to be (regardless of the experience level of the climber). That is the over-riding emphasis behind this post. And also because I climb sport routes often and I genuinely worry about (seemingly safe) bolts failing all the time.
Hi there- I think my last response was strongly worded because I feel a bit saddened by what was initially a well intentioned post which is now being argued against because its "too much paperwork" when ultimately I'm just trying to do something good which might one day save someone's life / prevent a fatal accident.
The main emphasis of raising this point is NOT to take away the responsibility of the climber with regards to their safety and it is also NOT about suddenly wanting to hold those who put the bolts in place to account or have more liability issues. Also I hate paperwork as much as the next person- so trust me- I dont want it to be all about that either!
It is from the awareness that several bolt failings have happened recently in the US and that the majority of climbers in the UK do not have the knowledge or training to adequetly assess the safety or stability of a bolt that has been in place- to which (unless they know the person who put it in) they wont know anything about it.
You simply cannot tell the stability of a bolt from just looking at it or giving it a tug/pull (which only generates a fraction of the force that a Force 1 fall would have on a piece of protection).
There are so many factors which affect the stability and strength of a bolt- the type of metal used, the shape of the bolt, what weather it has been subjected to, how well it has been placed in the rock, corrosion, metal fatigue, damage to the rock surrounding the bolt, wear and tear (i.e. falls).
Alot of these factors aren't visible to the naked eye.
I dont say these words lightly or without knowledge as I used to work as an outdoor instructor and many times we were suprised by bolts which we had put in ourselves only a few years ago- which had then failed under annual stress tests at strength points much lower than expected.
All I am hoping to suggest is to have some way of keeping track of bolts. YES its a mammoth task! But surely having some information available to climbers so that they can make an INFORMED decision about the safety of a sport route is better than nothing.
Ultimately this is about preventing a similar accident happening here- i.e. someone falling to their death because of an unsafe bolt or anchor placement- which looked safe but turned out not to be (regardless of the experience level of the climber). That is the over-riding emphasis behind this post. And also because I climb sport routes often and I genuinely worry about (seemingly safe) bolts failing all the time.
Post edited at 14:50
In reply to pwhite85:
As Jamie B has said, word gets out in the UK pretty quickly about dodgy bolts (widespread warnings in the last few years about Thunderbolts, bolts in the slate quarries, and also at Smalldale). A number of guidebooks also note where some routes have old or poor bolts, and you can then use your own judgement when deciding whether or not to climb a route.
As climbers that we have to accept that our sport is not without risk - and that if we are sport climbing, or on a route with bolts a la Wintour's Leap, those bolts should not be necessarily be above suspicion. I'm sure I'm not alone in climbing sports routes where I've looked at the bolts and thought "I really can't fall on this/these bolt(s)". Sure, we can't always assess the condition of bolts visually, especially where SCC is a concern - but we have to accept that risk.
I've no doubt that if we had a database with the details of bolts used and who bolted a route, we would find that individual bolters would be sued, whether for using inferior or sub-standard bolts, or for using poor judgement in placing those bolts. If someone is insured and has an accident due to a bolt failing, there can be no doubt that the insurer would look to recover their losses by suing the bolter. The effect of this would be to reduce the number of routes put up in the UK - which would be a loss for all of us.
A simple add-on to something like the UKC database with a note for bad bolts would be a different matter - a warning that the bolts cannot be trusted or need replacing would be useful for climbers and bolt funds alike, whilst not providing any information that could be used to establish liability.
If you want climbing to be as safe as possible, stick to climbing indoors.
Henry
Edited for spelling.
As Jamie B has said, word gets out in the UK pretty quickly about dodgy bolts (widespread warnings in the last few years about Thunderbolts, bolts in the slate quarries, and also at Smalldale). A number of guidebooks also note where some routes have old or poor bolts, and you can then use your own judgement when deciding whether or not to climb a route.
