This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I have recently been doing some aid climbing practice at millstone, embankment 2 (right hand crack only), embankment 3, and most notably London wall. Due to the fact that ukc hasn't got an option to log trad climbs as an aided ascent, my logbook now reads that I have led London wall.
I have had to log this ascent as an onsight lead as it technically was, I made sure that my notes covered the fact that it was an aided ascent, but I still don't like the lead o/s note on my logbook.
Ukc has climbs which are purely aid climbs such as the bat in dove holes, these can be logged as aid climbs. Does anyone else think that trad and sport routes should have the option to be ticked as an aided ascent?
Regards,
Kez
I have had to log this ascent as an onsight lead as it technically was, I made sure that my notes covered the fact that it was an aided ascent, but I still don't like the lead o/s note on my logbook.
Ukc has climbs which are purely aid climbs such as the bat in dove holes, these can be logged as aid climbs. Does anyone else think that trad and sport routes should have the option to be ticked as an aided ascent?
Regards,
Kez
6
5
2
1
2
2
In reply to kez1:
OK, I'm bored so I might as well bite...
Why not just log it as "with falls / rests (dogged)" or whatever the wording is? It's not perfect, but it's a lot closer to your style of ascent than Lead O/S.
Once you've done that, stop aid climbing classics and never speak of this again.
OK, I'm bored so I might as well bite...
Why not just log it as "with falls / rests (dogged)" or whatever the wording is? It's not perfect, but it's a lot closer to your style of ascent than Lead O/S.
Once you've done that, stop aid climbing classics and never speak of this again.
9
6
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Not so sure - see http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=280823
> Very good!
> 8/10?
Not so sure - see http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=280823
In reply to Phil Anderson:
I don't intend to stop aid climbing as I have plans to go to Yosemite and seeing as it was clean aid it has no negative effects on the rock I don't see any problem in ticking classics like London wall.
An aided ascent of the nose would not be classed as dogged or with falls/ rests so why should I log my climb this way when all is required is an extra option for ascent style.
I don't intend to stop aid climbing as I have plans to go to Yosemite and seeing as it was clean aid it has no negative effects on the rock I don't see any problem in ticking classics like London wall.
An aided ascent of the nose would not be classed as dogged or with falls/ rests so why should I log my climb this way when all is required is an extra option for ascent style.
5
2
2
In reply to kez1:
Speaking purely personally, my own ethics are that I log climbs in the style of the route, so as I do a bit on Southern Sandstone I log these as top roped as that is the prevailing ethic. I do not log my top roped climbs on grit, or my seconded routes, as I have not 'climbed' these in the style the route dictates. If I aided a route on grit i would not log it at all as I have not climbed it in the prevailing accepted style. I did log my ascent of The Bat (A1) as this is an aid route.
But I'm just a purist.
Speaking purely personally, my own ethics are that I log climbs in the style of the route, so as I do a bit on Southern Sandstone I log these as top roped as that is the prevailing ethic. I do not log my top roped climbs on grit, or my seconded routes, as I have not 'climbed' these in the style the route dictates. If I aided a route on grit i would not log it at all as I have not climbed it in the prevailing accepted style. I did log my ascent of The Bat (A1) as this is an aid route.
But I'm just a purist.
4
1
In reply to kez1:
No. it is lead dog.
Having aided the nose, aiding up the nose DEFINITELY IS considered as Lead dog. Sorry
> I don't intend to stop aid climbing as I have plans to go to Yosemite and seeing as it was clean aid it has no negative effects on the rock I don't see any problem in ticking classics like London wall.
> An aided ascent of the nose would not be classed as dogged or with falls/ rests so why should I log my climb this way when all is required is an extra option for ascent style.
No. it is lead dog.
Having aided the nose, aiding up the nose DEFINITELY IS considered as Lead dog. Sorry
4
In reply to kez1:
London Wall is a classic at E5 6a, not A1. Of course, you could be a little less provocative, by aiding routes which aren't classics, as it makes no difference to what you're trying to achieve.
Also, I hope you've got a better strategy than purely single pitch aid practise if you plan on getting up the Nose in less than a month.
I really don't know why anyone would want to publicly log an aided ascent of London Wall to be honest.
> I don't intend to stop aid climbing as I have plans to go to Yosemite and seeing as it was clean aid it has no negative effects on the rock I don't see any problem in ticking classics like London wall.
London Wall is a classic at E5 6a, not A1. Of course, you could be a little less provocative, by aiding routes which aren't classics, as it makes no difference to what you're trying to achieve.
Also, I hope you've got a better strategy than purely single pitch aid practise if you plan on getting up the Nose in less than a month.
> An aided ascent of the nose would not be classed as dogged or with falls/ rests so why should I log my climb this way when all is required is an extra option for ascent style.
I really don't know why anyone would want to publicly log an aided ascent of London Wall to be honest.
13
1
In reply to kez1:
Are you using pegs or nuts? Does this not trash the rock. I really can't see the point of aiding a trad climb whatever your excuse. I'm quite incensed really as ER2 and LW are absolute classic rock routes!
Are you using pegs or nuts? Does this not trash the rock. I really can't see the point of aiding a trad climb whatever your excuse. I'm quite incensed really as ER2 and LW are absolute classic rock routes!
5
4
In reply to Sean Kelly:
Give over. London wall gets a point of aid on wires anytime a leader falls off
Next it will be that you shouldnt try london wall unless you've onsighted 10 7cs in a row to risk not falling on wires.
Every brit that goes to Yosemite for walls aids a few trad routes
Give over. London wall gets a point of aid on wires anytime a leader falls off
Next it will be that you shouldnt try london wall unless you've onsighted 10 7cs in a row to risk not falling on wires.
