UKC

Does anyone here reduce the length of the inside and outside crampon points , i.e. all the points but not the front three/four. I was chatting to the owner of a well known climbing shop who was telling me that he always reduces the length of his points. I can see that it would be a bit more stable when you're walking over rocks but just wondered if anyone does that and your experience of it. Thanks

In reply to Nadir khan:

Just use them in the UK and that will soon enough happen!

But more seriously, no. Can't see any real need to either after 20+ years of using crampons in various different environments. Some crampons have slightly shorter points underfoot anyway (indeed some have REALLY short points! http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=6227 ).

In reply to Nadir khan:

Nope. Never shortened the underfoot crampon points, and never actually needed to.

Maybe there is a theoretical argument for short points when walking over rocky ground - but wouldn't you take them off here?

What about a descent that alternates between rock and ice? I've not felt need for shorter points and can't see that they would give any advantage.

It's possible to get crampons with fewer underneath points such as the G20. Some users report less stability due to the missing middle points under the sole. How does this fit with the short points argument?

I'd be interested in a more reasoned justification for shortening these points

In reply to Nadir khan:
It used to be normal for some 'rich' climbers to file down their new crampons for mixed routes though most just used their old worn crampons for mixed.
I could tell you a story about a leading mixed climber in the 1990's refusing to lead the easy Grade 2 approach after he'd filled down the points on his brand new Camp Ice Treks a little too much
If doing a lot of walking on glaciers or scrambling on rocky ground I prefer using crampons such as the Grivel Airtech or old worn down G12's as it's much less tiring....