As climbers that we have to accept that our sport is not without risk - and that if we are sport climbing, or on a route with bolts a la Wintour's Leap, those bolts should not be necessarily be above suspicion. I'm sure I'm not alone in climbing sports routes where I've looked at the bolts and thought "I really can't fall on this/these bolt(s)". Sure, we can't always assess the condition of bolts visually, especially where SCC is a concern - but we have to accept that risk.
I've no doubt that if we had a database with the details of bolts used and who bolted a route, we would find that individual bolters would be sued, whether for using inferior or sub-standard bolts, or for using poor judgement in placing those bolts. If someone is insured and has an accident due to a bolt failing, there can be no doubt that the insurer would look to recover their losses by suing the bolter. The effect of this would be to reduce the number of routes put up in the UK - which would be a loss for all of us.
A simple add-on to something like the UKC database with a note for bad bolts would be a different matter - a warning that the bolts cannot be trusted or need replacing would be useful for climbers and bolt funds alike, whilst not providing any information that could be used to establish liability.
If you want climbing to be as safe as possible, stick to climbing indoors.
Henry
Edited for spelling.
Post edited at 15:04
1
1
In reply to Howard J:
Howard- I'm no expert- but asking those questions shouldnt be in a way which creates barriers to doing so or just negates the idea completely.
Liability is a complex legal term which has many factors and is not as easy or as simple to define as people have made out (from above comments).
I also dont have all the answers to those questions at the moment because I am just initially proposing the idea, and I think the most sensible way forward would to consult with relevant bodies and professionals to get the best possible advise on how this might work if taken forward.
In terms of funding - there are funding streams available which would pay for the establishment of such a database in the first place- Lottery Funding, BMC perhaps, Sponsorship from Outdoor companies, fund-raising.
Again this is not about changing the responsibility of a climber or who is liable or trying to make sport climbing SAFE- anyone who is an experienced climber knows that climbing always has inherent risks and it is up to the individual to minimise those risks as best as possible.
Howard- I'm no expert- but asking those questions shouldnt be in a way which creates barriers to doing so or just negates the idea completely.
Liability is a complex legal term which has many factors and is not as easy or as simple to define as people have made out (from above comments).
I also dont have all the answers to those questions at the moment because I am just initially proposing the idea, and I think the most sensible way forward would to consult with relevant bodies and professionals to get the best possible advise on how this might work if taken forward.
In terms of funding - there are funding streams available which would pay for the establishment of such a database in the first place- Lottery Funding, BMC perhaps, Sponsorship from Outdoor companies, fund-raising.
Again this is not about changing the responsibility of a climber or who is liable or trying to make sport climbing SAFE- anyone who is an experienced climber knows that climbing always has inherent risks and it is up to the individual to minimise those risks as best as possible.
In reply to pwhite85:
If you constantly worry about bolts failing, perhaps it's time to end your sport climbing career? I've been sport climbing for over 18 years. In that time, I've never had a bolt fail. I know others who have, and I'm aware of a number of other occasions where bolts, including lower-offs, have failed. I'm aware of the issue, but I accept it as a risk.
This does seem to be an issue where, to quote the Simpsons, won't somebody please think of the children?
> And also because I climb sport routes often and I genuinely worry about (seemingly safe) bolts failing all the time.
If you constantly worry about bolts failing, perhaps it's time to end your sport climbing career? I've been sport climbing for over 18 years. In that time, I've never had a bolt fail. I know others who have, and I'm aware of a number of other occasions where bolts, including lower-offs, have failed. I'm aware of the issue, but I accept it as a risk.
This does seem to be an issue where, to quote the Simpsons, won't somebody please think of the children?
1
In reply to whenry:
I wouldnt say I was constantly worried about it- and it wont stop me sport climbing but it would be good to have a bit more information about the condition of sport routes / bolts before starting up one. I think that's the main aim here.
I wouldnt say I was constantly worried about it- and it wont stop me sport climbing but it would be good to have a bit more information about the condition of sport routes / bolts before starting up one. I think that's the main aim here.
