MudNCrud Forums
Climbing and ... Climbing => Masters of Mud -- Pinnacles => Topic started by: Brad Young on November 16, 2007, 02:47:39 PM
-
The site hosts have been kind enough to allow a thread for corrections to the 2007 guidebook. The list below started with four corrections and has grown over time. Others will be edited in to this post which the hosts have made "sticky" so that it stays at the top of the thread (which is itself "sticky"). Also, the date that the most recent correction was added will be posted just above the start of the list.
Corrections (as of December 22, 2019):
1. Correction, Page 360 (last sentence of the first paragraph): The words “Drunk in the Rain” should be replaced with the words “Slicker with Liquor.” Confusion over the route name led to a last minute change. I missed the change at one spot.
2. Correction, Page 318 (Machete Direct topo): On the right side of the topo, halfway up the name “Icarus” should be replaced with the name “Daedalus,” as in “150 feet to Daedalus (class three).” Confusion regarding which name attached to which Glen Denny/Gary Colliver route led to a last minute change. I missed one spot.
3. Correction, Page 293 (photo): The line depicting route 732, “Stiletto,” extends a little too far.
4. Clarification, Page 324 (route 811, “The West Face”): The last sentence of the description is unclear, at least when compared to the Machete Direct topo on page 318. Machete Direct does join The West Face. But a clearer description for page 324 results if the last sentence of the route description is replaced with: “The West Face and Machete Direct join here.”
5. Correction, Page 202 (topo): As stated in the description, Flatiron - Original Route is two (short) pitches. All three of the Flatiron “Apron” routes are one pitch climbs that end at Original Route’s first pitch, two bolt anchor. Appropriate route numbers are not on the topo, but they should be. These numbers should be at the two bolt anchor which is on the upper part of the topo (It is directly above where the word “easy” appears at two places).
6. Correction, Page 362 (route 363.5, “Ola Verde”): Ola Verde does not have a bolt anchor on top. Also it is not an “R” rated route. By way of further description: The cliff this route is on is 100 yards south of the Valle de Baile, on top of Pedras Bonitas Cliff. It faces north. The face has several streaks and is split by one chimney. Ola Verde is in a shallow grey water steak with black streaks on either side, about in the center of the cliff, to the right of the chimney. The first bolt is obvious. The second bolt is in plain sight 22 feet off the ground, but is so well camouflaged that it is invisible. After 25 feet the climbing becomes easy. After 35 feet it is class three. Continue 80 feet more to the top of the ridge. Sit on the other side of it to belay.
7. Clarification, Page 118 (route 286, “In the Soup”): There are two short, scruffy cliffs that sit above and “behind” Shoot the Tube. One such cliff is behind, but off to the right, maybe 50 feet away. This is not the cliff on which In the Soup is located. In the Soup is located on a short tier of cliffs which is directly back from the top of Shoot the Tube. This tier is about 90 feet away (to the west), and slightly downhill. Two short cracks are on this cliff. The left crack is very thin and dirty and covered with pine needles. In the Soup is the other crack, the one on the right, starting with a short chimney-like section. Good pro and decent rock. Also, it’s probably 5.7, not 5.8.
8. Correction, Page 363 (route 520.2, “Excremental Pinnacle”): This route does not exist. More specifically, this route and route 520.4, Seldom Seen Pinnacle - East Face are one and the same. I confirmed this by going to the area with one of the “Excremental Pinnacle” first ascentionists. This person immediately recognized “their” route, which is the exact same climb “found” by Glen Denny and Gary Coliver when they did the West Face route on Seldom Seen in 1974. Since the formation was named “Seldom Seen” in 1974 and “Excremental Pinnacle” in 1991, the name should remain Seldom Seen. The author’s efforts in trying to find this pinnacle well illustrate how easily confusion arises about such things. Both routes were reported late last season, as the book was nearing completion, and after the raptor closures made the area off limits. Two sets of old notes and three people’s recollection, all communicated to another person (the author) and then interpreted by him resulted in amazing differences (sounds a little like the children’s game “Telephone”).
9. Correction, Page 363 (route 509.6, “Long’s Folly - Leftover”): The current description is correct up into the obvious chimney. However, once into the chimney, do not move up and left on the obvious ramp. Instead, continue (walking) in the chimney to where the ground is at its highest point within the chimney itself. From there stem up between Long’s Folly and Leftover. Halfway up this stemming section a slot/hole on Leftover accepts a good 2 ½ inch cam or stopper. Continue to the top. By way of further information: the route crux is getting past the bolt and it is very reach dependant. Also, at a flat spot near the top, there is a second, hard to see bolt which can be used for a belay. It is just right of a shallow hole, at the base of a slab which leads 15 feet farther to the summit. This bolt is not positioned for rappel, but a slight low point on the formation’s southeast shoulder allows a safe, two rope “Pinnacles rappel.”
10. Correction, Page 363 (route 509.5, “East - Center Pinnacle”): This pinnacle, which is climbed after ascending Leftover, is north - northwest, not west of the summit of Leftover. Traverse over to this “pinnacle,” fourth class, from a shoulder of Leftover (a level area just below its summit) around Leftover’s east side.
11. Clarification, Page 362 (route 448.2, “Lightning Bolt Crack - Original Finish”): After climbing the route and further exploring poor memories about what they did with Jack H, and Keith V, I am now certain that this original finish is one more pitch to the top of this distinct formation only (and not to the top of The Hippopotamus, which is several tiers of rock behind this). Therefore, a better description is: From the bolt anchor at the top of the actual Lightning Bolt Crack move right behind a flake and then along a brushy ledge for about 90 feet. Where the ledge rejoins the ground, climb up and left, around a bit of a corner. Climb along a mossy face next to an up-and-left dihedral with a crack (good medium and large cams here). Twenty feet up is a low angle stance. Tie off a tiny tree. Continue up and left on an obvious, fairly clean, easy slab. One good four inch cam in a hole protects this slab. Finish on the low angle arete which makes up the last 20 feet of the bolted second pitch face of the “regular” Lightning Bolt Crack route. Although the first ascentionists likely wrapped the rope around a small pinnacle to rap off the back side, since both variants now end at the modern two bolt anchor, it is easier to rappel off the front to the top of the first pitch. The first pitch (the Lightning Bolt Crack) is 5.8. The original second pitch is 5.6 R. Although the “regular” Lightning Bolt Crack route is OK, this original finish is very chossy and should probably only be done by the most fanatic fans of obscure Pinnacles routes.
12. Clarification, Page 363 (route 840.2, “Ethical Divide”): Start the chimney climbing near where the ground is highest (the west side of the chimney). Climb 5.5, up and gradually toward the east, using cams from one to four inches in holes. At the top of the chimney a bolt protects moves onto the shoulder of Ethical Pinnacle. Finish on “No Hooks, No Raps....” (The finish is probably only 5.7, making Ethical Divide 5.7, not 5.8.)
13. Correction, Page 137 (route 337, “South Side Shuffle”): This route ends on a high point just north of The Frog’s highest point. The formation high point isn’t accessible by class two (the highest point is the part of the formation that looks like a frog from the north, that is, from on the approach). The farther-north high point where South Side Shuffle ends is a “gathering spot” where walk offs from almost all Frog routes join before moving down this route to the ground. For some forgotten reason, there are two old bolts here.