Every brit that goes to Yosemite for walls aids a few trad routes
12
2
In reply to ashtond6:
There's plenty of cracks in grotty overgrown holes in Lancashire that they could be aiding instead of trashing classics, many of which would probably benefit from a bit of traffic/cleaning.
> Every brit that goes to Yosemite for walls aids a few trad routes
There's plenty of cracks in grotty overgrown holes in Lancashire that they could be aiding instead of trashing classics, many of which would probably benefit from a bit of traffic/cleaning.
8
In reply to kez1:
Amazed at the negative response; you can log other sorts of cheating such as dogging and ground up and top rope, so why not aid?
Amazed at the negative response; you can log other sorts of cheating such as dogging and ground up and top rope, so why not aid?
2
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Why not bolts?
> Amazed at the negative response; you can log other sorts of cheating such as dogging and ground up and top rope, so why not aid?
Why not bolts?
1
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
So does endless aiding. He's still not clarified how he aided
> Because they change the route for everyone else.
So does endless aiding. He's still not clarified how he aided
1
1
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Exactly, but but even more deliberate.
> And endless dogging and falling.
Exactly, but but even more deliberate.
Post edited at 23:00
In reply to Postmanpat:
I imagine the one off bodyweight of aiding is less destructive than repeated falls on the the same placement.
> Exactly, but but even more deliberate.
I imagine the one off bodyweight of aiding is less destructive than repeated falls on the the same placement.
3
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
So what. They both involve cynical trashing of the rock, but apparently this is not a legitimate cause for concern anymore, except for outdated old farts.
> I imagine the one off bodyweight of aiding is less destructive than repeated falls on the the same placement.
So what. They both involve cynical trashing of the rock, but apparently this is not a legitimate cause for concern anymore, except for outdated old farts.
1
9
In reply to Postmanpat:
He says it was clean aid on his 1st reply
to be fair.
The way some folks lead (read dog the shit out of) other classic grit routes, a bit of C1 is surely a minor concern.
> So does endless aiding. He's still not clarified how he aided
He says it was clean aid on his 1st reply
to be fair.
The way some folks lead (read dog the shit out of) other classic grit routes, a bit of C1 is surely a minor concern.
5
As an aside, where does aid climbing trad routes fit in the hierarchy of climbing?
Should they, like top ropers, give way to a lead climber for being less superior?
Should they, like top ropers, give way to a lead climber for being less superior?
2
1
In reply to James Malloch:
Classic rock routes.
> As an aside, where does aid climbing trad routes fit in the hierarchy of climbing?
>
Down with the pondweed, way, way below top ropers, but above drytoolers onClassic rock routes.
Post edited at 23:24
2
1
In reply to kez1:
In the name of science, could you go do them again and report back on the 'damage' you have allegedly caused. Don't really see the issue here. You're not taking monster whips.
In the name of science, could you go do them again and report back on the 'damage' you have allegedly caused. Don't really see the issue here. You're not taking monster whips.
To all the armchair warriors who have never aided in their life, there was no damage caused to the rock whatsoever as I said before it was clean aid e.g no pegs just nuts and cams.
London wall was aid climbed long before it was free climbed so why can't I follow in the traditional of the 'original' first ascentionist.
10
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
A bit over the top and almost certainly untrue. I'd be very surprised if anyone could see any difference before and after these ascents. I honestly don't see the problem!
> So what. They both involve cynical trashing of the rock
A bit over the top and almost certainly untrue. I'd be very surprised if anyone could see any difference before and after these ascents. I honestly don't see the problem!
3
In reply to kez1:
Just add the routes to the logbook as clean aid, just like winter routes are in there next to summer variations.
Just add the routes to the logbook as clean aid, just like winter routes are in there next to summer variations.
In reply to TobyA:
That's what I would like to do toby, I can't find an option for this on trad or sport routes though, only on definite aid routes which have not been freed.
Thankyou for all the positive or helpful comments by the way.
That's what I would like to do toby, I can't find an option for this on trad or sport routes though, only on definite aid routes which have not been freed.
Thankyou for all the positive or helpful comments by the way.
4
In reply to kez1:
you have to add it as a new route just like adding any climb missed to a crag. I'd put (clean aid) after the route name. You'll have to see if the crag moderator accepts them - I just noticed some aid variations have been removed on a crag where I've aided routes in the past.
Edit: looks like all aid grades have disappeared from the logbooks, so maybe you can't add them now. Vaguely annoying as it seems some ticks have been erased from my logbook even if it was years ago. :-/
you have to add it as a new route just like adding any climb missed to a crag. I'd put (clean aid) after the route name. You'll have to see if the crag moderator accepts them - I just noticed some aid variations have been removed on a crag where I've aided routes in the past.
Edit: looks like all aid grades have disappeared from the logbooks, so maybe you can't add them now. Vaguely annoying as it seems some ticks have been erased from my logbook even if it was years ago. :-/
Post edited at 08:17
In reply to TobyA:
I remember it used to give you that option, I wish this was still the case. I also aided a sport route at raven tor and don't feel like I earned the 8b+ tick
I log my routes for several reasons,
1. It's satisfying to see your progression
2. I am trying to become an M.I.A so logging climbing is essential.
3. My comments on a route may help someone in the future ( I know other peoples comments have helped me).
I remember it used to give you that option, I wish this was still the case. I also aided a sport route at raven tor and don't feel like I earned the 8b+ tick
I log my routes for several reasons,
1. It's satisfying to see your progression
2. I am trying to become an M.I.A so logging climbing is essential.
3. My comments on a route may help someone in the future ( I know other peoples comments have helped me).
Post edited at 08:25
In reply to kez1:
Because it has been accepted practice in the UK pretty much for ever that, except in specific cases most of which involve in situ gear, ascents should be attempted to be done in the best style that has been achieved. Are you unaware of this?
Very probably your individual ascent left no visible trace but if popular trad routes are repeatedly used for aid practice, is is likely that there will be cumulative damage.