In reply to pwhite85:
This could be quite easily managed with a "date last bolted" field in the logbooks. For the majority of routes this would be the first ascent date.
Assigning a quality to the bolts is subjective, could be added to the comments. What is sketchy to me might be bomber to you.
This could be quite easily managed with a "date last bolted" field in the logbooks. For the majority of routes this would be the first ascent date.
Assigning a quality to the bolts is subjective, could be added to the comments. What is sketchy to me might be bomber to you.
2
In reply to Rick Graham:
Just slacken the nut and re-torque to the manufacturers spec, the torque figure has nothing to do with the hanger or whatever, it merely proofs the bolt is holding to the rated working load. 25Nm means the bolt is tested to around 143N axial load for a 10mm stainless bolt. You should not tighten to 80Nm as you are getting dangerously near destroying the shear lugs on the cone. Wedge bolts are curiously marginally stronger if you never tighten them but only marginally so, just tighten to what the specs are is best.
50Nm on an M12 bolt means it is proofed to 21kN, 35Nm is sufficient to test to EN959.
The glue-in torque test is fundamentally worthless, it gives no indication of the bolts resistance to extraction. However a useful indication of a bolts ability to hold a moderate fall is to put a karabiner in the eye and try to twist it, it guarantees nothing but indicates something!
> Any indication of testing torque, Jim, please ?
> Industrial Hilti through bolts have a tightening torque of 25Nm for M10, 50Nm for M12, which is presumably the ideal torque for holding the hanger in place. When placing thro bolts, I usually tighten the bolt fully ( to say 80Nm ) , slack off then retighten to 25Nm for M10s.
> Glue ins can be tested by torquing to 150Nm for 60 seconds +/- 5 seconds, if I recall the test procedure correctly.
Just slacken the nut and re-torque to the manufacturers spec, the torque figure has nothing to do with the hanger or whatever, it merely proofs the bolt is holding to the rated working load. 25Nm means the bolt is tested to around 143N axial load for a 10mm stainless bolt. You should not tighten to 80Nm as you are getting dangerously near destroying the shear lugs on the cone. Wedge bolts are curiously marginally stronger if you never tighten them but only marginally so, just tighten to what the specs are is best.
50Nm on an M12 bolt means it is proofed to 21kN, 35Nm is sufficient to test to EN959.
The glue-in torque test is fundamentally worthless, it gives no indication of the bolts resistance to extraction. However a useful indication of a bolts ability to hold a moderate fall is to put a karabiner in the eye and try to twist it, it guarantees nothing but indicates something!
In reply to Adam Long:
Most bolts would be rendered unusable or damaged by testing this way, the average hanger is well bent by 6kN. The cavers went that route and f#cked up loads of bolts due to incompetence which had to be replaced. Apart from that who´s going to take responsibility for doing it and more to the point pay for re-bolting all the failures.Try taking your tester to a popular UK sport crag and announce you are going to test all the bolts
> In rope access we pull-test all bolts used for suspension to 6kN for 15 secs every 6 months. The logic being that is the maximum load it will ever receive (as a result of EN 355), and rather than increasing the load we increase the time beyond what would be required.
> I would guess the peak load during a sport fall could rise a bit higher, but I think a similar test would have some merits, and more use than NDT. When we did a BMC bolting workshop at Horseshoe I took along our pull-tester so everyone could test their bolts to failure.
Most bolts would be rendered unusable or damaged by testing this way, the average hanger is well bent by 6kN. The cavers went that route and f#cked up loads of bolts due to incompetence which had to be replaced. Apart from that who´s going to take responsibility for doing it and more to the point pay for re-bolting all the failures.Try taking your tester to a popular UK sport crag and announce you are going to test all the bolts
In reply to jimtitt:
I guess by most bolts you mean your 6mm staples. I've tested all kinds of bolts, both expansion and resin over the years without damage. Decent hangers do not get bent. Not heard about the cavers, but I know caving hangers are often alloy or of designs unsuitable for pull tests. It is pretty quick once you are set up, a minute per bolt maybe.