14. Correction, Pages 259 and 260 (route 637, “Lonesome Bolt”): This route is rated 5.6 R in the book. The crux is actually 5.8. Also, the crux is high enough above the one bolt that a fall there could result in decking from 25 feet up, onto a terrible landing. None of the knobs will accept slings. So, Lonesome bolt is 5.8 X.
15. Correction, Pages 178 and 179 (route 449, “Tom Turkey”): This route is solid 5.7, not 5.4. Also, it is more of a chimney than it is a stemming problem. The current description resulted from the two different ways the first ascentionists climbed the route. Bring cams from four inches and up.
16. Correction, Page 266: At the end of Berserker Route, it is easier to use the top anchor for Costanoan than it is to build a gear anchor.
17. Correction, Page 320 (route 792, “The Arch - Up the Center”): This route does not start “...well to the right.” Although I inspected the route before putting it in the book, I focused on the end of the climbing and the bolt up high. Although I stood at the base of the route several times, I missed a fixed piton in a small corner on the main face below the seam/crack (it is very rusty and not so easy to see). I finally spotted this pin, and, upon closer inspection also found a bolt hole (without anything in it though) about four feet below it. There is also definitely one more “empty” hole above the fixed pin and maybe two more holes. The first ascent party clearly climbed the face below the crack/seam using free moves to a large hook placement to a bolt (later removed?) to a pin to one or two more bolts (now also holes). This leads directly to the start of the seam/crack.
18. Correction, page 229 (route 570, “Freedom Dome - Regular Route”): The topo shows rappelling off to the right, 125 feet to the ground. It is better (and easy) to rappel 95 feet to the ground, slightly left, directly to the base of Regular Route.
19. Correction, page 291 (route 722, “The Powers That Be”): Several experienced parties who have climbed this route in the last three years have confirmed that this is worth one, not two stars.
20. Correction, page 127 (route 312, “Ridge Rock - South Ridge”): Consensus is that the moves onto the summit are significantly harder than 5.3 (especially considering these moves’ serious exposure); a better rating would be 5.5 (at least).
21. Correction, page 339 (route numbers 838 and 839, "Cleaver Buttress" and "Cleaver Buttress - Direct Variation"): Two changes: First, all four people I know of who have led the first pitch have called it at least 5.9 (or, "closer to 5.10a than to 5.8"). The "normal" second pitch is pretty stiff for 5.8 too. Route 838 should be rated 5.9. Also, the description of the first pitch should add, after the part about the serious run out: (take a few pieces to two inches to use up high). Second, the variation is only a slight variation to part of the second pitch. And the way the description is worded isn't quite correct. The description to route 839 should read: "Continue straight up past the second bolt instead of moving around the arete. Quickly rejoin the regular route (at the height of the third bolt) and finish on that."
22. Clarification, page 284 (route 708, “Crowley Tower - Tower Four”): The phrase “jumble of rocks” in this route’s description has caused confusion. The phrase was meant to describe a connected series of large (15 foot high) lumps of rock on the ridge that lies between Tower Four and Tower Five. That is, it was designed to make it clear that the chimneying wasn’t between Tower Four and Tower Five, but instead between Tower Four and the west-most of the (jumbled), lower, but still large rocks between these two towers.
23. Correction, page 165 (route 411, "Needles Eye"): This route definitely needs an "R" added to its rating. The initial, chimney section of the route isn't the route crux, but it is terribly loose and getting harder (probably 5.7 near the top - who can tell when most of what is touched falls off). Bad cams 30 feet up then "protect" the moves out to the second bolt. This route also shares the long, long run-out above the two bolt anchor/protection point out on the face.
24. Correction, page 328 (route 816, "Pigeon Crack"): After very extensive investigation and study it appears certain that this route has never been climbed beyond the two bolts that are about 1/3 of the way up the route (see topo, page 329). Currently there is one, new, replacement bolt at this position, 55 feet from the start of the route (two bolts are shown on the topo, one of these two was the replacement bolt and the other was a very, very bad bolt that has since been pulled out). The route ends here. For a very long discussion about this route and about the investigation of it, go to this discussion on the Mudn'Crud forum: http://www.mudncrud.com/forums/index.php?topic=1960.0
25. Correction, page 90 (routes 239 "Fourth Sister - West Face," and "Fifth Sister - West Face"): John Cook pointed out an error in labeling these routes on the page 90 photo. What is labeled on the photo as "241" (route 241 is Fifth Sister - West Face) is actually route 239 (Fourth Sister - West Face). At the same time, the short, dashed line that is on the actual Fifth Sister is missing its route number - this is the line that should have the number 241. (The topo on page 92 is labeled correctly.)
26. Change, pages 310 and 311 (Machete descent): On January 2, 2015, three bolted descent/rappel stations were installed in the upper gully. This addition was made after more than a year of discussion/consensus seeking that involved many (maybe most) climbers who have been active at Pinnacles in the last 10 to 40 years. For a review of the part of the discussion that occurred online (and for a description of the anchors and their setup) see this Mud‘n Crud thread: http://www.mudncrud.com/forums
27. Correction, page 148 (route 381 “Catatonic Stupor”): The topo shows six bolts but the route has only five. If what is shown as the fifth bolt on the topo is erased, it gives a close approximation of the bolts’ actual locations.
28. Correction, pages 149 and 150 (route 383 “Knuckle Ridge Traverse”): Over the many years that this route has been listed in guidebooks, a few adventurous climbers have tried/done it. Everyone has come away asking the question: “How the hell can that traverse be class four?” Careful studies of this route’s description in successive guidebooks (starting with the one by Steve Roper) show that the route description has changed over time in a way similar to the children’s game “telephone” (in that game, a message is passed on from player to player, only to become unrecognizable by the time it reaches the last player). For example, my 2007 guidebook describes the route this way: “…Climb from north to south across all of the summits of Knuckle Ridge. A two-rope rappel can then be made off the southernmost knuckle (from the same anchor used for the climbs on the south face).” As described below, this description is wrong (as, incidentally, is the description of a two rope rappel). David Rubine’s guidebook described the route: “… 4th or 5th class This line of ridges can be climbed from right/north to left/south by way of the notches between them. It is necessary to rope for fifth class climbing in a couple of spots when traversing the ridge. Most of the summits can be climbed fourth class on their west side.” Paul Gagner’s book (which is a “select” book anyway) skips the whole issue. It says: “…4th Class Climbing routes on this long formation are left up to the individual's imagination; there are a multitude.” And, continuing back in time, the 1974 Chuck Richards guide describes this route this way: “…Knuckle Ridge is the most recognizable feature in the valley. You’ll see it just NW of Lion’s head at the valley’s head. Five summits on the Ridge are climbed 4th class from right to left, over the notches between them. Additional chimneys here have yet to be climbed. Walk off the back.” This 1974 description may be the root of the error. Notice how Richards says “...over the notches between them.” Now compare this with the Steve Roper guidebook (the first to come out after the route was made): “…Knuckle Ridge is the most prominent feature of the Neglected Valley. It is located several hundred feet NW of the Lion’s Head, at the head of the valley. The five summits of the ridge are climbed class 4 from NE to SW via the notches between them.” Read the wording carefully - there's no mention or hint of a traverse at all. Now try inserting the words “one after the other” into Roper's description after the words “...are climbed...” Then, insert the word “various” after the words “...via the....” Roper’s description isn't a model of clarity, but he seems to mean that a climber is to do one summit at a time, accessing each from the notches between them, and returning to the ground/exiting the formation as needed between ascents. What else could he mean? Based on this analysis, a better description of this route reads as follows:
Knuckle Ridge 5.3 R This mountaineering style route gains all five summits of Knuckle Ridge by the easiest possible means. In each case, “the easiest possible means” is by first ascending a slot or chimney from the west side of the formation and then climbing to a summit from there. As described below, a climber will return to the ground (to change chimneys) between some summit ascents. By way of further reference, the “knuckles” of Knuckle Ridge are numbered one through five from south to north. This route ascends the fifth through the first knuckles, as follows:
- The fifth (north-most) summit is easy to reach by way of the small slot/chimney between it and the fourth summit.
