sport anchors on new NS routes???

[John Hogge]

CTM,

 

I’m mentoring several people who are planning new routes in North Shore. They are asking what hardware to buy. I’m unsure what to tell them for anchor hardware.

 

Here’s a recap of NS anchor history/policy:

 

1.       22 early routes were done with chain.

 

2.       The County bought chain and a lot of sport clips; sport clips got put on most routes. At times chain was put on, when sport anchors weren’t available. Both style of anchors were acceptable to RC (RRCC).

 

3.       After a few years, RC saw that most NS routes south of Holladay Wall had sport anchors, so it was felt those that lacked them posed a nuisance and potential hazard. The County had run out of sport anchors. RC asked CTM for permission to put CTM sport anchors on these, and was granted that.

 

It seems like CTM & RC should continue having 100% sport clips south of Holladay Wall (and possibly north of it too).  If you will fund this, I can tell my developers to get the anchors from you.  Otherwise I will suggest they do sport anchors but that chain is acceptable.

 

Thanks for your consideration!

--John

 

[John Hogge]

Seems pretty expensive, now that we require stainless.  With a CTM discount of 15% at ClimbTech, each bolt and hanger are around $8.33. That’s about $50 per 4-bolt route (with anchors, 6 total bolts), without anchors.  With anchors I think it’s roughly $90.

 

Regards,

--John

 

From: Chris Vinson [mailto:ch...@climbtech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:38 AM
To: ho...@pobox.com; ctmb...@googlegroups.com; Adam Mitchell; 'Karl Vochatzer'; Russell Mayes
Subject: Re: sport anchors on new NS routes???

 

If who funds this?  Sport anchors on new routes should be purchased by the bolters along with SS hardware.

 

Thanks,

 

Chris Vinson

Marketing & Sales Manager

 

CLIMBTECH

7303 Burleson Rd.

Suite 901

Austin, TX. 78744

Phone: 512-308-6440 x 109

Fax: 512-308-6393

www.climbtech.com

www.climbtechgear.com

 

SPRAT Certified Rope Access Technician

NATE Certified Authorized Climber

[Vinny]

We've gone over this before John.

If you want to put up a new route, it needs to be stainless.  If that slows down "development" then so be it.  We have a finite amount of rock available to us, use stainless and it only has to be dealt with once in our lifetime.  Our cliffs can't take the constant rebolting like other areas, get out to the RRG or Rifle and you'll see what they have to deal with.  Centex is entering this time and we can't continue to slam in routes and put fixed chains on top of everything, its not sustainable.

If money is an issue with rebolting with SS, ClimbTech has enabled CTM to get heavy discounts. New routes are different, you gotta pay to play.  The routes committee is here to make sure routes are put in according to what we believe are the best practices, and we all agreed on stainless in the previous and current group John.  Why do you consistently insist on subsidized hardware for new routes?  There are more permadraws and chain anchors at the NS than what people are comfortable with.  And frankly its our, routes committee, job to mitigate this kind of impact at the cliff, its going to cause more problems than its worth in "traffic" on your routes.  Trust me on this, its not a perception issue about fixed gear as much as it is visual pollution and impact.  The permadraws on the most popular 5.12 in the sex canyon are in terrible shape, they need replacement, the fixed gear on super cuiser could probably need replacement…its all expensive and CTM should focus more on trail (vertical and ground level) maintenance as much as possible to manage impact as the community continues to grow. 

I'm actually going to begin proposals to remove fixed gear on certain routes at the NS asap.  Its getting out of control, the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing.

Thanks,

Chris Vinson
Marketing & Sales Manager

CLIMBTECH
7303 Burleson Rd.
Suite 901
Austin, TX. 78744
Phone: 512-308-6440 x 109
Fax: 512-308-6393
www.climbtech.com
www.climbtechgear.com

SPRAT Certified Rope Access Technician
NATE Certified Authorized Climber

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CTM Hardware Maintenance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ctmbolts+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Hogge]

I apologize for not recalling past decisions about anchors. It seems like we allowed chain, not requiring sport clips, but then we want consistent NS sport clips. I continue to support SS and was not arguing for plated.

 

I will fight against removal of NS permadraws, particularly since I funded most of them and painstakingly replaced all chain permdraws with them.  CTM was going to reimburse me, but I ended up just considering it a donation. RC should not change its mind and should not vote your proposals to remove these; that would jerk around the public and the money and time I put into that. RC approved it—let that decision ride for a long time.

