In reply to buzby78:
Well now, at least you're asking!
I can see the merits in the idea given the route has significantly changed. The way I see it:
Pros:
+ This is definitely a different issue to last time's attempted retro-bolting of unchanged routes.
+ Wally 3 currently could be unappealingly dangerous i.e. un-fall-off-able at the start which although not a reason to bolt anything in itself does mean it is a bit out of character with even the other bolder routes in the quarry, and is an inferior proposition to what it previously was.
Cons:
- It should still be climbable at a reasonable standard i.e. E5 is within the reach of many Central Belt climbers.
- The route will stay clean and dry due to it's position on that "always in condition" wall, so it won't suffer too much from neglect even if it gets climbed less.
- It may still be a reasonable proposition at the start - like Wally 2 which someone claimed was "effectively a solo", which is definitely isn't and is tameable with a bit of nouse. It needs further inspection just in case.
- It's unclear what will happen to the project up the middle of the new wall and how bolts would interfere with that.
- It's likely to start the wedge thickening again, the entire wall is going to start looking rather well bolted and people are going to start looking for more excuses to add bolts (simply because that is the undeniable trend in modern climbing).
I would say no for the reasons given, but unlike last time there is actually a reason to do it given how much the route is changed (more so than how Strongarm has changed). It's certainly worth further discussion (and seeing if anything happens to the project up the middle)
Post edited at 13:14