I remain unconvinced that there is a useful alternative. Visual examination is not reliable. With NDT I think you'd need more than one test, and the results might not have any correlation to strength.
Ultimately, as climbing becomes more mainstream I think something will be forced on us, at the least a test following placement. Even one of the most experienced bolters round here has managed to place unsafe bolts. They have an obvious duty of care and sooner or later someone will get injured and sue.
I guess by most bolts you mean your 6mm staples. I've tested all kinds of bolts, both expansion and resin over the years without damage. Decent hangers do not get bent. Not heard about the cavers, but I know caving hangers are often alloy or of designs unsuitable for pull tests. It is pretty quick once you are set up, a minute per bolt maybe.
I remain unconvinced that there is a useful alternative. Visual examination is not reliable. With NDT I think you'd need more than one test, and the results might not have any correlation to strength.
Ultimately, as climbing becomes more mainstream I think something will be forced on us, at the least a test following placement. Even one of the most experienced bolters round here has managed to place unsafe bolts. They have an obvious duty of care and sooner or later someone will get injured and sue.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
If UKC can keep a database of 1000's of climbers logging ascents on 1,000's of routes all over the world then surely a database can be made to log the age of bolts on specific routes.
> A database of all of the bolts in the UK?
> As much as your intentions are clearly good, that sounds totally unworkable.
If UKC can keep a database of 1000's of climbers logging ascents on 1,000's of routes all over the world then surely a database can be made to log the age of bolts on specific routes.
In reply to jimtitt:
Surprised you wrote that. The UIAA think it is worth doing, extract from UIAA 123
2. Requirements for Rock anchors
2.1. The UIAA Label can only be granted for bolts which meet all the requirements of EN 959:2007,
with the following exception:
2.1.1. No EN number required.
2.2. For the award of the UIAA Label, the following additional safety requirements shall be met:
Design:
2.2.1. The embedded part of any rock anchor held in place by a chemical bonding agent shall
have deformations or roughness, intended to prevent extraction or rotation.
2.2.2. When tested in accordance with 3.3 all types of rock anchors shall have an axial load
bearing capacity of 20 kN.
2.2.3. When tested in accordance with 3.4 all types of rock anchors held in place by a chemical
bonding agent shall withstand a torque of 150 N-m for 60(0/+5) seconds without rotating in
the hole.
I have removed early glue ins with a 300mm bar without breaking sweat.
Not tried yours, but I am sure they will need a lot more than 150Nm to get an initial rotation
> The glue-in torque test is fundamentally worthless, it gives no indication of the bolts resistance to extraction. However a useful indication of a bolts ability to hold a moderate fall is to put a karabiner in the eye and try to twist it, it guarantees nothing but indicates something!
Surprised you wrote that. The UIAA think it is worth doing, extract from UIAA 123
2. Requirements for Rock anchors
2.1. The UIAA Label can only be granted for bolts which meet all the requirements of EN 959:2007,
with the following exception:
2.1.1. No EN number required.
2.2. For the award of the UIAA Label, the following additional safety requirements shall be met:
Design:
2.2.1. The embedded part of any rock anchor held in place by a chemical bonding agent shall
have deformations or roughness, intended to prevent extraction or rotation.
2.2.2. When tested in accordance with 3.3 all types of rock anchors shall have an axial load
bearing capacity of 20 kN.
2.2.3. When tested in accordance with 3.4 all types of rock anchors held in place by a chemical
bonding agent shall withstand a torque of 150 N-m for 60(0/+5) seconds without rotating in
the hole.
I have removed early glue ins with a 300mm bar without breaking sweat.