Anyway, I'm never going to do London Wall so it doesn't directly affect me. Think of the kids.....
> To all the armchair warriors who have never aided in their life, there was no damage caused to the rock whatsoever as I said before it was clean aid e.g no pegs just nuts and cams.
> London wall was aid climbed long before it was free climbed so why can't I follow in the traditional of the 'original' first ascentionist.
Because it has been accepted practice in the UK pretty much for ever that, except in specific cases most of which involve in situ gear, ascents should be attempted to be done in the best style that has been achieved. Are you unaware of this?
Very probably your individual ascent left no visible trace but if popular trad routes are repeatedly used for aid practice, is is likely that there will be cumulative damage.
Anyway, I'm never going to do London Wall so it doesn't directly affect me. Think of the kids.....
3
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
In hobnail boots? Who originally turned it from a seam into a pocketed finger crack?
> So what. They both involve cynical trashing of the rock, but apparently this is not a legitimate cause for concern anymore, except for outdated old farts.
In hobnail boots? Who originally turned it from a seam into a pocketed finger crack?
1
In reply to kez1:
If it's purely for practise, then there's no reason you can't stear clear of classics. It's not really going to enhance your MIA logbook if it's full of aid climbs of classic grit routes and raven tor sport climbs, in fact it might even cause you a few awkward questions.
As mentioned above, it might be more beneficial if you did your practise on some of the lesser used quarries or overgrown crags where you'd be doing everyone a favour. Bosley Cloud has some good ones for starters.
If it's purely for practise, then there's no reason you can't stear clear of classics. It's not really going to enhance your MIA logbook if it's full of aid climbs of classic grit routes and raven tor sport climbs, in fact it might even cause you a few awkward questions.
As mentioned above, it might be more beneficial if you did your practise on some of the lesser used quarries or overgrown crags where you'd be doing everyone a favour. Bosley Cloud has some good ones for starters.
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
This is idiotic. Why should I be forced (encouraged, fit the ethics, whatever you want to call it) to solo something because someone else did not value their life? More realistically there is the question of headpoint vs. onsight, but we had another thread on that just recently.
CB
> Because it has been accepted practice in the UK pretty much for ever that, except in specific cases most of which involve in situ gear, ascents should be attempted to be done in the best style that has been achieved. Are you unaware of this?
This is idiotic. Why should I be forced (encouraged, fit the ethics, whatever you want to call it) to solo something because someone else did not value their life? More realistically there is the question of headpoint vs. onsight, but we had another thread on that just recently.
CB
1
1
In reply to ashtond6:
Aid climbers when it was regarded as unsuitable for free climbing and therefore a legitimate place to practise aid climbing.
There's plenty of less controversial places to practise aid climbing.
> In hobnail boots? Who originally turned it from a seam into a pocketed finger crack?
Aid climbers when it was regarded as unsuitable for free climbing and therefore a legitimate place to practise aid climbing.
There's plenty of less controversial places to practise aid climbing.
Post edited at 09:02
1
In reply to cb294:
Who mentioned soloing? It has never been accepted practice that once soloed that should be way everyone should attempt it.
All climbing is "idiotic" but partly because of that it depends on an a broadly accepted set of ethics to give it any meaning. Don't attack me because you think that is an idiotic concept.
The practical rationale is that the more practice is done, or the more metal that is placed, so the more damage is done to the rock.
> This is idiotic. Why should I be forced (encouraged, fit the ethics, whatever you want to call it) to solo something because someone else did not value their life? More realistically there is the question of headpoint vs. onsight, but we had another thread on that just recently.
> CB
Who mentioned soloing? It has never been accepted practice that once soloed that should be way everyone should attempt it.
All climbing is "idiotic" but partly because of that it depends on an a broadly accepted set of ethics to give it any meaning. Don't attack me because you think that is an idiotic concept.
The practical rationale is that the more practice is done, or the more metal that is placed, so the more damage is done to the rock.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I have to restate it because it seems to have gotten lost in the argument, clean aid with nuts and cams taking bodyweight placements is nowhere near as detrimental to the rock as someone trying to onsight/ ground up climb the route and taking lead falls onto gear.
If anyone should be getting stick for damaging the rock it should be the people who try it before they are ready.
I have to restate it because it seems to have gotten lost in the argument, clean aid with nuts and cams taking bodyweight placements is nowhere near as detrimental to the rock as someone trying to onsight/ ground up climb the route and taking lead falls onto gear.
If anyone should be getting stick for damaging the rock it should be the people who try it before they are ready.
2
In reply to kez1:
You need to do a bit of homework before you start throwing the 'armchair warrior' cliché about?
Oh grow up, and stop acting like a petulant teenager. You know full well (or certainly should) that there are many other places far more suitable to practise aid climbing than a major and historically important classic like London Wall.
Next time, why not demonstrate that you're a developing climber, not a fully formed dickhead.
> To all the armchair warriors who have never aided in their life, there was no damage caused to the rock whatsoever as I said before it was clean aid e.g no pegs just nuts and cams.
You need to do a bit of homework before you start throwing the 'armchair warrior' cliché about?
> London wall was aid climbed long before it was free climbed so why can't I follow in the traditional of the 'original' first ascentionist.
Oh grow up, and stop acting like a petulant teenager. You know full well (or certainly should) that there are many other places far more suitable to practise aid climbing than a major and historically important classic like London Wall.
Next time, why not demonstrate that you're a developing climber, not a fully formed dickhead.
2
3
In reply to kez1:
That was covered in the other thread. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=647761
> If anyone should be getting stick for damaging the rock it should be the people who try it before they are ready.
>That was covered in the other thread. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=647761
In reply to Goucho:
Dear Goucho,
What's really the matter?
You seem far more upset than should be normal, this maybe makes me think something else is the problem.
