This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Doing Wuthering tomorrow anybody any do's and dont's ????
stretch your legs out BEFORE leaving the ground.
In reply to Tazbrowne:
When you top out, you can walk along the ledge back towards the arete and place a cam to protect the second coming round the corner because the swing is much worse for a second - they have to commit in the chimney after they've taken the high gear out whereas for you, its like you're on top rope.
Alternatively, get them to leave the high gear in in the chimney so it acts as a backrope. Obviously you'll need to ab for it after.
Brilliant route, have fun.
When you top out, you can walk along the ledge back towards the arete and place a cam to protect the second coming round the corner because the swing is much worse for a second - they have to commit in the chimney after they've taken the high gear out whereas for you, its like you're on top rope.
Alternatively, get them to leave the high gear in in the chimney so it acts as a backrope. Obviously you'll need to ab for it after.
Brilliant route, have fun.
In reply to Nic Robinson: Yes, you're completely right. Pure, clean on-sighting on trad is the only type of climbing anyone is allowed to do... at all... ever.
In reply to jonny2vests:
Ab for it? I'm sure most who could lead Wuthering could get it out without the faff of an abseil. Is the chimney even Diff above the chockstone via the southern cleft?
Ab for it? I'm sure most who could lead Wuthering could get it out without the faff of an abseil. Is the chimney even Diff above the chockstone via the southern cleft?
In reply to Offwidth:
Pedant
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> Ab for it? I'm sure most who could lead Wuthering could get it out without the faff of an abseil. Is the chimney even Diff above the chockstone via the southern cleft?
>
> Ab for it? I'm sure most who could lead Wuthering could get it out without the faff of an abseil. Is the chimney even Diff above the chockstone via the southern cleft?
Pedant
In reply to Tazbrowne:
The cool way to do it is to take just three bits of gear - a 1.2m sling (still prefer "8 foot"), something for the belay, and a #4 rock for the pocket.
Or was it a #5 rock...
The last move ids the hardest, the span isn't really that much of an issue.
The cool way to do it is to take just three bits of gear - a 1.2m sling (still prefer "8 foot"), something for the belay, and a #4 rock for the pocket.
Or was it a #5 rock...
The last move ids the hardest, the span isn't really that much of an issue.
In reply to Pylon King:
I don't get the 'pedant' comment, what offwidth says seems reasonable, it would be quite easy to retrieve a high runner from below.
I seconded the route and i don't remember the swing potential being too bad (double ropes, I didn't have much choice as my leader didn't place a high runner. Great route even though it took a while to recover from doing the splits!
I don't get the 'pedant' comment, what offwidth says seems reasonable, it would be quite easy to retrieve a high runner from below.
I seconded the route and i don't remember the swing potential being too bad (double ropes, I didn't have much choice as my leader didn't place a high runner. Great route even though it took a while to recover from doing the splits!
In reply to Tazbrowne: There's another rope-work trick that no one's mentioned: LH rope through a low runner before you set off to curtail potential swing from the traverse. Not sure if it would actually work and you really shouldn't be falling off that bit. I wonder if you used it?
In reply to Offwidth:
Ab for it, solo for it, whatever. Just don't leave there it for some Trenty pikey.
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> Ab for it? I'm sure most who could lead Wuthering could get it out without the faff of an abseil. Is the chimney even Diff above the chockstone via the southern cleft?
>
> Ab for it? I'm sure most who could lead Wuthering could get it out without the faff of an abseil. Is the chimney even Diff above the chockstone via the southern cleft?
Ab for it, solo for it, whatever. Just don't leave there it for some Trenty pikey.
In reply to Shaw Brown:
Once you take the sling off the chockstone, if you fluff the step across, you're all the way round to the gear under the pocket (round an arete). Thats a fairly decent swing.
I've never seconded it. I daren't.
> (In reply to Pylon King)
>
> I don't get the 'pedant' comment, what offwidth says seems reasonable, it would be quite easy to retrieve a high runner from below.
>
> I seconded the route and i don't remember the swing potential being too bad
>
> I don't get the 'pedant' comment, what offwidth says seems reasonable, it would be quite easy to retrieve a high runner from below.
>
> I seconded the route and i don't remember the swing potential being too bad
Once you take the sling off the chockstone, if you fluff the step across, you're all the way round to the gear under the pocket (round an arete). Thats a fairly decent swing.
I've never seconded it. I daren't.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Ay? How will that help leader or second?
> (In reply to Tazbrowne) There's another rope-work trick that no one's mentioned: LH rope through a low runner before you set off
Ay? How will that help leader or second?
In reply to jonny2vests: Have the LH rope running from way over on the left - runner somewhere in the boulders on the ground. Should the leader fall from the face, this might stop'em swinging into the RH wall of the chimney.
In reply to Tazbrowne:
Presumably you had a good day and can now share your experience?
Presumably you had a good day and can now share your experience?
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Ahhh. Sounds a bit gay. I'd do it on The Swan though, yikes!
