UKC

Anybody else feel as though bouldering guides have really missed a trick in not mentioning how good or bad the landings are? I can't help but feel it would be a really useful addition to them, especially if you're out on your own, as I've lost count of the number of times that i have gone to try a problem only to find the landing is a 45 degree slope, pointy boulder, step, tree or other undesirable which rather precludes the possibility of falling off.

I can't help but think it would be a huge benefit for very little additional work whilst writing a guide even just to give a rough number of pads to get a flat(ish) landing.

In reply to JamieSparkes:

Hi Jamie

I can only speak for Rockfax so ...

This information is usually included on a buttress/boulder level yellow box text and significant highballs are usually marked with a heart flutter.

To do on a problem level would add lots of rather boring extra text and also be a little too prescriptive in my opinion. Cli,bears should make their own judgement about this sort of thing.

To suggest the number of pads is a complete non-starter. That would be far to prescriptive and dangerous since you would have to make all sorts of assumptions that might not apply. We would never do this for the same reason that we stopped including the number of bolts on routes back in 2000 and dropped route lengths from sport routes in 2009.

Having said all that, we are happy to receive feedback about locations where we may had strung people along a bit in the belief that the problems are safe when in fact they are a bit highball.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

My apologies if this is an ignorant question, but why is dropping bolt numbers and route lengths from sport routes prescriptive and dangerous? I'd have thought it was the opposite surely to stop people setting off with not enough draws and/or too short a rope to lower off safely. If I'm missing something, my bad!

In reply to spidermonkey09:

No it is a good point which has quite a lengthy reply.

Bolt numbers - We found these were simply too easy to get wrong and a wrong number of bolts is less useful than no number of bolts, especially if you have underestimated. We included them in the 1995 Rockfax but when we checked them in the 2000 Rockfax we found loads were out. Also, when people re-bolt routes they sometimes add extra bolts.

Rope Lengths - We have included pitch lengths in topo descriptions but had problems with local climbers extending routes in El Chorro over 30m after the guidebook had been published. This caused a few problems with routes which had previously been only 25m.
Also, where people are lowering off, it is a dodgy figure to give for a number of other reasons.
- People stand in different places when belaying
- People cut the ends of ropes and then forget
- People use different amounts of ropes in their knots
- Ropes are often different lengths

The manufacturer rope length issue is an important one since we have found in our rope tests here that ropes can vary by as much as 5m or 6m from what the manufacturer says they are, although always they are longer. Not a problem, you may think. Well here is a scenario:

You buy a rope that you think is 60m since that is what is says, but it is actually 66m. You climb a route and just manage to lower off on the stretch. Another climber comes up and asks "how long is that route?". "You'll be okay on a 60m to lower", you reply. He then sets off with his 60m rope that really is 60m long, and ends up plummeting from 6m above the ground when his rope flips through the relaxed belayer's device.

As a general comment though, I think that counting quickdraw and planning and watching your rope is something that is safer if the responsibility is passed to the climber involved so that they learn to do it right.

Alan

In reply to JamieSparkes:

I agree. It's only the truly abysmal death landings that attract a comment in the text, a mere 45 degree slope is usually an unwelcome discovery once you've located the damn thing.

I like the Rockfax symbols and think separate ones for highball and moody landing would be useful. Then if it's got both you know that it's a total nightmare, one for a soloing approach rather than bouldering.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Aye, that'd be ideal.