I'm concerned
Dear Goucho,
What's really the matter?
You seem far more upset than should be normal, this maybe makes me think something else is the problem.
I'm concerned
2
In reply to kez1:
Hi Kez1... Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.
Good! I don't think you should and would never suggest that.
OK, but can you see that others do have a problem with it? In which case, seeing as this is just practice, why not just aid climb something not so classic? No reason not to eh? Or do you feel that other people's opinions can be ignored if you don't agree with them?
Completely agree. You shouldn't have to. When the option to put "aid" as an ascent style is added to teh site then you should definitely do that. Until then you have two options - either don't log it, or log it in the nearest style available which is dogged.
Hi Kez1... Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.
> I don't intend to stop aid climbing
Good! I don't think you should and would never suggest that.
> I don't see any problem in ticking classics like London wall.
OK, but can you see that others do have a problem with it? In which case, seeing as this is just practice, why not just aid climb something not so classic? No reason not to eh? Or do you feel that other people's opinions can be ignored if you don't agree with them?
> An aided ascent of the nose would not be classed as dogged or with falls/ rests so why should I log my climb this way when all is required is an extra option for ascent style.
Completely agree. You shouldn't have to. When the option to put "aid" as an ascent style is added to teh site then you should definitely do that. Until then you have two options - either don't log it, or log it in the nearest style available which is dogged.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Several threads ranked the quality ascent from solo onsight best to toprope worst. I appreciate that you may not share this view, hence the question about headpoint vs. onsight.
Why would I not headpoint or even toprope a route I want to climb if it is outside my onsight range? The style of ascent that someone else may have used is does not even come into my decision (whether I stand a chance to do it without destroying the rock does). Any attempt to enforce such a rule, be it by forum posts, is IMO idiotic. Soloists or onsighters do not own the rock, and do not get to decide the rules.
CB
Several threads ranked the quality ascent from solo onsight best to toprope worst. I appreciate that you may not share this view, hence the question about headpoint vs. onsight.
Why would I not headpoint or even toprope a route I want to climb if it is outside my onsight range? The style of ascent that someone else may have used is does not even come into my decision (whether I stand a chance to do it without destroying the rock does). Any attempt to enforce such a rule, be it by forum posts, is IMO idiotic. Soloists or onsighters do not own the rock, and do not get to decide the rules.
CB
In reply to kez1:
Which is true, but misses the point: every single aid attempt causes damage whereas the majority of onsight/ground up attempts on a route do not weight gear. So the genuine attempt which failed is an accepted small risk to the rock. Of course anyone deliberately taking sport style lobs on fragile placements are causing damage also, but they aren't exempt from critiscism either.
> I have to restate it because it seems to have gotten lost in the argument, clean aid with nuts and cams taking bodyweight placements is nowhere near as detrimental to the rock as someone trying to onsight/ ground up climb the route and taking lead falls onto gear.
Which is true, but misses the point: every single aid attempt causes damage whereas the majority of onsight/ground up attempts on a route do not weight gear. So the genuine attempt which failed is an accepted small risk to the rock. Of course anyone deliberately taking sport style lobs on fragile placements are causing damage also, but they aren't exempt from critiscism either.
1
In reply to Phil Anderson:
Thankyou for the constructive post Phil, actually helpful rather than just obnoxious like some others.
I understand that some people might have a problem with aiding classics like London wall, although like I mentioned I can't really understand why as I did not damage the rock in any way.
If it was purely for practice then I would go to some grotty little quarry, but it is also an inspiring line and I actually wanted to make an aid ascent of it.
I understand that logging it as dogged makes sense in a way but I also think that o/s does as resting/ pulling on gear is essential in aiding and I had no previous knowledge of the route, this is why I posted the question.
I log stuff also to remember the dates which they were climbed.
Thankyou for the constructive post Phil, actually helpful rather than just obnoxious like some others.
I understand that some people might have a problem with aiding classics like London wall, although like I mentioned I can't really understand why as I did not damage the rock in any way.
If it was purely for practice then I would go to some grotty little quarry, but it is also an inspiring line and I actually wanted to make an aid ascent of it.
I understand that logging it as dogged makes sense in a way but I also think that o/s does as resting/ pulling on gear is essential in aiding and I had no previous knowledge of the route, this is why I posted the question.
I log stuff also to remember the dates which they were climbed.
3
In reply to cb294:
I think that there is a hierachy of styles but that is not to say that the lower ones should be disqualified.
I don't know why you are trying to divert this thread back to onsighting versus top roping when it is about aiding and particularly the damage aiding can cause to the rock
> Several threads ranked the quality ascent from solo onsight best to toprope worst. I appreciate that you may not share this view, hence the question about headpoint vs. onsight.
>
If you want to understand the basis of climbing ethics then get a copy of "Games Climbers play" (K.Wilson, Diadem) and read the relevant essays in that.I think that there is a hierachy of styles but that is not to say that the lower ones should be disqualified.
I don't know why you are trying to divert this thread back to onsighting versus top roping when it is about aiding and particularly the damage aiding can cause to the rock
In reply to GrahamD:
Having done the route and stripped the gear afterwards I can guarantee that no more damage was done to the rock than by a normal free ascent, not one piece of gear needed a nut key to remove, I see severes damaged more often by beginners who don't know how to place gear correctly and chip away with nut keys to retrieve stuck pieces.
As to the majority of onsight/ ground up attempts not weighting gear, this might be true on a vs but London wall, I think the majority of attempts would involve resting or falling at least once.
Having done the route and stripped the gear afterwards I can guarantee that no more damage was done to the rock than by a normal free ascent, not one piece of gear needed a nut key to remove, I see severes damaged more often by beginners who don't know how to place gear correctly and chip away with nut keys to retrieve stuck pieces.
As to the majority of onsight/ ground up attempts not weighting gear, this might be true on a vs but London wall, I think the majority of attempts would involve resting or falling at least once.