- The fourth summit is reached by 10 feet of 5.3 done just above the same slot. Return to the ground on the west side of the ridge after these two summits.
- The middle summit is climbed, class three, by way of the chimney between it and the fourth summit (walk up and then curve right/south on the east side of the ridge).
- The second and first summits are each reached from the chimneys on their north sides. Each requires a short bit of easy fifth class.
29. Correction, page 146 (route 370, “Lion’s Head”): Lion’s Head is harder than 5.4 and it is not very well protected; 5.7 R is a better rating for this route.
30. Correction, page 57 (route 81, “Holiday Ordeal”): A significant number of holds have broken off this route. It is now at least 5.10d.
31. Correction, page 137 (route 343, “Tuff”): The route should be 5.10d R * instead of 5.10c R * (the route is, overall, probably slightly harder than the route Volcanic Panic, which is the next route to the right).
32. Correction, page 137, (route 344, “Volcanic Panic”): The route should have an “R” rating (so it should be rated 5.10d R *).
33. Correction, page 131, (route 324, “Solotero Pina Especial”): There is a strong consensus that this route is 5.8 not 5.7 (the crux is getting past the first bolt).
34. Correction, page 146, (route 367, “Little Flatiron - North Chimney”): This route was named “North Chimney” decades ago. But it isn’t really a chimney, it’s much better described as a slot. So, although the name will stay the same, future descriptions will use the word slot, instead of the word chimney. More critically, this 70 foot route really should have a fifth class rating. It is 5.3 R. It is possible to use cams in the slot portion of the climb, although these provide only so-so protection for the slot and no protection at all for the upper slab.
35. Clarification/Correction, page 131, (route 323, "Crud and Mud - East Side"): The 2007 description of this, the original route to the highest summit of Crud and Mud, is incorrect. The route's proper location needs to be clarified as follows:
- The route called East Side was done decades ago; it is mentioned in multiple prior guidebooks (but was poorly described in them).
- The 2007 guidebook describes the central chute on the east side of the formation's highest summit as the route "East Side." From east of that summit, this chute looks like the only "easy" way to the top.
- However, in the course of recent new route activity here the original East Side route was rediscovered and then rebolted (of the route's two bolts, the first had no hanger and wasn't visible from any distance, and the second was around to the right and out of sight).
- A proper description of the route East Side should read: East Side 5.2 R The approach to this route is the same as for the route Just Chute Me. Walk around the south/uphill end of Crud and Mud to a brush free, flat area at the base of the south summit’s east side (well below three short, shallow chutes). Traverse up and right over a rib of rock, past shrubs to a small grassy area at the base of a steep but easy water chute that is 10 feet left of a big left-facing corner. Climb this chute 20 feet to a slabby area below a headwall. Move right below the headwall 15 feet to a bolt at the base of a shoulder of rock (the bolt can be used to make a midway belay to avoid rope drag). Move around to the right (northwest) 15 feet to another bolt before continuing past large knobs rightward into a water chute. Climb the chute 25 feet to a large flat area which is below the true summit of Crud and Mud (knobs can be slung in the chute). A two bolt anchor allows a belay here, after which an easy scramble can be made to the true summit. A 50 foot rappel from the bolts leads to the base of the climb.
- The water chute that was mistaken for the route East Side in the 2007 book (described there as a "shallow groove") was climbed and bolted after the correct East Side route was rediscovered and rebolted. This route is Just Chute Me (route number 325.63 on the new routes list).
36. Correction (sort of), page 112, (route 268, “Shoot the Tube”): Jim McConachie, one of the first ascent party, rebolted this route about four years ago. While rebolting the route Jim decided that the run-out at the top wasn’t desirable anymore and he added a new (fifth) bolt to his own climb. As a result of this addition, the route topo is no longer accurate.
37. Correction, Page 143 (route 354 "Looking For the Past"): This climb starts out of a small creek bed which is directly below the two boulders that make up a chimney. The bed of the creek seems to have eroded quite a bit since this climb was first made in 2000; the rock is way too undercut now to start by chimney moves (which is what the 2007 guidebook calls for). Instead a climber must do steep 5.6 moves on the east rock to get started.
38. Correction, Page 111 (route 262 "South Yak - South Face"): This route is described as a two pitch climb in the guidebook. Recent rebolting efforts have revealed a third pitch. The original description is correct regarding the first two pitches (all of the lead bolts on the first pitch and four out of eight on the second pitch have been replaced however, and a two bolt anchor has been installed at the tops of each pitch). The discovered third pitch climbs directly right from the anchor on top of pitch two. This pitch consists of ten bolts (four recently replaced) to two newly fixed pitons and then a new two bolt anchor (the old two bolt anchor was left in place just right of the new anchor because that old anchor is quite unique). The rappel from the end of the third pitch is possibly unique in the park: an 85 foot single rope rappel to the ground from the end of a three pitch route! This rappel is also massively overhanging.
39. Clarification/Correction, page 121, (route 301, “North Goal Post”): The first bolt on this formation’s route is impossible to see from any vantage point that isn’t on the climbing route itself. The route is also quite contrived in that it is very easy to approach to within five feet of the route’s second bolt, class three, from a large shoulder of rock to the southeast. So really, there are two ways to reach the second bolt, one that is nearly a walk until the last five feet, and one from the ground directly below. As a result, the new guidebook will list two routes on North Goal Post as follows:
378. North Goal Post - Shortcut 5.6 Move onto a long, low shoulder of rock that extends southeast from North Goal Post to near South Goal Post. Walk 40 feet to a point below the formation’s short northeast face. Step around onto the north face and the second lead bolt of North Goal Post - Original. Finish on that route to the top and the two-bolt anchor. (Note that Original’s second bolt is easy to see from the ground, but its first bolt is not.)
379. North Goal Post - Original 5.6 Start this route amid trees on North Goal Post’s northeast face. Look for a knobby, slight, shallow groove downhill/right from a point directly below the summit. The groove leads 25 feet to a shoulder on the formation’s northwest side. A bolt 30 feet from the start protects easy moves up and left to a second bolt, which protects moves over the crux bulge. There is a two-bolt anchor on top.
40. Correction, Page 283 (route 702 "Point Five Pinnacle - Regular"): The route should actually be called "Regular Route" to be consistent with other climbs in the book.
More important though are the results of a series of conversations I had about it with John Cook. First, about the route's first ascent. In the 2007 book I credited the first ascent this way: "unknown, possibly Brad Young, 12/2005." Although I was trying to be conservative then in what I claimed by way of first ascents, I probably should have just claimed this one. There's never been any report of a route on this end of Point Five Pinnacle, I've never heard of anyone climbing it, ever (except now John Cook, see below), and in soloing up and down the route twice while working on the 2007 book I saw no sign that anyone else had ever climbed that way (no obvious signs, but also no "maybe pin-scars" or any other subtle indications). No one has made any claim to it since the 2007 book either. If the FA is truly "unknown," the same reasoning ("someone might have done it before") applies to many, many other routes in the park (although obviously, the harder the route, the less likely that it was climbed before the attributed first ascent without leaving any signs of passage - like bolts).