Not tried yours, but I am sure they will need a lot more than 150Nm to get an initial rotation
In reply to Rick Graham:
You can install a staple-type bolt with no resin and it would pass the torque test, then take it out again by hand. Like I said the torque test has no relevance to the force required to extract the bolt or the ability of the bolt to stop a falling climber. I´ve no idea why it was made a requirement and have yet to think of a coherent reason why it exists or why mechanical bolts do not have to pass the same test, apart from the obvious that they wouldn´t pass anyway.
You can install a staple-type bolt with no resin and it would pass the torque test, then take it out again by hand. Like I said the torque test has no relevance to the force required to extract the bolt or the ability of the bolt to stop a falling climber. I´ve no idea why it was made a requirement and have yet to think of a coherent reason why it exists or why mechanical bolts do not have to pass the same test, apart from the obvious that they wouldn´t pass anyway.
In reply to jimtitt:
Fair enough, but most glue ins and staples will test fairly well ( no glue ) in a downwards ( shear ) test.
When the test standards came out ( in the early 90's ?) IIRC that only an axial pull out test was specified. The idea being that this was the worst case and if a satisfactory straight out pull was achieved the downwards shear test would be OK.
( On vertical crags most of the loading is straight down, but bolts are used in roofs for example.
I do not intend to spend 360 euros on the EN, the UIAA is available for free download.)
Perhaps the UIAA were/are attempting to create practical testing procedures.
A straight pull out test is far easier to do on the crag and does not need several anchor bolts to do as the shear test requires.
The torque test does give an indication that
a) the glue is set and strong
b) the deformations or roughness, intended to prevent extraction or rotation (UIAA wording ) are adequate.
The early style glue ins I referred to, were extracted after a quick calculation that the torque from a 300mm bar could give a similar shear effect on the glue as a straight pull out. Once the bolts were cracked a few rotations soon unscrewed them from the rock. They would not pass the UIAA test as formulated nowadays.
In conclusion, the torque test is easy to do in the field.. ( even with a Krab and strong wrists )
> You can install a staple-type bolt with no resin and it would pass the torque test, then take it out again by hand.
Fair enough, but most glue ins and staples will test fairly well ( no glue ) in a downwards ( shear ) test.
When the test standards came out ( in the early 90's ?) IIRC that only an axial pull out test was specified. The idea being that this was the worst case and if a satisfactory straight out pull was achieved the downwards shear test would be OK.
( On vertical crags most of the loading is straight down, but bolts are used in roofs for example.
I do not intend to spend 360 euros on the EN, the UIAA is available for free download.)
Perhaps the UIAA were/are attempting to create practical testing procedures.
A straight pull out test is far easier to do on the crag and does not need several anchor bolts to do as the shear test requires.
The torque test does give an indication that
a) the glue is set and strong
b) the deformations or roughness, intended to prevent extraction or rotation (UIAA wording ) are adequate.
The early style glue ins I referred to, were extracted after a quick calculation that the torque from a 300mm bar could give a similar shear effect on the glue as a straight pull out. Once the bolts were cracked a few rotations soon unscrewed them from the rock. They would not pass the UIAA test as formulated nowadays.
In conclusion, the torque test is easy to do in the field.. ( even with a Krab and strong wrists )
In reply to pwhite85:
It would be much easier to start in a small area, and expand if successful. For example, the Dorset Bolt Fund could start keeping track of what they bolt and when (if they don't already). They probably already know who most of the rest of the bolters on Portland are, and hopefully without too much hassle could start building up a complete record of all new bolting on Portland.
It would be much easier to start in a small area, and expand if successful. For example, the Dorset Bolt Fund could start keeping track of what they bolt and when (if they don't already). They probably already know who most of the rest of the bolters on Portland are, and hopefully without too much hassle could start building up a complete record of all new bolting on Portland.