In reply to Postmanpat:
The title of the thread was more ascent options not does aiding damage the rock but nevermind
The title of the thread was more ascent options not does aiding damage the rock but nevermind
In reply to kez1:
Well done, you made it into this week's list of top ascents....
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=648411
Well done, you made it into this week's list of top ascents....
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=648411
3
In reply to kez1:
Yes, strange really.
Incidentally, have you worked out yet why goucho might be a little irritated about being described as an armchair warrior?
> The title of the thread was more ascent options not does aiding damage the rock but nevermind
Yes, strange really.
Incidentally, have you worked out yet why goucho might be a little irritated about being described as an armchair warrior?
Post edited at 10:11
In reply to James Coulson:
This is what bothers me James, I feel like I have taken that place from a better climber who actually can free climb E5+, the same thing happened with my aid ascent of Jehovah kill, this is why I wish ukc had the option to log it as an aid climb
This is what bothers me James, I feel like I have taken that place from a better climber who actually can free climb E5+, the same thing happened with my aid ascent of Jehovah kill, this is why I wish ukc had the option to log it as an aid climb
In reply to GrahamD:
Do they? What - a few grains of rock wearing away under your nut? At least you're not polishing footholds like on a normal ascent. I tried soloing Amazon Crack at Stanage a couple of days ago, the crucial foothold on the crux is polished to sheen from many ascents. Apologies, I had to use it twice, going up and going back down again when I decided I didn't like the top bit of the route where the crack runs out!)
I can see if you turned up ready to try London Wall and there was someone halfway up doing it as a C1 then it would be annoying, and there are plenty of other places you could try aiding, but I don't really think it does more damage than anyone else. I've aided a fair few granite cracks which are free routes and don't think I did any damage at all, indeed winter aid ascents help keep the cracks clean of pine needles and leaf mulch that invariably needs cleaning out each spring once the snow has melted. I know that's not a big issue at Millstone though!
> Which is true, but misses the point: every single aid attempt causes damage
Do they? What - a few grains of rock wearing away under your nut? At least you're not polishing footholds like on a normal ascent. I tried soloing Amazon Crack at Stanage a couple of days ago, the crucial foothold on the crux is polished to sheen from many ascents. Apologies, I had to use it twice, going up and going back down again when I decided I didn't like the top bit of the route where the crack runs out!)
I can see if you turned up ready to try London Wall and there was someone halfway up doing it as a C1 then it would be annoying, and there are plenty of other places you could try aiding, but I don't really think it does more damage than anyone else. I've aided a fair few granite cracks which are free routes and don't think I did any damage at all, indeed winter aid ascents help keep the cracks clean of pine needles and leaf mulch that invariably needs cleaning out each spring once the snow has melted. I know that's not a big issue at Millstone though!
1
In reply to TobyA:
I totally agree, there was no one at the crag that day interested in trying the route so I wasn't inconveniencing anybody. In fact the people at the crag were cheering me on and we were all having a chuckle at the funny squeaking noises I was making.
I totally agree, there was no one at the crag that day interested in trying the route so I wasn't inconveniencing anybody. In fact the people at the crag were cheering me on and we were all having a chuckle at the funny squeaking noises I was making.
In reply to kez1:
Your ability as a psychologist is obviously on par with your aid climbing.
However, instead of trying to wind people up with Kevin & Perry impressions, you could actually use this forum to get some really good informative advice from people who've actually done what you aspire to.
Of course, making sarcastic retorts to them when they point out possible errors in your current approach, isn't the best way to start.
> Dear Goucho,
> What's really the matter?
> You seem far more upset than should be normal, this maybe makes me think something else is the problem.
> I'm concerned
Your ability as a psychologist is obviously on par with your aid climbing.
However, instead of trying to wind people up with Kevin & Perry impressions, you could actually use this forum to get some really good informative advice from people who've actually done what you aspire to.
Of course, making sarcastic retorts to them when they point out possible errors in your current approach, isn't the best way to start.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Because clean aiding does not damage the rock any more than failed lead attempts. Also, AFAIK many Millbank routes were aided first, and only climbed free later on.
As for your reading suggestion, thanks but no thanks. I make my own ethics.
CB
Because clean aiding does not damage the rock any more than failed lead attempts. Also, AFAIK many Millbank routes were aided first, and only climbed free later on.
As for your reading suggestion, thanks but no thanks. I make my own ethics.
CB
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
As far as I'm aware it is also still accepted practice that clean aid on carefully placed gear is ok at Millstone. I was a bit surprised that the OP was immediately dismissed as a troll tbh.
Obviously, *obviously*, gratuitously damaging placements, the placing of pegs etc., is beyond the pale but from that point of view people attempting to lead well protected routes before they're ready, falling repeatedly and dogging the hell out of them is a much more serious problem.
> Because it has been accepted practice in the UK pretty much for ever that, except in specific cases most of which involve in situ gear, ascents should be attempted to be done in the best style that has been achieved. Are you unaware of this?
As far as I'm aware it is also still accepted practice that clean aid on carefully placed gear is ok at Millstone. I was a bit surprised that the OP was immediately dismissed as a troll tbh.
Obviously, *obviously*, gratuitously damaging placements, the placing of pegs etc., is beyond the pale but from that point of view people attempting to lead well protected routes before they're ready, falling repeatedly and dogging the hell out of them is a much more serious problem.
3
In reply to cb294:
The latter is a completely irrelevant point.
> Because clean aiding does not damage the rock any more than failed lead attempts. Also, AFAIK many Millbank routes were aided first, and only climbed free later on.
>The latter is a completely irrelevant point.
> As for your reading suggestion, thanks but no thanks. I make my own ethics.
>
How self centred. >
In reply to Goucho:
I was trying to get informative advice but people like yourself insist on taking the thread onto a different tangent.