So it's almost certainly true that I did the first ascent of this route, and I intend to modify the FA info in the upcoming second edition.
Continuing though, while discussing this issue with me, John also pointed out that the route might be "only" 5.4, and I may have soloed up and down it, but it's fairly long and exposed, and it certainly deserved an "X" sub-rating. There's a crux up high and a fall from that would likely kill someone. I hadn't given it an "X" before since it's "easy," and since I hadn't really been thinking about protection when I climbed up and down it. I asked John if he thought a bolt (one) might be warranted. He thought so. I asked if he'd be willing to place such a bolt. He was willing and did so last week. So the route now has one bolt, which was added at the request of the first ascentionist. It should be considered 5.4 R now (and will be in the new book).
41. This correction is regarding The Birds as a group, Page 172 (routes 432 through 437): The 2007 guidebook perpetuates an error regarding The Buzzard and omits a (tiny) route on The Ravens as follows.
First, the route The Raven - North Side is referenced in Steve Roper’s 1966 guidebook, and several of us researched it during this last Master’s of Mud weekend. I’ve added it to the New Routes list (it isn’t new, but newly added, which is similar to newly found). It’s also in the text for the upcoming second edition guidebook.
Second, extensive research into past guidebooks (by me and J.C.) and field research at The Birds (by John and me and a bunch of climbers there this last weekend) makes it clear that what is labeled as The Buzzard - North Face in each book from 1974 to 2007 is not right. All of these books have omitted Roper’s brief 1966 reference to a “shelf” on The Buzzard’s north side, a feature that identifies the route The Buzzard - North Face. All of these books (mine included) have identified a route that is really on The Buzzard’s upper east face as the North Face route.
Here are the correct names and descriptions of four routes on The Buzzard (copy/pasted from the upcoming/new guidebook text):
675. The Buzzard - Westside Lieback 5.9 (TR) The uphill/west face of The Buzzard is 25 feet high. Its major feature is a thick, left-facing dihedral/flake. Toprope this from the two-bolt summit anchor.
676. The Buzzard - North Face 5.6 R Start on The Buzzard’s uphill (west) side. A class four ramp on the left leads to a point partway up the pinnacle’s north face. Crux moves lead to easy ground, the summit, and a two-bolt anchor. The only protection on this climb consists of small to two inch gear in a poor-quality crack at the far end of the ramp.
677. The Buzzard - Backside Route 5.5 R A large block of rock separates The Buzzard from The Vulture. Scramble east through a notch between this block and The Buzzard’s north face. From a wide platform above The Buzzard’s east face, move south, onto a ramp system with a poor-quality, diagonal crack (two and three inch gear). Move over a bulge and then up The Buzzard’s upper east face to its summit.
678. The Buzzard - East Face 5.5 R This 90-foot route ascends an obvious groove in the middle-left of The Buzzard’s east (downhill) face. Move up through a brushy chimney to get to the start. Continue up and right from the top of the groove to join The Buzzard - Backside Route. Although the groove is shallow, it will accept cams (tiny to five inches).
A few additional notes:
- Roper didn’t actually name any route on The Buzzard except the North Face;
- What appears above as The Buzzard - Backside Route is the same climb that is called The Buzzard - North Face in the 1974 through 2007 guidebooks. If he’d named it, Roper might have called it the East Face, but another route now bears that name (see below). So I used the name Backside Route (which also fits the actual climb). BTW, Roper called this route “class 4.” The 5.5 rating above is a unanimous opinion from five different people who’ve climbed it within the last month (mostly this last weekend);
- The Buzzard - East Face is a route that Clint and I discovered/found back when we were researching the 2007 guidebook. In retrospect, we may well have done an FA up the entire face (the “real” east face route first described by Roper is now called Backside Route, and only climbs the upper part of that face, reaching it from under the north face). I won’t claim this as an FA though on the remote chance that it wasn’t. We’ll leave this longer route as FA “unknown.”
- Has anyone actually read this entire incredibly verbose correction to this point? If so, you might be obsessed with Pinnacles. Go climb O.C.D. Overdrive and think about it. Then post your thoughts here.
42. Correction, Page 182 (route 459, Casino Rock Backside Summit): This summit is fairly large (150 feet from southwest to northeast), has significant relief (it’s 50 feet higher than the plateau to its southeast, and much taller than the ground to the northwest), and has more than one “obvious” climbing line. The 2007 guidebook lists one generalized class four route to the highest point, but there are four totally plain and separate ways to the top, along with two different bolted top anchors (the one at the highest point was rebolted by J.C. a couple years ago and now consists of two great bolts; the bolt anchor on the separate northeast pillar is still an single old bolt).
The area is viewful, the rock clean and mostly hard, and the climbing there is, I think, better for beginners than, as an example, the toprope routes at Teaching Rock (I’d certainly rather take beginners to Casino). The new book will therefore list four separate routes here as follows:
707. Casino Rock’s Summit Ridge - Left Chute 5.0 (Not shown on topo.) Casino Rock’s true summit consists of a narrow ridge which extends northeast (toward Condor Gulch Trail) from the top of the southwest face. From the southeast, the main part of the ridge looks like an interconnected series of summits. Separated from this by a four-foot wide corridor is a smaller part of the ridge, an independent northeast pillar. There are three routes on the southeast side of the main ridge. All three climb shallow to very shallow water chutes. Only the middle chute reaches the ground. To climb Left Chute, start in the middle chute before moving left. Finish on top of the ridge, 50 feet above the ground. A horizontal crack partway up takes one to 1½ inch gear, but there is no protection above. Belay using body position or, with extra rope, from the two-bolt Crap Chute top-anchor 30 feet to the west. The formation’s high point and a two-bolt anchor are 30 feet to the right (northeast).
708. Casino Rock’s Summit Ridge - Middle Chute 5.1 R (Not shown on topo.) Climb the middle chute to the top. Poor quality one-half to one inch gear can be attempted partway up. Move right to the two-bolt summit anchor to belay.
709. Casino Rock’s Summit Ridge - Right Chute 5.2 R (Not shown on topo.) Start up the middle chute but veer right into a faint and very shallow chute that leads directly to the summit anchor. One and three inch gear can be used in a horizontal crack a third of the way up.
710. Casino Rock’s Summit Ridge - Northeast Pillar 5.6 R (Not shown on topo.) This short route leads to the top of the summit ridge’s separate northeast pillar. Climb the right side of the pillar’s southeast face (start just left of a nine-foot high block wedged in a notch). There is a two-bolt summit anchor on top, 25 feet from the start.
Of these four routes, the first one (to be labeled number 707 in the new book) is the same as route number 459 in the 2007 book. I'll cross-post the other three to the new routes list (with different route numbers for now, consistent with that document).
43. Change, Page 202 (route 501, Burtons Below): I established this route with Steve Wong over 25 years ago. I recently partially rebolted it while at The Flatiron checking route descriptions and the topo. While rebolting, I decided to change a bolt location and add one bolt (totally within accepted climbing ethics, since I put it up).
Two friends of mine have each fallen from the first crux of this route (which is now solid 5.9) onto the first bolt. Both came really close to the ground. Too close. Luckily, neither was hurt.
So, while rebolting, I moved the second bolt down three feet. Now a climber has protection that is adequate to prevent ground fall. Moving this bolt left a big gap above, so I added a new third bolt about three feet above the old second bolt’s location.