In reply to Rick Graham:
I´ve naturally enough got all the EN 959 editions, the 1996 one (the first) specifies 15kN axial, 25kN radial as do all the subsequent versions. The major changes over the years to the EN were the material requirements as they did not fit into the new policies from CEN and the introduction of the repeat loading test. The torque test was the only part of the fifth? attempted revision of the UIAA requirements for the safety label along with raising the raxial requirement to 20kN to survive ratification, all the rest of the revisions which again included materials and a whole new section on lower-offs failed.
When I test for certification I do both radial and axial because it is a requirement but for all other purposes like QC I only do axial since it is by far the most severe, since my own requirement is 30kN anyway there is no real point in testing radially as well. (I dump the standard test blocks as well since they are extremely weak and fail before I know what the bolt is doing).
However there is a point to doing both tests, with bolt-ins depending on the hanger design you can have a bolt which easily gets the axial standard but fails the radial test, the way the hanger and nut interact means you can see 20+ axial and maybe 8 radial. Difficult things bolt-ins, I´ve failed EOTA certified ones which on paper are entirely suitable but the way climbers use them fail miserably. Glue-ins are much easier in many respects.
Testing is mostly boring but throws some interesting stuff out that the normal person wouldn´t think of, you can pull test identical bolts with everything identical but vary the speed the pull is applied and change get vastly different numbers, the test speed specified for the standard is only chosen as it fits the standard machines used by the labs but use other speeds and things are different, luckily mostly on the better side for climbers. Most other gear is the same such as karabiners which have different failure loads depending on the test speed.
I´ve naturally enough got all the EN 959 editions, the 1996 one (the first) specifies 15kN axial, 25kN radial as do all the subsequent versions. The major changes over the years to the EN were the material requirements as they did not fit into the new policies from CEN and the introduction of the repeat loading test. The torque test was the only part of the fifth? attempted revision of the UIAA requirements for the safety label along with raising the raxial requirement to 20kN to survive ratification, all the rest of the revisions which again included materials and a whole new section on lower-offs failed.
When I test for certification I do both radial and axial because it is a requirement but for all other purposes like QC I only do axial since it is by far the most severe, since my own requirement is 30kN anyway there is no real point in testing radially as well. (I dump the standard test blocks as well since they are extremely weak and fail before I know what the bolt is doing).
However there is a point to doing both tests, with bolt-ins depending on the hanger design you can have a bolt which easily gets the axial standard but fails the radial test, the way the hanger and nut interact means you can see 20+ axial and maybe 8 radial. Difficult things bolt-ins, I´ve failed EOTA certified ones which on paper are entirely suitable but the way climbers use them fail miserably. Glue-ins are much easier in many respects.
Testing is mostly boring but throws some interesting stuff out that the normal person wouldn´t think of, you can pull test identical bolts with everything identical but vary the speed the pull is applied and change get vastly different numbers, the test speed specified for the standard is only chosen as it fits the standard machines used by the labs but use other speeds and things are different, luckily mostly on the better side for climbers. Most other gear is the same such as karabiners which have different failure loads depending on the test speed.
3
In reply to jimtitt:
Thanks for your post of 23.11, helpful and informative.
Bit confused on this one. On your site you say torque up the through bolts you sell to the recommended torque.
This will test if the rock is strong enough to use the through bolts for climbing anchors and also set the wedge at a suitable tension.( My wording and interpretation )
Thanks for your post of 23.11, helpful and informative.
> .... Like I said the torque test has no relevance to the force required to extract the bolt or the ability of the bolt to stop a falling climber. I´ve no idea why it was made a requirement and have yet to think of a coherent reason why it exists or why mechanical bolts do not have to pass the same test, apart from the obvious that they wouldn´t pass anyway.
Bit confused on this one. On your site you say torque up the through bolts you sell to the recommended torque.
This will test if the rock is strong enough to use the through bolts for climbing anchors and also set the wedge at a suitable tension.( My wording and interpretation )
In reply to Rick Graham:
The UIAA torque test is ONLY for glue-in bolts, why a glue-in bolt needs to be torque tested escapes me and and passing the test has no relevance to the force required to extract the bolt.