If you hadn't noticed I reply positively to people who post constructive comments, however when I get called a dickhead for asking a question how do you expect me to respond?
I was trying to get informative advice but people like yourself insist on taking the thread onto a different tangent.
If you hadn't noticed I reply positively to people who post constructive comments, however when I get called a dickhead for asking a question how do you expect me to respond?
In reply to cb294:
Big man!
> As for your reading suggestion, thanks but no thanks. I make my own ethics.
> CB
Big man!
In reply to kez1:
By not continuing to be a dickhead.
> I was trying to get informative advice but people like yourself insist on taking the thread onto a different tangent.
> If you hadn't noticed I reply positively to people who post constructive comments, however when I get called a dickhead for asking a question how do you expect me to respond?
By not continuing to be a dickhead.
6
In reply to Goucho:
Maybe you should take your own advice instead of trying to give unwanted advice and trolling a thread where someone is trying to get something accomplished
Maybe you should take your own advice instead of trying to give unwanted advice and trolling a thread where someone is trying to get something accomplished
In reply to deepsoup:
It is therefore particularly important that, like Harrisons rocks, people are especially careful about how they treat it. It's all very well for each individual to say that their ascent caused no damage but cumulatively damage is caused. An expert at clean aid will probably do very little harm, but if his/her activities provide licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry to practise their poor placement technique then damage is inevitable.
> As far as I'm aware it is also still accepted practice that clean aid on carefully placed gear is ok at Millstone. I was a bit surprised that the OP was immediately dismissed as a troll tbh.
>
Maybe that is the case in which case so be it. But it still seems to me to be unwise. Millstone is one of the most popular and well used, not to mention worn, crags in the country. As such it is especially vulnerable to erosion from the sheer pressure of numbers.It is therefore particularly important that, like Harrisons rocks, people are especially careful about how they treat it. It's all very well for each individual to say that their ascent caused no damage but cumulatively damage is caused. An expert at clean aid will probably do very little harm, but if his/her activities provide licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry to practise their poor placement technique then damage is inevitable.
1
In reply to Goucho:
Why the snide comment? Setting your own rules and living by them is something much more essential than just deciding your style of climbing. This does of course not exclude listening to the expectations of others /society, traditions, etc.
However, taking all this into account you then have to decide about the rules by which you live. Every adult should always take full responsibility for all their actions.
Thus, should I then fall foul of what society expects of me (which I may or may not have taken into account), it is because of my deliberate choice, and I will have to face the consequences.
Saying a book or preacher told me to do something is a cheap excuse, be it climbing styles or anything else.
As for this discussion, if you need to learn not to thrash a rock from a book or a forum post you have problems beyond your climbing. Conversely, if you follow all "rules" uncritically without forming your own opinion and taking responsibility for your actions, you simply have a different problem.
With respect to climbing styles, I therefore do not take into account which style was used by someone else to climb a specific route, but of course will avoid damage, route hogging, etc...
Moving away from the climbing issue, many problems in our modern societies IMO stem form the fact that people tend to take less and less responsibility for their actions (yes it is also my car that contributes to climate change!).
CB
Why the snide comment? Setting your own rules and living by them is something much more essential than just deciding your style of climbing. This does of course not exclude listening to the expectations of others /society, traditions, etc.
However, taking all this into account you then have to decide about the rules by which you live. Every adult should always take full responsibility for all their actions.
Thus, should I then fall foul of what society expects of me (which I may or may not have taken into account), it is because of my deliberate choice, and I will have to face the consequences.
Saying a book or preacher told me to do something is a cheap excuse, be it climbing styles or anything else.
As for this discussion, if you need to learn not to thrash a rock from a book or a forum post you have problems beyond your climbing. Conversely, if you follow all "rules" uncritically without forming your own opinion and taking responsibility for your actions, you simply have a different problem.
With respect to climbing styles, I therefore do not take into account which style was used by someone else to climb a specific route, but of course will avoid damage, route hogging, etc...
Moving away from the climbing issue, many problems in our modern societies IMO stem form the fact that people tend to take less and less responsibility for their actions (yes it is also my car that contributes to climate change!).
CB
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not really, as finger locks are all old pin scars....
See my reply to Gouche, this is about more than climbing.
CB
Not really, as finger locks are all old pin scars....
See my reply to Gouche, this is about more than climbing.
CB
In reply to kez1:
+1 for your proposed new feature. It may be worth you attempting to log these as new routes as someone has already mentioned. However, you may also find that they mysteriously disappear from the log book soon after creation.
+1 for your proposed new feature. It may be worth you attempting to log these as new routes as someone has already mentioned. However, you may also find that they mysteriously disappear from the log book soon after creation.
1
In reply to cb294:
> Why the snide comment? Setting your own rules and living by them is something much more essential than just deciding your style of climbing. This does of course not exclude listening to the expectations of others /society, traditions, etc.
>
All the more curious that you should dismiss the idea of reading the best known essays on the traditions and rationale behind the ethics. Do you not think that your own rules may be more valid if they are made in the context of the considered understanding of others about the basis for existing ethics? In reply to everyone:
What would you do in this scenario?
You turn up at Millstone, and there is someone in a hammock, reading a book. The hammock is suspended from a rope tied to a tree at the top of the crag.
His hammock happens to be blocking two classic rock routes, so you enter into a discussion with him, as you are planning to climb said routes.
He refuses to move. He says he was there first. He's no interest or knowledge of climbers, climbing, ethics or climbing history. He's never seen a guidebook, or heard of UKC. He says his passion is reading his book in his hammock all day in scary places.
What would you do in this scenario?
You turn up at Millstone, and there is someone in a hammock, reading a book. The hammock is suspended from a rope tied to a tree at the top of the crag.