This route is now 5.9 * and adequately protected.
-
I added correction number 21 regarding the Cleaver Buttress routes.
Thanks again Gavin for your patience while I worked it out.
-
No problem, Brad - I definitely enjoyed the route, even with the cold winds funneling in at us!
I added correction number 21 regarding the Cleaver Buttress routes.
Thanks again Gavin for your patience while I worked it out.
-
Good work Gavin and Brad! Jack never meant to sandbag on purpose. He just didn't realize how well he was climbing.
-
Brad, may I suggest you add a date (or version number) to the correction list so we know when it's last been updated. Because it sticks to the top of the forum, it'd be nice to know when we need to recheck the list.
Cheers,
:- k
-
How's that? (i.e. I added a date, is it done clearly enough?)
-
There should be a way to show "last edited" date in the OP in SMF. I've got it on SPH.
Until the thread was cropped from the clutter, the last post by Brad with its time stamp was a good way, but if we keep cropping, that won't work long term.
-
Jack never meant to sandbag on purpose. He just didn't realize how well he was climbing.
That's a great quote!
-
So where is the correction to say that Beyond Destiny is a bunch o' crap!?
-
So where is the correction to say that Beyond Destiny is a bunch o' crap!?
No correction necessary since the book doesn't call it anything but another no star route?
-
So where is the correction to say that Beyond Destiny is a bunch o' crap!?
which one is that?
-
Is it bad that now I want to climb "Beyond Destiny?"
-
Is it bad that now I want to climb "Beyond Destiny?"
lol
-
Beyond Destiny is tame compared to Triple X, which breaks right at that roof.
I caught a 40+ foot fall from the top of XXX, a bomber star dryvin saved the day.
4 trips trying to rebolt that sucker, now I am down to 2 bolts (which I never knew were there).
Had to be rescued the last time i was on it, lost in a sea of choss.
It may be the 3rd worst route I have ever been on, with #1 being the 5.10 on Elephant rock with A determined 5.10 author. Of note, a repeat ascent of the 5.10 route may not be possible at the grade given. I took a huge pillar off at the start.
-
Holloeenie IS the loosest route. Although there maybe a DES one that if you sneeze on the rocks you loose holds.
-
Josh is talking about route number 642 Never Forget, on Elephant Rock. Yes, that's among the five worst in the Monument. Until you posted Josh, I didn't know you'd pulled that pillar off when you followed the first pitch. I agree, it's likely harder now.
But there are worse routes. The top-rope route ATDS on the Sew What Needles is probably looser (although it's a top-rope, which makes it less scary than was Never Forget). ATDS' name comes from a "sub-rating" I'd "invented" for Pinnacles routes. It stands for Absolute Total Dog... well you get the idea. We decided not to actually use it as a sub-rating in the book. On the same formation, Sew What Needles, Needful is one of the worst routes I've ever done (thanks again Munge for your patience while I led that one).
But of the 840-something routes I've done at Pinns, the worst, hands down, is Hershel Bershel, on Resurrection Wall. The description in the book is only a start on how bad it is. I'm pretty sure that both Munge and Mud thought I was going to die (and Munge probably thought he was going to die too) the first time I was on that. I've led and followed all three pitches on it. No person could pay me enough to go back.
So, Cruxluv, you made it pretty clear that Beyond Destiny isn't among your favorite Pinnacles routes. Would you be willing to share with us the back-story?
-
what about that route over on the right side of the balconies. It is over there by Knifeblade and goes up the corner. that upper part is some realy incredible loose choss. Quite beautiful.
-
what about that route over on the right side of the balconies. It is over there by Knifeblade and goes up the corner. that upper part is some realy incredible loose choss. Quite beautiful.
I followed you on that one day, and we finished on KnifeBlade. Agree, sweet crappy choss there. Solid lead and I recall you didn't get PO either. Bonus points.
-
Josh is talking about route number 642 Never Forget, on Elephant Rock. Yes, that's among the five worst in the Monument. Until you posted Josh, I didn't know you'd pulled that pillar off when you followed the first pitch. I agree, it's likely harder now.
But there are worse routes. The top-rope route ATDS on the Sew What Needles is probably looser (although it's a top-rope, which makes it less scary than was Never Forget). ATDS' name comes from a "sub-rating" I'd "invented" for Pinnacles routes. It stands for Absolute Total Dog... well you get the idea. We decided not to actually use it as a sub-rating in the book. On the same formation, Sew What Needles, Needful is one of the worst routes I've ever done (thanks again Munge for your patience while I led that one).
But of the 840-something routes I've done at Pinns, the worst, hands down, is Hershel Bershel, on Resurrection Wall. The description in the book is only a start on how bad it is. I'm pretty sure that both Munge and Mud thought I was going to die (and Munge probably thought he was going to die too) the first time I was on that. I've led and followed all three pitches on it. No person could pay me enough to go back.
So, Cruxluv, you made it pretty clear that Beyond Destiny isn't among your favorite Pinnacles routes. Would you be willing to share with us the back-story?
David S. was with us that day you lead that upper pitch and Mud dropped a line. I had bailed off at the meadow not wanting to continue the route after leading the first pitch and following the second. animal feces, moss covered mud and cobbles loosely held together, run out, crappy belay with questionable cam placements. I think Uber followed you on the upper pitch??? Not sure. Anyways, I did think you were going to die. You went totally silent for a way too long period.
I agree HBerchel is the absolute worst climb.
-
I agree HBerchel is the absolute worst climb.
I'll take your word and not go find out for myself...
-
No way man. I like that route, the rat in the crack is way cool. Plus it has some interesting moves.
David S. was with us that day you lead that upper pitch and Mud dropped a line. I had bailed off at the meadow not wanting to continue the route after leading the first pitch and following the second. animal feces, moss covered mud and cobbles loosely held together, run out, crappy belay with questionable cam placements. I think Uber followed you on the upper pitch??? Not sure. Anyways, I did think you were going to die. You went totally silent for a way too long period.
I agree HBerchel is the absolute worst climb.
-
No way man. I like that route, the rat in the crack is way cool. Plus it has some interesting moves.
OK, now I'm totally confused. I thought YOU were the rat in the crack?
-
I suppose that is why it felt so homey.
OK, now I'm totally confused. I thought YOU were the rat in the crack?
-
So, Cruxluv, you made it pretty clear that Beyond Destiny isn't among your favorite Pinnacles routes. Would you be willing to share with us the back-story?
Oh sorry...that was me just drunk posting again.
But truly that rock does not want to be touched. Or maybe it does...kinda like peeling off a scab.
A seasoned climber said it had no business being in the book. (no, I don't kiss and tell)
Although I do have to say that the anchor was one of the most spectacular spots I've been so far. I would have just preferred more secure everything to get there.
But...I'm just a gym climber so what do I know? >:D
-
Oh sorry...that was me just drunk posting again.
But truly that rock does not want to be touched. Or maybe it does...kinda like peeling off a scab.
A seasoned climber said it had no business being in the book. (no, I don't kiss and tell)
Although I do have to say that the anchor was one of the most spectacular spots I've been so far. I would have just preferred more secure everything to get there.
But...I'm just a gym climber so what do I know? >:D
In so many ways you sound like an up-and-coming mistress of mud. We need more like you.
-
Well said.
-
If you have an opinion based upon experience then you have a right to share it... Nay! An obligation!
Think of it as a mini tr
-
In so many ways you sound like an up-and-coming mistress of mud.