> (In reply to jonny2vests) Have the LH rope running from way over on the left - runner somewhere in the boulders on the ground. Should the leader fall from the face, this might stop'em swinging into the RH wall of the chimney.
Ahhh. Sounds a bit gay. I'd do it on The Swan though, yikes!
In reply to jonny2vests: One could quite easily argue that the chockstone runner is also a bit gay. Making the whole route a bit gay?
Don't get me wrong, it's cool route, but it's pretty stupid and arbitrary. First time I did it, I went too high in the chimney, following Premier. Then I traversed to the slot on really crap holds, which was scary and similarly arbitrary. A bit harder than the original as the unprotected traverse is the crux (plus I had horrendous rope drag around the arete and no gay LH rope - all round a seriously bungled attempt).
Don't get me wrong, it's cool route, but it's pretty stupid and arbitrary. First time I did it, I went too high in the chimney, following Premier. Then I traversed to the slot on really crap holds, which was scary and similarly arbitrary. A bit harder than the original as the unprotected traverse is the crux (plus I had horrendous rope drag around the arete and no gay LH rope - all round a seriously bungled attempt).
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think its better to tie the belayer down on the left to cut any swing (or have two belayers). I can't see what j2v is worried about seconding it, as with sensible belaying at the top and twin ropes you are going nowhere much if you fall off seconding.
As for arbitrary: its the easiest way to access the lovely exposed climbing on the fine hanging face. The moves out to the face are also pretty unique at the grade. There are numerous harder variations based on Premier (which itself is a good line that deserves more traffic despite being elliminate in nature).
I think its better to tie the belayer down on the left to cut any swing (or have two belayers). I can't see what j2v is worried about seconding it, as with sensible belaying at the top and twin ropes you are going nowhere much if you fall off seconding.
As for arbitrary: its the easiest way to access the lovely exposed climbing on the fine hanging face. The moves out to the face are also pretty unique at the grade. There are numerous harder variations based on Premier (which itself is a good line that deserves more traffic despite being elliminate in nature).
In reply to Offwidth: I wonder what j2v will have to say about two belayers!? If the low runner is 'gay' a second belayer must be some sort of extreme BDSM obsessive?! (I mean, the concept of the belayer, rather than the belayer themselves; not that it matters if they are, of course, each to their own...oh never mind).
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Sounds like the climbing equivalent of dogging (the kind of dogging that involves poorly lit lay-bys that is).
> (In reply to Offwidth) I wonder what j2v will have to say about two belayers!? If the low runner is 'gay' a second belayer must be some sort of extreme BDSM obsessive?!
Sounds like the climbing equivalent of dogging (the kind of dogging that involves poorly lit lay-bys that is).
In reply to Offwidth:
Worried is probably a bit strong tbh. But I guess it depends how the leader plays it. Thats a long stride for my little legs, and it would be reasonably exciting to come off.
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> I think its better to tie the belayer down on the left to cut any swing (or have two belayers). I can't see what j2v is worried about seconding it
>
> I think its better to tie the belayer down on the left to cut any swing (or have two belayers). I can't see what j2v is worried about seconding it
Worried is probably a bit strong tbh. But I guess it depends how the leader plays it. Thats a long stride for my little legs, and it would be reasonably exciting to come off.
In reply to Offwidth:
Worried is probably a bit strong tbh. But I guess it depends how the leader plays it. Thats a long stride for my little legs, and it would be reasonably exciting to come off.
I'm preparing my self to be impressed when you tell me you've done this.
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> I think its better to tie the belayer down on the left to cut any swing (or have two belayers). I can't see what j2v is worried about seconding it
>
> I think its better to tie the belayer down on the left to cut any swing (or have two belayers). I can't see what j2v is worried about seconding it
Worried is probably a bit strong tbh. But I guess it depends how the leader plays it. Thats a long stride for my little legs, and it would be reasonably exciting to come off.
> It's also a great solo (and a very impressive one onsight
I'm preparing my self to be impressed when you tell me you've done this.
In reply to JJL:
Yes, got just two pieces in, a long sling for the start and the wrong size (shudder! I hadn't got the right size) rock in a pocket. The whole route is a bit of a dwarf's nightmare. I remember reaching for the finish thinking, "For f*ck's sake, don't blow this!"
Mick
> (In reply to Tazbrowne)
> The cool way to do it is to take just three bits of gear - a 1.2m sling (still prefer "8 foot"), something for the belay, and a #4 rock for the pocket.
Yes, got just two pieces in, a long sling for the start and the wrong size (shudder! I hadn't got the right size) rock in a pocket. The whole route is a bit of a dwarf's nightmare. I remember reaching for the finish thinking, "For f*ck's sake, don't blow this!"
Mick
In reply to jonny2vests:
I have soloed a few times (lanky git). I know a little trick for the wide bridging at the start mind!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=81795
Chris
>
>
> I'm preparing my self to be impressed when you tell me you've done this.
>
> I'm preparing my self to be impressed when you tell me you've done this.