His hammock happens to be blocking two classic rock routes, so you enter into a discussion with him, as you are planning to climb said routes.
He refuses to move. He says he was there first. He's no interest or knowledge of climbers, climbing, ethics or climbing history. He's never seen a guidebook, or heard of UKC. He says his passion is reading his book in his hammock all day in scary places.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Southern Sandstone seems like a bit of straw man to bring up here! No one leads there, let alone aid climbs.
I did a starred vdiff at Millstone a few weeks ago that was chocked in vegetation - not sure all the crag is that over used. I was back last night, but only picking bilberries - got a couple of litres of them in maybe half an hour of picking!
My clean aiding in Britain was done on starred routes at Dumby. I remember the boulderers being intrigued more than anything else, but I never did make it to Yosemite to try out my mad aiding skillz for realz.
> It is therefore particularly important that, like Harrisons rocks,
Southern Sandstone seems like a bit of straw man to bring up here! No one leads there, let alone aid climbs.
I did a starred vdiff at Millstone a few weeks ago that was chocked in vegetation - not sure all the crag is that over used. I was back last night, but only picking bilberries - got a couple of litres of them in maybe half an hour of picking!
My clean aiding in Britain was done on starred routes at Dumby. I remember the boulderers being intrigued more than anything else, but I never did make it to Yosemite to try out my mad aiding skillz for realz.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Quite agree. You second point there applies equally to free climbing of course. The cam placement on Topsail just over the way at Birchen is the one most often cited here - it's horribly eroded and getting worse, but loads of folk still use it even though there's a perfect wire placement just below. And it's *still* common enough to see groups top-roping on the grit with a ton of gear but apparently no space to carry a bit of carpet and wipe the grit off their shoes before they set off up a route.
I agree, but can't really see that happening tbh. Aid climbing is pretty niche these days.
Purely from my own second-hand experience, there seems to be something of a tradition of Sheffield climbers heading out to Millstone to refine their clean aid technique prior to a trip to Yosemite. The folks I know who've done that were all pretty experienced (as you would tend to be, to be heading over to the US with big wall ambitions).
London Wall in particular does seem to be a bit of a rite of passage from that point of view, it isn't hard to see the appeal, but I'd be willing to make a small bet that every wire placement on LW has been fallen on more often by a free climber than it's been weighted by an aid climber.
> It is therefore particularly important that, like Harrisons rocks, people are especially careful about how they treat it. It's all very well for each individual to say that their ascent caused no damage but cumulatively damage is caused.
Quite agree. You second point there applies equally to free climbing of course. The cam placement on Topsail just over the way at Birchen is the one most often cited here - it's horribly eroded and getting worse, but loads of folk still use it even though there's a perfect wire placement just below. And it's *still* common enough to see groups top-roping on the grit with a ton of gear but apparently no space to carry a bit of carpet and wipe the grit off their shoes before they set off up a route.
> An expert at clean aid will probably do very little harm, but if his/her activities provide licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry to practise their poor placement technique then damage is inevitable.
I agree, but can't really see that happening tbh. Aid climbing is pretty niche these days.
Purely from my own second-hand experience, there seems to be something of a tradition of Sheffield climbers heading out to Millstone to refine their clean aid technique prior to a trip to Yosemite. The folks I know who've done that were all pretty experienced (as you would tend to be, to be heading over to the US with big wall ambitions).
London Wall in particular does seem to be a bit of a rite of passage from that point of view, it isn't hard to see the appeal, but I'd be willing to make a small bet that every wire placement on LW has been fallen on more often by a free climber than it's been weighted by an aid climber.
2
In reply to kez1:
If people really cared about protecting the classics, then nobody would ever climb them more than once to prevent polishing them. How many people here have done solo laps on classic routes (I have certainly heard of it), fallen off on classic rocks (potentially damaging gear placements) or otherwise climbed the same route multiple times?
If you aren't damaging the rock (at least no more than a free ascent), then who cares. Obviously some things are not OK - skyhooks on soft rock (probably even grit I guess)? Granite is presumably the best choice for aid practice but obviously a bit of a trek for many people in the UK...
If people really cared about protecting the classics, then nobody would ever climb them more than once to prevent polishing them. How many people here have done solo laps on classic routes (I have certainly heard of it), fallen off on classic rocks (potentially damaging gear placements) or otherwise climbed the same route multiple times?
If you aren't damaging the rock (at least no more than a free ascent), then who cares. Obviously some things are not OK - skyhooks on soft rock (probably even grit I guess)? Granite is presumably the best choice for aid practice but obviously a bit of a trek for many people in the UK...
1
In reply to Fredt:
My first thought would be to wonder how on earth I've never noticed that tree before.
Your scenario would be more fun if it was a couple of prospective big-wall climbers on a portaledge, brewing up some strong coffee and getting ready to have a practice with their poop-tube.
> You turn up at Millstone, and there is someone in a hammock, reading a book. The hammock is suspended from a rope tied to a tree at the top of the crag.
My first thought would be to wonder how on earth I've never noticed that tree before.
Your scenario would be more fun if it was a couple of prospective big-wall climbers on a portaledge, brewing up some strong coffee and getting ready to have a practice with their poop-tube.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I agree with this statement that we need to treat the rock with care but I feel more damage is caused by groups of novices toproping in trainers or dirty climbing shoes trying to peddle their way up classic routes ruining the rock and creating polish.
Therefore it is important for groups to be considerate and the instructors to take responsibility for teaching their novices about the environmental issues and make sure they don't go to high traffic crags if possible.
How about we just place bolts, then none of the placements will ever get damaged and preserve the route forever...
Properly placed gear doesn't ruin the rock other factors are more detrimental (see above). As said before on this thread it's when you get a novice on a severe bashing and hacking at the rock to remove a nut they misplaced is when the damage is caused.