 

Why would you begin a proposal to remove NS permdraws and not first remove those in the Sex Canyon? IMO you do not climb NS often enough to conclude anything about how the public likes those draws. My friends and I regularly enjoy those routes. I never hear complaints about visual impact. Leave our climbing area alone.

 

One of the first permadraw routes at NS was yours and Karl’s: Bulimia.  What the heck Chris?

 

If we have just a few Sex Canyon routes that need permadraw replacement, let’s just replace them and not complain about NS’s design.

 

--John

 

From: Chris Vinson [mailto:ch...@climbtech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:58 AM
To: ho...@pobox.com; ctmb...@googlegroups.com; 'Adam Mitchell'; 'Karl Vochatzer'; 'Russell Mayes'
Cc: Joel Schopp
Subject: Re: sport anchors on new NS routes???

 

We've gone over this before John.

 

If you want to put up a new route, it needs to be stainless.  If that slows down "development" then so be it.  We have a finite amount of rock available to us, use stainless and it only has to be dealt with once in our lifetime.  Our cliffs can't take the constant rebolting like other areas, get out to the RRG or Rifle and you'll see what they have to deal with.  Centex is entering this time and we can't continue to slam in routes and put fixed chains on top of everything, its not sustainable.

 

If money is an issue with rebolting with SS, ClimbTech has enabled CTM to get heavy discounts. New routes are different, you gotta pay to play.  The routes committee is here to make sure routes are put in according to what we believe are the best practices, and we all agreed on stainless in the previous and current group John.  Why do you consistently insist on subsidized hardware for new routes?  There are more permadraws and chain anchors at the NS than what people are comfortable with.  And frankly its our, routes committee, job to mitigate this kind of impact at the cliff, its going to cause more problems than its worth in "traffic" on your routes.  Trust me on this, its not a perception issue about fixed gear as much as it is visual pollution and impact.  The permadraws on the most popular 5.12 in the sex canyon are in terrible shape, they need replacement, the fixed gear on super cuiser could probably need replacement…its all expensive and CTM should focus more on trail (vertical and ground level) maintenance as much as possible to manage impact as the community continues to grow.  

 

I'm actually going to begin proposals to remove fixed gear on certain routes at the NS asap.  Its getting out of control, the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing.

 

Thanks,

[Vinny]

John, please don't take this personally as i know youve put in a lot of time effort and money, but that should not sway judgement when it comes to fixed gear and new routing at our crags with public access.

--I apologize for not recalling past decisions about anchors. It seems like we allowed chain, not requiring sport clips, but then we want consistent NS sport clips. I continue to support SS and was not arguing for plated.

You were aguing about the expense, most of the time this is in relation to the former cost of plated vs stainless.  Yes, it costs more to put up a route now than it used to.

 

--I will fight against removal of NS permadraws, particularly since I funded most of them and painstakingly replaced all chain permdraws with them. 

Fair enough. 

 

--Why would you begin a proposal to remove NS permdraws and not first remove those in the Sex Canyon? IMO you do not climb NS often enough to conclude anything about how the public likes those draws. My friends and I regularly enjoy those routes. I never hear complaints about visual impact. Leave our climbing area alone.

I'll be out there more frequently.

---One of the first permadraw routes at NS was yours and Karl’s: Bulimia.  What the heck Chris?

Good idea, i can take those off that route and replace the bad ones in the sex canyon!  Those were some of the first permas at any crag in central texas.

 

--If we have just a few Sex Canyon routes that need permadraw replacement, let’s just replace them and not complain about NS’s design.

The NS "design" is precisely is whats in question, my suggestion to remove more fixed gear is hardly a complaint but a suggestion and I will submit proposals on a case by case basis, which is why there is a routes committee right?

 

--John

--

[John Hogge]

>>---One of the first permadraw routes at NS was yours and Karl’s: Bulimia.  What the heck Chris?

>Good idea, i can take those off that route and replace the bad ones in the sex canyon! 

Bad idea. Those permadraws are in the guidebook topos and are major landmarks.  That route got worked by Craig Tomon and Jesse Bruni; neither voiced any complaints. I bet they loved being able to bail.  Craig did not succeed on the crux deadpoint. Remove those permas and you WILL see a bail biner(s).