Until then, I'll just go with Queen of Crud. ;)
-
QOC it is!
Until then, I'll just go with Queen of Crud. ;)
-
Although the “regular” route is OK, this original finish is very chossy and should probably only be done by the most fanatic fans of obscure Pinnacles routes.
Now *that* is a polite way of putting a positive spin on something that sounds like unadulterated kitty litter.
-
QOC it is!
Woo hoo! It's taken me this long to see my official designation. Yes...slow as molasses...
Thanks 8)
-
This is an unofficial correction to the topo for Costanoan - we did it yesterday.
A 60m rope will allow you to rap each pitch with the exception of p1. You can solve that by rapping down to the 1st bolt at a good stance and then pull and thread about 15 feet of your rope for a short rap to the ground from there.
I know there is a 4th class "walk off" but we wanted the practice rapping down a multi-pitch esp with the semi-hanging anchor setup at the top of p2.
I found the line on pitch1 to have a very "unnatural" feeling/poor choice of line. I kept getting to great stances where you'd expect a bolt, only to find the bolt several feet up on a much less desirable stance - it just didn't make sense!
It leads me to believe the bolts were placed on rappel even though the FA info doesn't list it that way.
For newbie leaders, long runners could reduce rope drag on p1 since you're gonna deck regardless - if you miss bolt 2.
-
Didn't costanoan go in on rappel?
-
Correction recommendation for 750 Little Big Dog - Direct. The text says that the route starts "... directly below the first bolt." It does not start directly below. It's slightly left of the fall line from first bolt by a couple feet.
Also, route 751 Windmills may be harder than 11c if you are not using a cheat stone. There has definitely been about 2-3" of erosion since 92 or so. I could barely touch the bottom lip of the hole, whereas in a past life where I could pull 11c TR onsight, I could reach the pocket and swing in dynamically.
-
Didn't costanoan go in on rappel?
Brad doesn't say but I recently got a copy of Rubine's book and he says it did go in on rappel - boo! I mainly wanted to do it to get in an easy multi pitch. When I talked to Larry Arthur, he said he won't climb anything on the Citadel since the routes and the approach trail were established by nefarious methods and almost ruined climbing for everyone.
-
Brad doesn't say but I recently got a copy of Rubine's book and he says it did go in on rappel - boo! I mainly wanted to do it to get in an easy multi pitch. When I talked to Larry Arthur, he said he won't climb anything on the Citadel since the routes and the approach trail were established by nefarious methods and almost ruined climbing for everyone.
There were some questionable actions going on up there. Another way to look at it is; The climbing community rallied together and worked with the Park Service to self correct a bad situation.
-
I'd like to respectfully request that a side note be added to the description for the Keller Arete. The 4th bolt is in a pocket AND on the side of the pocket which cannot be seen when following the natural line up the arete. I understand why...the rock quality along what I perceived as the natural line on lead follows really lousy quality rock. I never saw the 4th bolt and ended up running it out through the crux over choss. Possibly add something in the description like "after the 3rd bolt, veer slightly right as you move up and "hunt" for a bolt in a pocket". Maybe the fact that the 3rd bolt feels somewhat off route should have been a clue/red flag for me. There may have been other factors at work - I recalled from reading the description the number 4 but that is AFTER the first bolt - so I think I had 4 in my mind as the total. When I looked up from 3 and saw a bolt way above me, I thought that was the next one. In reality that was the last bolt (#5). That vast stretch over choss probably should have been a red flag as well, seeing as the route is not listed as R - but hey...it's Pinns...and I've been on many routes that I thought were runout that had no R designation. For me, the natural line/logical line followed the center spine of the arete. It didn't occur to me to search one side or the other looking for the next(4th) bolt -and there is no way you can see that 4th bolt without seriously deviating from the natural line. My second didn't see it until she was standing in the pocket where it was placed - and the third up said he would have missed it too.
-
...It didn't occur to me to search one side or the other looking for the next bolt - and there is no way you can see that bolt without seriously deviating from the natural line.
Sounds like you weren't desperate enough
I'll make a note in that routes on line description (check it later and lemme know if it would have helped).
-
Sounds like you weren't desperate enough
I'll make a note in that routes on line description (check it later and lemme know if it would have helped).
Believe me, I was plenty desperate!
I checked the addition to the online description and that will be helpful but there is one problem.
It is the 4th bolt that I missed. The 3rd bolt is also right of center but easily seen.
-
It is the 4th bolt that I missed. The 3rd bolt is also right of center but easily seen.
OK, I misunderstood you. Is it right now?
I originally led the route without the fifth bolt and found that scary too.
-
OK, I misunderstood you. Is it right now?
I originally led the route without the fifth bolt and found that scary too.
Yes - that looks good.
Good that you added the 5th bolt to the route considering all that choss.
Even that huge block at the top felt somewhat loose!
-
Bad Ape is decidely not 5.10c at this time. Consensus of four climbers that can usually finaggle their way up 5.10c's. Everyone got shut down.
By contrast, most were able to pull the moves on Windmills.
I thought at first that perhaps the route was misdrawn on the topo, but even the old Rubine guide had it in as the 'scoop' to the right of No Smiles, not following the obvious line of cobbles out right, which goes btw.
-
I added a clarification today (# 22) regarding Crowley Towers - Tower Four.
-
Bad Ape is decidely not 5.10c at this time. Consensus of four climbers that can usually finaggle their way up 5.10c's. Everyone got shut down.
Guys are getting weak.
-
Guys are getting weak.
F4, we'll meet up with you yet don't worry!
-
Guys are getting weak.
pft
-
Addition Page 235 - The Three Bears. Only Baby Bear is listed with a top anchor. All three formations have two bolt anchors with chains.
-
pg 378 FA info.
For the route No Smiles, that was Tom's lead. The ordering should be reversed.
How found: email exchange with Tom H.
-
Addition Page 235 - The Three Bears. Only Baby Bear is listed with a top anchor. All three formations have two bolt anchors with chains.
Yup! My friend Frosty and I drilled all those anchor bolts and added the chains.
-
I added a correction today (#23) regarding Needle's Eye.
-
I don't know if this has been said before, but Tailspin gets 2 stars in my book. The route is starting to solidify. Just a few more pieces of mud to break off. Its a a sweet route.
-
Now a National Park....
-
Brad,
I was out by the Sisters with Aaron and Rosie yesterday taking advantage of early shade. Aaron made nice leads on Heaven's Gate and the 3rd sister, by the by. A question came to mind about Sister Five. The Wong Way is not quite clear to me. After passing the bolts and achieving the pedestal/ledge, did the first ascensionists continue around to the back and finish up the regular route, or did they hand traverse that scrofulous crack out onto the bulge and then head up?
-
Brad,
I was out by the Sisters with Aaron and Rosie yesterday taking advantage of early shade. Aaron made nice leads on Heaven's Gate and the 3rd sister, by the by. A question came to mind about Sister Five. The Wong Way is not quite clear to me. After passing the bolts and achieving the pedestal/ledge, did the first ascensionists continue around to the back and finish up the regular route, or did they hand traverse that scrofulous crack out onto the bulge and then head up?
Bob, without looking at the route and my description, I have no idea at all. Remind me when I'm down there with you next and we'll look at it together.
-
Great to hear heaven's gate is getting traffic.
Was there a bee's nest on going the wong way? I think we used to go around.
But it's been years.
-
Great to hear heaven's gate is getting traffic.