Wedge bolts are belong to a category called "torque controlled anchors", that is the succesful application of the relevant torque figure shows the bolt resists extraction to the load specified. This is in contrast to most other bolt-in anchors where the tightening torque does not tell the installer anything about the force required to extract and so in the construction industry they generally need to be subsequently tested. In normal circumstances actually tightening a wedge bolt is actually unescessary BUT if you can tighten it you have guaranteed it will hold. That is you have tested it which is why there is no need to use another testing system afterwards which is why the construction industry like them (and me).
However ( and it´s a BIG however) the way the installation torque test loads the bolt and the way the test is performed for ETA puts the load on the bolt differently to the normal hanger we use, two apparently identical 10mm wedge bolts which pass the ETA requirements and allow the correct torque to be applied when you install them can vary in strength in the EN959 test between under 10kN to the more normal 38kN.
I´ve bought bolts from reputable manufacturers which fail EN959 miserably, a few years back I ordered 10,000 certified bolts from a German manufacturer and was dissapointed they all failed around 9-10kN. We subsequently went to the their test lab and ran both the EOTA test and the EN959 test with the same results;- the difference in the test protocol gives a four-fold difference in the results, unfortunately the EN959 test reflects the real loads climbers can apply which is why buying anchors from a builders merchants is a bad idea unless you know that identical anchor has also been tested to EN959.
And no, I´m not telling which bolts are the good ones
The UIAA torque test is ONLY for glue-in bolts, why a glue-in bolt needs to be torque tested escapes me and and passing the test has no relevance to the force required to extract the bolt.
Wedge bolts are belong to a category called "torque controlled anchors", that is the succesful application of the relevant torque figure shows the bolt resists extraction to the load specified. This is in contrast to most other bolt-in anchors where the tightening torque does not tell the installer anything about the force required to extract and so in the construction industry they generally need to be subsequently tested. In normal circumstances actually tightening a wedge bolt is actually unescessary BUT if you can tighten it you have guaranteed it will hold. That is you have tested it which is why there is no need to use another testing system afterwards which is why the construction industry like them (and me).
However ( and it´s a BIG however) the way the installation torque test loads the bolt and the way the test is performed for ETA puts the load on the bolt differently to the normal hanger we use, two apparently identical 10mm wedge bolts which pass the ETA requirements and allow the correct torque to be applied when you install them can vary in strength in the EN959 test between under 10kN to the more normal 38kN.
I´ve bought bolts from reputable manufacturers which fail EN959 miserably, a few years back I ordered 10,000 certified bolts from a German manufacturer and was dissapointed they all failed around 9-10kN. We subsequently went to the their test lab and ran both the EOTA test and the EN959 test with the same results;- the difference in the test protocol gives a four-fold difference in the results, unfortunately the EN959 test reflects the real loads climbers can apply which is why buying anchors from a builders merchants is a bad idea unless you know that identical anchor has also been tested to EN959.
And no, I´m not telling which bolts are the good ones
1
In reply to jimtitt:
Thanks for that.
For readers who cannot be bothered to google, the EOTA is a construction materials standards organisation and the EN 959 ans UIAA 123 are specifically for climbing anchors.
The Bolt Fund I do work for only lets me use Bolt Products
Thanks for that.
For readers who cannot be bothered to google, the EOTA is a construction materials standards organisation and the EN 959 ans UIAA 123 are specifically for climbing anchors.
The Bolt Fund I do work for only lets me use Bolt Products
In reply to pwhite85:
The "Climb Bristol" project has been replacing the fixed gear in Avon Gorge and has, I believe, a database for the fixed gear there. (NB, I'm not involved in the project myself, but you can probably find more info via their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Climbbristol/ .)
The "Climb Bristol" project has been replacing the fixed gear in Avon Gorge and has, I believe, a database for the fixed gear there. (NB, I'm not involved in the project myself, but you can probably find more info via their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Climbbristol/ .)
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...