Why not work on real known problems?  How about poison ivy control? How about replacing that totally rusty little bolt on No Recess?  Rebolting Blood and moving its anchors up? Testing the County for their implication that new routes could be allowed at Pace Bend?  Why grind your ax on NS route designs?  At the very least, ask the public and RC before removing Bulimia permas.  Those are probably legally owned by the County now, even though funded by developers. Don’t just go remove them.

Why not get RC to pull all the draws off Elephant Man, Supercruiser, Learning to Crawl, Irreverent, House, and use them at NS? Then we have consistent no-permas at Reimers and plenty of permas at NS.  Bet the public won’t dig that, but it seems fairer to shed permas off the routes you like, instead of NS routes you do not climb.  If you submit a NS proposal, I will submit a countering Reimers Proper and Greenbelt proposal for removal. Why should you single out NS? Just because those routes are newer, does not mean they aren’t useful and enjoyed. Your concerns about CTM maintenance are more legitimately met by stripping permas off Reimers Proper routes which didn’t originally have permas than NS routes that were designed with them in mind.

>>--If we have just a few Sex Canyon routes that need permadraw replacement, let’s just replace them and not complain about NS’s >>design.

>The NS "design" is precisely is whats in question, my suggestion to remove more fixed gear is hardly a complaint but a suggestion and I will submit proposals on a case by case basis, which is why there is a routes committee right?

I view it as a complaint, because we are hearing no problems with those permas. You just don’t like the aesthetics of a lot of permas. You forsee future problems, but they are not here yet. When they arrive, there are many solutions. I’d probably offer to fund most of my perma replacements, if I am still climbing. We could find “route adopters” if not.  Or CTM might just have the cash to replace them.

IMO your efforts to alter NS route designs are a waste of time; the only complaints about excess permas seem to come from RC members, never from random climbers at NS.  Complaints would be more believable coming from a heavy user of NS and someone not on a committee.

NS rarely sees crap bale biners on routes. Guess why? Good permadraw planning.  Good old steel hardware. Remove permas and you’ll see trash bail biners go up.

The only way to responsibly evaluate your proposals to remove virtually new permas is an unbiased survey of the public—that same public you dissed in recent emails.  I’m not going to trust you with an unbiased survey, and I will not let a proposal pass without taking the fight to the public. It’s going to take a lot of work by someone to do an unbiased survey, work better spent rebolting or other work listed above.

I put a lot of work and cash nto these designs, FAs and installations and so naturally I dislike your second-guessing, prompted only by taste issues and future concerns. Please solve some real problems.

Regards,

--John

[Vinny]

Youre obviously taking this personally John.  Cooler heads will prevail.

Bring it to the community if you like.  See you at the NS I hope.  :)

-CV

[Matt M]

I've got no dog in this fight per-se as I simply don't make it up to Austin Limestone that much nowadays.  That said, I like to think I've been around the block enough to at least have some sort of informed opinion - take it or leave it I guess.

I think it's important to separate out the things being debated so one does not get obfuscated by the other.  From the above posts I gather there are about 3 things at play here:

1) SS Hardware 

2) Best Practices Anchors

3) Style/Ethics of Perms at the cliffs

1) IMO, ANYTHING going into the rock needs to be SS nearly 100% of the time.  There are exceptions to this but they're few and far between.  Cost is only an issue on the initial install and frankly, not that much.  The very first time you need to replace PS hardware your cost benefits evaporate. If you can't find the skilled labor to do the replacing that PS becomes even less of a "value".  Yes, 1/2 SS 5-Pieces are $$.  There are other SS alternatives that are more cost effective though.  Glue Ins can be brought down to ~$6 ea. and SS Wedges get down below that (KB3s etc) if you shop wisely.  Obviously Wedges and Glue Ins have their limitations as well and that's why it's important to pick the correct bolt for the placement.  By "mixing" bolts on a route I've been able to fund all SS (and 316 at that) routes and keep it not-too-painful.  Honestly it SHOULD be a bit painful.  This way more consideration is put into the route itself and even if it's really "needed".  