I have soloed a few times (lanky git). I know a little trick for the wide bridging at the start mind!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=81795
Chris
In reply to jonny2vests:
I'm not quite strong enough to consider a headpoint solo. There is a way of climbing onto the face that reduces the bridging and with less risk of barndooring that I can't quite reliably do. It makes it soloable for the less long in leg who can trust themselves on hard 5c. You should be fine if you suss it as the face moves are pretty easy.
I'm not quite strong enough to consider a headpoint solo. There is a way of climbing onto the face that reduces the bridging and with less risk of barndooring that I can't quite reliably do. It makes it soloable for the less long in leg who can trust themselves on hard 5c. You should be fine if you suss it as the face moves are pretty easy.
In reply to Offwidth:
I led it onsight so I know what its like. I think the top moves would scare me more than the chimney bit on a solo.
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> I'm not quite strong enough to consider a headpoint solo. There is a way of climbing onto the face that reduces the bridging and with less risk of barndooring that I can't quite reliably do. It makes it soloable for the less long in leg who can trust themselves on hard 5c. You should be fine if you suss it as the face moves are pretty easy.
>
> I'm not quite strong enough to consider a headpoint solo. There is a way of climbing onto the face that reduces the bridging and with less risk of barndooring that I can't quite reliably do. It makes it soloable for the less long in leg who can trust themselves on hard 5c. You should be fine if you suss it as the face moves are pretty easy.
I led it onsight so I know what its like. I think the top moves would scare me more than the chimney bit on a solo.
In reply to jonny2vests:
Onsight worries maybe but not when you are breezing 5a slab moves and have prepracticed and know how easy and secure they are. That slab looks terrifying onsight but there are hidden delights if you stay calm and explore. On the easiest method of gaining the face I'm really stretching my tendons on the bridging and can barn door.
Onsight worries maybe but not when you are breezing 5a slab moves and have prepracticed and know how easy and secure they are. That slab looks terrifying onsight but there are hidden delights if you stay calm and explore. On the easiest method of gaining the face I'm really stretching my tendons on the bridging and can barn door.
In reply to Offwidth:
The face moves also seemed height-dependent to me, in the sense that the tall would be able to stand in breaks, reach the next breaks and have a feel around, before moving up. The short (moi!) had to move up, hoping they'd got the break in the right place, with no chance of moving back down again - unless ably assisted by gravity!
A great route though and, like Vector, superlative naming, capturing the romance of superbly positioned committing grit. That chap Drummond...
Mick
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> You should be fine if you suss it as the face moves are pretty easy.
>
> You should be fine if you suss it as the face moves are pretty easy.
The face moves also seemed height-dependent to me, in the sense that the tall would be able to stand in breaks, reach the next breaks and have a feel around, before moving up. The short (moi!) had to move up, hoping they'd got the break in the right place, with no chance of moving back down again - unless ably assisted by gravity!
A great route though and, like Vector, superlative naming, capturing the romance of superbly positioned committing grit. That chap Drummond...
Mick
In reply to Tazbrowne:
I ended up going too far on the traverse, probably because it's easy and I just kept going rather than committing upwards so don't do that!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=61719
I found the last moves are hardest and the bridging more straightforward. The gear's bomber - once you get there.
I ended up going too far on the traverse, probably because it's easy and I just kept going rather than committing upwards so don't do that!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=61719
I found the last moves are hardest and the bridging more straightforward. The gear's bomber - once you get there.
In reply to Mick Ward:
Thats exactly how I remember it. My taller mate skipped up the final moves.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
>
> The face moves also seemed height-dependent to me, in the sense that the tall would be able to stand in breaks, reach the next breaks and have a feel around, before moving up. The short (moi!) had to move up, hoping they'd got the break in the right place, with no chance of moving back down again - unless ably assisted by gravity!
> [...]
>
> The face moves also seemed height-dependent to me, in the sense that the tall would be able to stand in breaks, reach the next breaks and have a feel around, before moving up. The short (moi!) had to move up, hoping they'd got the break in the right place, with no chance of moving back down again - unless ably assisted by gravity!
Thats exactly how I remember it. My taller mate skipped up the final moves.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
It looks a bit like you pole-vaulted it!
> I have soloed a few times (lanky git). I know a little trick for the wide bridging at the start mind!
>
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=81795
>
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=81795
It looks a bit like you pole-vaulted it!
In reply to PeteH:
The old stiffened rope trick.
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> [...]
>
> It looks a bit like you pole-vaulted it!
> [...]
>
> It looks a bit like you pole-vaulted it!
The old stiffened rope trick.
In reply to Tazbrowne: did you get on it then? i was on it on saturday and didnt see anyone else on it. i thought the scaryist bit was the move onto the face after the wide chimneying.
also i got a small cam in the break aswell as a nut. think it was a metolious purple master cam. possibly the blue one.
The second shat him self as he was looking at the mother of all swings very close to a large lump of rock.
also i got a small cam in the break aswell as a nut. think it was a metolious purple master cam. possibly the blue one.
The second shat him self as he was looking at the mother of all swings very close to a large lump of rock.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...