Was there a bee's nest on going the wong way? I think we used to go around.
But it's been years.
We were out there a few weeks before Mr Mud's bday gathering and the large nest was still very active in the big, slanting horizontal on the lower part of Silhouette Arete. We passed as KC had just been stung the previous week when we were around the other side on 3rd sis NW face. Haven't been back.
-
I added today a correction regarding route 816, Pigeon Crack.
-
He best put out a new guidebook.
-
Nice to know about Lonesome Bolt. I keep looking at that and think 'Hmmmm, looks run'. Won't think about it anymore.
-
Nice to know about Lonesome Bolt. I keep looking at that and thinking Hmmmm looks run. Won't think about it anymore.
I led Sheepish - sketchy gear that quickly becomes useless after you leave the big knob shown on the topo and climb up through the runout on poor quality rock.
I imagine the rock quality is probably the same or worse above the crux of Lonesome.
The beefy single bolt anchor way up could be used to TR Lonesome.
I heard tell of a climber much better than myself who backed off Lonesome.
-
I led Sheepish - sketchy gear that quickly becomes useless after you leave the big knob shown on the topo and climb up through the runout on poor quality rock.
I imagine the rock quality is probably the same or worse above the crux of Lonesome.
The beefy single bolt anchor way up could be used to TR Lonesome.
I heard tell of a climber much better than myself who backed off Lonesome.
That is a free solo
-
That is a free solo
Really? I thought X meant Xcellent!
-
X is where you sign your name to add me to your will. Please add me. I will place a commemorative plaque on the spot you land on.
-
A couple of things worth noting for the next edition...
-big poison oak bush at the start of the regular route on Tuff Dome
-poison oak bush just to the left of the start of the first pitch of Lucky 13
-if you are doing Tuff Dome Traverse, there is no bolt anchor on top of Tuff Dome. There is a good, square knob which you can tie off, but no bolts.
-
A couple of things worth noting for the next edition…
And do you have a specific date on which you intend to start that next edition?
-
-if you are doing Tuff Dome Traverse, there is no bolt anchor on top of Tuff Dome. There is a good, square knob which you can tie off, but no bolts.
Great minds think alike ;)
I used a body position belay at the top backed up by a large, solid sling knob on the northwest edge.
-
And do you have a specific date on which you intend to start that next edition?
The gauntlet has been thrown! C'mon whippersnapper! Time to follow in Brad's footsteps!
-
And do you have a specific date on which you intend to start that next edition?
LOL, are you officially retiring from Guidebook Authoring?
-
LOL, are you officially retiring from Guidebook Authoring?
Retired, not retiring.
-
Retired, not retiring.
It will not last.
-
The gauntlet has been thrown! C'mon whippersnapper! Time to follow in Brad's footsteps!
I've been in touch lately with Chris McNamara about co-authoring a supertopo guide to Pinnacles.
-
I've been in touch lately with Chris McNamara about co-authoring a supertopo guide to Pinnacles.
oh boy, hold on making some popcorn for this one! :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:
-
I've been in touch lately with Chris McNamara about co-authoring a supertopo guide to Pinnacles.
That's actually a great idea. And I can see how you'd personally benefit from exactly that kind of a guidebook.
It goes like this: by the time you two are done with that type of guidebook you'll have led bunches of 5.10b routes. Not that you'll have done routes that are actually 5.10b mind you. Instead, in such a book, most or all of the 5.9 routes yo've actually done will be "adjusted" to be 5.10.
Hey, I just realized that I'll benefit too, since all my hardest Pinns leads will be 5.12!!
(Really liken' this idea…).
-
Bunches? I thought those supertopo guides only have about an 1/4 of the routes that are in your book.
-
Bunches? I thought those supertopo guides only have about an 1/4 of the routes that are in your book.
:-) Less
-
Bunches? I thought those supertopo guides only have about an 1/4 of the routes that are in your book.
Good point. And all of J.C.s "new" 5.10 leads would be in Bear Gulch; there wouldn't be a Pinnacles West Side at all, and the book would fit in the back pocket of a cool climber's jeans.
(And there are parts of the Supertopo Guidebooks that I like - but their upgrading routes isn't one of those.)
-
in such a book, most or all of the 5.9 routes yo've actually done will be "adjusted" to be 5.10.
So what you're saying is there is YDS and then there is STDS? Sounds like some type of disease.
the book would fit in the back pocket of a cool climber's jeans.
The cool climbers I know wear swiss cheese pants ;)
-
So what you're saying is there is YDS and then there is STDS? Sounds like some type of disease.
The cool climbers I know wear swiss cheese pants ;)
Is he talking about skinny jeans? That and some cool hipster glasses
-
Bah! A supertopo guide wouldn't have aid. Pfft! Who wants to free climb when you can get concentrated fear in a set of ladders?
-
Bah! A supertopo guide wouldn't have aid. Pfft! Who wants to free climb when you can get concentrated fear in a set of ladders?
I've been working with munge and Chris on ad supertopo for BASE jumping..
-
"Good point. And all of J.C.s "new" 5.10 leads would be in Bear Gulch; there wouldn't be a Pinnacles West Side at all"
We'll have the rest of the park to ourselves. Why don't you title it "The 50 Best Climbs on the West's Worst Rock" That will keep them away.
CMac wrights guidebooks???????????????????????
Roper, Steck, and Young wright guidebooks
-
and the book would fit in the back pocket of a cool climber's jeans.
I like those old small guides that can fit in your pocket. Roper guides and Urioste Red Rock guide are awesome. The only thing is I am always afraid I am gonna mangle the things.
-
The only guy I know that consistently wears jeans to climb keeps falling off stuff :(
-
The only guy I know that consistently wears jeans to climb keeps falling off stuff :(
Saw Kauk float 5.12 in jeans. Then again, he could float 5.12 in a hula
-
I like a guide book that can also serve as a sitting pad.
And a few blank pages at the end for "nature notes" is always good to have.
Oddly, I haven't carried a guide in years.
Plus my new pack that can't possible fit the guide.
-
right?
I don't hesitate to tear pages out of the super topo and take with us on anything over 1 pitch.
F4, I use pine cones or my britches when I run out of mountain money, and try to let my partner carry the guide.
-
pine cones?!??!?!?
:yikes:
-
I prefer the variety of cone found at 9,500 north fork @ Whitney Portal.
Getting a sick climber off the mountain.
-
I added correction number 25 to the list just now (regarding The Sisters).
-
F4, I use pine cones or my britches when I run out of mountain money, and try to let my partner carry the guide.
Savage!
In 4H they never told us pine cones.
Yes, best to let the partner carry the guide.
-
I added correction/change/clarifications numbers 26, 27 and 28 today.
-
4 new routes for the price of 1!!!
Deal at half the price!
-
Brad,
when we went up to Kasparek's we followed the approach map in the guidebook. We did not
find an obvious way to get to the formation from directly across from . Instead, we followed
the path noted in the guidebook all the way to the Toilet Seat then headed southeast and down
to Kasparek's.
Also, on the way out, we found that it was much easier to go down(and supposedly go up) the
hillside between Kasperek's and the Goal Posts.
Bruce
-
Corrections for route 102 Forty Days of Rain
The current guidebook gives this route three stars which is by definition a total Pinnacles classic. I believe each star has a meaning if its to be taken seriously. The first star would have to be for it being hard, the second for it being painful and the third for it being scary (in regards to bolt placement and quality). By far the worst 5.12 route at Pinnacles. It's a unique climb for sure but the bottom portion is quite a junk show, the bolting is the best it could be given the route but its still quite terrible, the fall at the crux is a bummer, if you fall while clipping the last bolt you'll deck and the last bolt is in such a position that a carabiner acts as a fulcrum point and levers out on the bolt or possibly damages the carabiner during a fall.