2) Anchors are always a tough call.  Yes chain works but best practices dictate that making generally less-skilled climbers UNTIE at the top of a route is just unwise (Lets be honest, RR/NS tends to have a less technically skilled user group - keeping them tied in is a good plan).  Perhaps looking at alternate anchor setups that are more effective is a good idea.  Keep in mind that ANY change away from the common two horizontal drop in setup would also require reeducating the populous so they don't f-it up.   For me, any drop in style anchor's REPLACEABLE parts can be PS.  The BOLT needs to be SS but the clip itself can be PS as they're more likely to wear out than rust out.  CT PS biners are great for this.  I also use Mussy Hooks (aka Tow Hooks) for this.  Mussys can run easily half of a PS biner.  

Also, perhaps rethinking the setup of the anchor would help with premature wear.  Horizontal Anchors actually are less-than-ideal as they cause wear to BOTH biners AND the setup tends to SPEED wear due to increased vibration on the hooks.  Vertical Anchor setups tend to have less wear.  They limit major wear to only ONE lower off hook and eliminate the vibration issues that also speed wear.  I'm likely moving over to a "French Style" vertical setup with a Mussy On Top and CT PS biner as the lower backup.  See Photo for the French Setup.

3) IN regards to the explosion of PermaDraws - That's a debate in and of itself and likely not easy to conduct via one-way emails.  Personally, I'm disappointed to see how much they've been used in RM/NS.  Don't get me wrong, I've installed them selectively for specific reasons or needs but typically only one on a route and only when other options have failed.  I think their use should be carefully considered and opted for only as a last resort.  Few places in the world (that I know of) have them as a common use item.  Giving the impressionable and less-than-well-traveled Austinite Climber the idea that Permas are common practice sets them up for conflict and disappointment elsewhere and doesn't exactly teach them the best land stewardship practices in my opinion.  

[Karl Guthrie]

Whatever everyone decides is cool with me but please make sure that all the very easy routes have sport clips at the top. It’s always the beginners that end up decking because they miss-manages the top anchors. We had this problem at Dead Cats years ago with one to two serious accidents happening each year. Now the accidents are rare. When routes are 5.10 and up, climbers should be skilled enough to manage top anchors but on the .7 & .8 is where you get beginner accidents.

 

Cheers - Karl

 

From: ctmb...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ctmb...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt M
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:56 AM
To: ctmb...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Chris Vinson; ho...@pobox.com; Adam Mitchell; Karl Vochatzer; Russell Mayes; Joel Schopp
Subject: Re: sport anchors on new NS routes???

 

I've got no dog in this fight per-se as I simply don't make it up to Austin Limestone that much nowadays.  That said, I like to think I've been around the block enough to at least have some sort of informed opinion - take it or leave it I guess.

--

[karl v]

Amen, brother Karl.

Karl

[Joel Schopp]

Yep, putting sport anchors at Dead cats and Seismic were some of the best moves we ever made.

[Matt Twyman]

Matt

My only comment is that any time I hear someone moving over to French style anything, it seems like a bad idea. 

I honestly don't understand how a vertical arrangement would have less overall wear. Wouldn't the one piece take twice the wear as two pieces?  It seems that you'd be replacing that piece more frequently than the existing configuration. 

Also, I just don't see the benefit to introducing another new setup around here for such limited gain. Seems that it just opens up the door to some idiot botching that up. I get vertical bolts that are equalized in order to drill into separate rock bands and such. I don't get only weighting on piece with the other serving only as a backup. 

Everything else you talk about, I agree with, and am also a fan of sport clips for lower grade routes. 

On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Joel Schopp <joel....@gmail.com> wrote:

Yep, putting sport anchors at Dead cats and Seismic were some of the best moves we ever made.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, karl v <kvoch...@gmail.com> wrote:

Amen, brother Karl.

Karl

On Apr 17, 2014 7:28 PM, "Karl Guthrie" <Ka...@climbtech.com> wrote:

Whatever everyone decides is cool with me but please make sure that all the very easy routes have sport clips at the top. It’s always the beginners that end up decking because they miss-manages the top anchors. We had this problem at Dead Cats years ago with one to two serious accidents happening each year. Now the accidents are rare. When routes are 5.10 and up, climbers should be skilled enough to manage top anchors but on the .7 & .8 is where you get beginner accidents.

 

Cheers - Karl

 

From: ctmb...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ctmb...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt M
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:56 AM
To: ctmb...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Chris Vinson; ho...@pobox.com; Adam Mitchell; Karl Vochatzer; Russell Mayes; Joel Schopp
Subject: Re: sport anchors on new NS routes???