I digress, once again this has become a mud slinging match over a simple question over whether there should be an aided ascent option on trad climbs (classic or not) and I think there should be, as it is just as legitimate an ascent as someone dogging their way up the route.
> Maybe that is the case in which case so be it. But it still seems to me to be unwise. Millstone is one of the most popular and well used, not to mention worn, crags in the country. As such it is especially vulnerable to erosion from the sheer pressure of numbers.
I agree with this statement that we need to treat the rock with care but I feel more damage is caused by groups of novices toproping in trainers or dirty climbing shoes trying to peddle their way up classic routes ruining the rock and creating polish.
Therefore it is important for groups to be considerate and the instructors to take responsibility for teaching their novices about the environmental issues and make sure they don't go to high traffic crags if possible.
> It is therefore particularly important that, like Harrisons rocks, people are especially careful about how they treat it. It's all very well for each individual to say that their ascent caused no damage but cumulatively damage is caused. An expert at clean aid will probably do very little harm, but if his/her activities provide licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry to practise their poor placement technique then damage is inevitable.
How about we just place bolts, then none of the placements will ever get damaged and preserve the route forever...
Properly placed gear doesn't ruin the rock other factors are more detrimental (see above). As said before on this thread it's when you get a novice on a severe bashing and hacking at the rock to remove a nut they misplaced is when the damage is caused.
I digress, once again this has become a mud slinging match over a simple question over whether there should be an aided ascent option on trad climbs (classic or not) and I think there should be, as it is just as legitimate an ascent as someone dogging their way up the route.
1
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Which makes the unwarranted assumption that dogging ie.working a trad route is legitimate.
Essentially the argument seems to be that since lots of things trash the rock let's just do them all.
> I digress, once again this has become a mud slinging match over a simple question over whether there should be an aided ascent option on trad climbs (classic or not) and I think there should be, as it is just as legitimate an ascent as someone dogging their way up the route.
>Which makes the unwarranted assumption that dogging ie.working a trad route is legitimate.
Essentially the argument seems to be that since lots of things trash the rock let's just do them all.
In reply to TobyA:
> Southern Sandstone seems like a bit of straw man to bring up here! No one leads there, let alone aid climbs.
>
The comparison is that both places are popular and vulnerable and thus, at Harrisons at least, special practices have been introduced to avoid the damage caused by existing practices.In reply to Postmanpat:
Sorry wrong wording, what I meant is Ukc has options for dog and headpoint so why not aid...
For one you are completely missing the point of this thread, and secondly if you actually read my post you would understand that I too want to preserve the rock...
> Which makes the unwarranted assumption that dogging ie.working a trad route is legitimate.
Sorry wrong wording, what I meant is Ukc has options for dog and headpoint so why not aid...
> Essentially the argument seems to be that since lots of things trash the rock let's just do them all.
For one you are completely missing the point of this thread, and secondly if you actually read my post you would understand that I too want to preserve the rock...
In reply to Postmanpat:
Obviously sarcasm doesn't translate well because I don't actually believe we should place bolts! I was just making the assumption that under some arguments here placing gear makes more damage so why not reduce the damage by placing bolts...
Obviously sarcasm doesn't translate well because I don't actually believe we should place bolts! I was just making the assumption that under some arguments here placing gear makes more damage so why not reduce the damage by placing bolts...
In reply to dinodinosaur:
I know you want to preserve the rock and that you don't seriously want to bolt it.But if you think that an "aid" option should be added you presumably think that aiding is legitimate, and also think that dogging ie.working the route to death, is legitimate, despite the damge they do to the rock?
> Sorry wrong wording, what I meant is Ukc has options for dog and headpoint so why not aid...
> For one you are completely missing the point of this thread, and secondly if you actually read my post you would understand that I too want to preserve the rock...
I know you want to preserve the rock and that you don't seriously want to bolt it.But if you think that an "aid" option should be added you presumably think that aiding is legitimate, and also think that dogging ie.working the route to death, is legitimate, despite the damge they do to the rock?
In reply to all:
Back to the topic at hand if no one minds. Should there be an option to tick trad/ sport routes as aid climbs? Yes or no?
Back to the topic at hand if no one minds. Should there be an option to tick trad/ sport routes as aid climbs? Yes or no?
3
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Like I said before I didn't mean legitimate, I meant that because you can log dogged and headpoint why not aid.
Shall we just remove the option for dog, ground up and headpoint from ukc? Only clean o/s or solos allowed here... Because obviously if there is an option for it on ukc that means everyone is going to do it :')
The difference between aiding and working a route to death is aiding takes one attempt and working a route to death assumes multiple goes peddling feet all over the rock, a clean aid is no more damaging than a clean onsight
Like I said before I didn't mean legitimate, I meant that because you can log dogged and headpoint why not aid.
Shall we just remove the option for dog, ground up and headpoint from ukc? Only clean o/s or solos allowed here... Because obviously if there is an option for it on ukc that means everyone is going to do it :')
The difference between aiding and working a route to death is aiding takes one attempt and working a route to death assumes multiple goes peddling feet all over the rock, a clean aid is no more damaging than a clean onsight
Post edited at 13:08
1
In reply to kez1:
Yes please.
> Back to the topic at hand if no one minds. Should there be an option to tick trad/ sport routes as aid climbs? Yes or no?
Yes please.
2
In reply to kez1:
Very good!
8/10?
> Back to the topic at hand if no one minds. Should there be an option to tick trad/ sport routes as aid climbs? Yes or no?
Very good!
8/10?
In reply to kez1:
If there is a demand for it, I don't see why not...
I don't think UKC logging options should be the arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable. Plus if people are aiding fragile routes, better to know this by looking at the logbook...
If there is a demand for it, I don't see why not...
I don't think UKC logging options should be the arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable. Plus if people are aiding fragile routes, better to know this by looking at the logbook...
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...