 

I've got no dog in this fight per-se as I simply don't make it up to Austin Limestone that much nowadays.  That said, I like to think I've been around the block enough to at least have some sort of informed opinion - take it or leave it I guess.

 

I think it's important to separate out the things being debated so one does not get obfuscated by the other.  From the above posts I gather there are about 3 things at play here:

 

1) SS Hardware 

2) Best Practices Anchors

3) Style/Ethics of Perms at the cliffs

 

 

1) IMO, ANYTHING going into the rock needs to be SS nearly 100% of the time.  There are exceptions to this but they're few and far between.  Cost is only an issue on the initial install and frankly, not that much.  The very first time you need to replace PS hardware your cost benefits evaporate. If you can't find the skilled labor to do the replacing that PS becomes even less of a "value".  Yes, 1/2 SS 5-Pieces are $$.  There are other SS alternatives that are more cost effective though.  Glue Ins can be brought down to ~$6 ea. and SS Wedges get down below that (KB3s etc) if you shop wisely.  Obviously Wedges and Glue Ins have their limitations as well and that's why it's important to pick the correct bolt for the placement.  By "mixing" bolts on a route I've been able to fund all SS (and 316 at that) routes and keep it not-too-painful.  Honestly it SHOULD be a bit painful.  This way more consideration is put into the route itself and even if it's really "needed".  

 

--
Sent from my not so smart and not so big phone. Possibly with one hand, or maybe with a headset. Please enjoy grammatical errors.

[Matt M]

Laugh - Yes, French Style can give pause but just like the EDK, it's all good once people are informed about it.

Wear issues are a bit complicated and there remains some murkiness as variables such as rope diameter, bar stock diameter etc all play a role.  I do believe that TWO rings, biners, etc next to one another do cause more wear on both the rope and themselves.  TWO bars cause the rope to bend, unbend, bend and then unbend again.  That double bending works the ropes over more than a single radi.  Also, the radi remains relatively the same as a single biner (eg 2x 12mm Steel biners does NOT equal a 24mm radius).  I think the effect of this varies based on the rope properties as well.  Also of note, if there is any separation between the two biners (eg they do not touch at the base of your anchor "triangle") The biners etc on each legs will VIBRATE rapidly while you lower.  This also increases wear on the anchor points.  In the end, I don't think a SINGLE biner wears faster than a pair and might even wear a bit more SLOWLY than the pair.  Yes, that single will need attention more quickly but I think you get a net gain.  Totally made up numbers but say you need to replace Dead Cats PAIRS every 2 years.  Perhaps you only need to replace the single Top Biner every 1.5 years.  At 6 years you've replaced 6 Biners in the Pair setup but only 4 in the single setup's case.

The benefits of this setup can be multiplied by using a Mussy on Top.  It's both cheaper and has a larger radius meaning even more time before replacement and then less cost when you do.  There are limitations to the Mussy so not every anchor would benefit from this treatment but it's certainly there.

100% agree that introducing a new setup to an already, ahem, challenged user group has questionable benefits.  Long term, with a re-education plan I think there'd be benefits but "is it worth it?" is a completely valid concern.

Strictly speaking about sport anchor lower off anchors, Non-Equalized setups are fairly contentious in the US.  A generation of over emphasis on equalization and lack of understanding of redundancy has done this to us.  I know it took a LOT of reading for me to understand the reasoning behind some things.  The general idea is that, for the TR and Lowering Loads anticipated, any single bolt is more than strong enough to handle the load.  Equalization of two 25kN+ bolts is unnecessary  Instead we simply seek redundancy to account for poor rock, a botched placement etc.  Rather than spending the extra $$ on an inline chainset (which is quite nice IMO) you simply use the rope to "join" the two points since we're already relying on the rope not to fail.  I actually prefer the inline chainsets for multipitch anchors etc as they give you more options for clipping in etc but for Sport Lower Offs, where we're also trying to reduce costs, the "French Style" inline is a nice solution.

Left out of my other email is the use of a "Ramshorn" or "Pigtail". Using one of those in an inline setup would also be a top choice for me but alas, they are not available in the US as far as I know.

Much of my info is gleaned from the extremely knowledgeable Jim Titt.  A good read is found here:

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/how-to-use-rap-rings-and-chains-properly/108366529__2#a_108371277

Cheers,

Matt