In short, this climb should not be included in the new the SuperTopo guide book and Brad would do good to remove two stars from its current rating.
I'm sorta joking around here, but then again I'm sorta being serious.
-
new the SuperTopo guide book
I actually wouldn't be surprised by a SuperTopo select for Pinnacles.
-
I think 40 days is 3 stars. It is a bit loose at the bottom but the necessary holds are fine. I have not had an issue with fear of decking but then I put a cam in the crack. Haven fallen at the crux a few times I will say it is a casual fall. The setting is just too cool to get one star. I guess I could see two stars but one seems a bit too much.
-
Okay, two stars I could agree with.
Nonetheless I'm glad to be done with it. It might feel more solid in the roof if you don't have girl hands like me. I did the cam thing at first but it just got in the way and the bolt is right there anyways.
I guess I should clarify that falling on bolt two was the bad fall spot, not on the 3rd. I guess that area is the crux for most but my skinny fingers and hands have a hard time getting into the roof crack. Once I grab the lip its all cruiser from there.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see a select book for Pinnacles but I would be surprised to see SuperTopo publishing it.
-
Tom said that route had lost a good hold at some point. The picture of him dangling from the lip is worth a star by itself.
-
the flake came out of the crack that goes out the roof.
-
Tom said that route had lost a good hold at some point. The picture of him dangling from the lip is worth a star by itself.
For reference purposes:
Credit to T. Corcoran for original image...
Back cover of 1991 Rubine guidebook
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/16445444815_b0afc7e241_c.jpg)
-
For reference purposes:
Credit to T. Corcoran for original image...
Back cover of 1991 Rubine guidebook
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/16445444815_b0afc7e241_c.jpg)
that picture still sticks in my head of tom, killing it. The hair too. Is that a mullet and 70's stash? He is a crusher
-
that picture still sticks in my head of tom, killing it. The hair too. Is that a mullet and 70's stash? He is a crusher
Funny dude - looks like a mullet/bowl cut bangs combo :)
-
A couple of things for the next edition :-) The Hatchet has been rebolted. Plated 5-piece Rawl/Powers. Also, someone added a rap station about halfway along the ridge between where the route hits the ridge and the actual top anchor. There are three bolts. One bolt has a Fixe single ring hanger. One bolt has a Fixe double ring hanger. The other bolt just has a hanger. The two bolts with rap hangers are about 2 feet apart(yikes!).
The three bolt cluster on the South Ridge of Ridge Rock has been rebolted. Someone replaced the three bolts with two SS 5-piece Rawl/Powers bolts and Fixe camo hangers.
Edit: added "SS" to description of 5-piece Rawl/Powers.
Also, the date on Tom Rohrer's anchor on top of the Hatchet is 6/4/2004 not 2003 as noted in the guidebook(just for the sake of being completely accurate:-))
-
Thank you for the update.
-
A couple of things for the next edition :-) The Hatchet has been rebolted. Plated 5-piece Rawl/Powers. Also, someone added a rap station about halfway along the ridge between where the route hits the ridge and the actual top anchor. There are three bolts. One bolt has a Fixe single ring hanger. One bolt has a Fixe double ring hanger. The other bolt just has a hanger. The two bolts with rap hangers are about 2 feet apart(yikes!).
The three bolt cluster on the South Ridge of Ridge Rock has been rebolted. Someone replaced the three bolts with two 5-piece Rawl/Powers bolts and Fixe camo hangers.
Also, the date on Tom Rohrer's anchor on top of the Hatchet is 6/4/2004 not 2003 as noted in the guidebook(just for the sake of being completely accurate:-))
Couple of questions Bruce,
Should we swap out those ring hangers and add some chains on the Hatchet? If so - thoughts on what length?
Are the Ridge Rock bolts non stainless too?
I guess if all this stuff isn't SS/isn't being supplied by ASCA - we have little chance of finding out who is doing the work unless they see this info. I haven't seen any info on either of these formations on any of the lists.
-
The three bolt cluster was declustered by Mucci.
-
The three bolt cluster was declustered by Mucci.
When bro? Any idea why he used non stainless? Before ASCA was providing it perhaps?
Know anything about the Hatchet?
-
April 2012
No idea on Hatchet rap rings since I'm not sure where Bruce is talking about.
-
Sorry for the confusion. The bolts on Ridge Rock are stainless( i.e. non-plated :-)).
When you do the regular route on the Hatchet you hit the ridge on the north corner. From there it is about 50 feet to the actual top. After you go about 25 feet toward the top there is a small flat area. That is where the three bolts have been added. I would not touch the added anchor on the Hatchet. The anchor on the Real(TM) top is fine. There is no need to have that second, poorly placed, anchor. Frankly, it should probably be removed.
-
Sorry for the confusion. The bolts on Ridge Rock are stainless( i.e. non-plated :-)).
When you do the regular route on the Hatchet you hit the ridge on the north corner. From there it is about 50 feet to the actual top. After you go about 25 feet toward the top there is a small flat area. That is where the three bolts have been added. I would not touch the added anchor on the Hatchet. The anchor on the Real(TM) top is fine. There is no need to have that second, poorly placed, anchor. Frankly, it should probably be removed.
Cool. Thanks Munge and Bruce - I'll correct the updates.
-
Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see a select book for Pinnacles but I would be surprised to see SuperTopo publishing it.
I'd be surprised to see anyone publish it for two reasons. First, in essence it already exists. Second, there aren't too many publishers/authors out there who are able and willing to lose money in making a guidebook (and that is an almost certain result unless they use really crappy materials).
Of course, a "select" guidebook in the normal sense doesn't really exist. But many, many climbers nowadays don't buy guidebooks at all. Instead they simply take cell phone photos of the parts of a book that interest them (while at the store, or from friends' books) and then use their own, personalized "select" book while at the crag. This is theft of course, but the people doing it don't/can't see it as wrong - they believe that they are entitled to anyone else's intellectual property at any time they want, and at no cost. It's the new normal now of course. The music industry has been dealing with this issue for a long time.
And don't read the above as sour grapes please. I spent a huge amount of money publishing the current book and didn't care a damn about the expenditure. As of about a year ago (seven years after the book came out) I had actually broken even (gotten back my actual cash out of pocket), but it never mattered to me much if that happened (and I'm almost certain I won't break even on the SPH book - but I don't care). My goal in making books is to try to put good quality information (I hope) out there for the climbing community.
And any "normal" publisher/author who expects even a small profit from any type of future Pinnacles guidebook will almost certainly be disappointed. I don't think there are even remotely enough sales possible at such a small climbing location to break even on a physical guidebook again.
How about a select guidebook that's only a PDF? At least that has no physical components that cost money to make. Maybe that would work. But (as other climbing guidebook authors are finding out) how can you get modern people to pay for something they can get for free (and they can and will get a PDF for free)? And why a select PDF when they can get the whole book for free (by taking photos) or use online information that's also free.
I'm afraid there's little future in selling climbing guidebooks in this day and age. These are, of course, the exact reasons that Steve and I are wondering whether we'll ever do a second edition to our Pinnacles guidebook (I'm leaning toward it - but this time it'd be done knowing with certainty that it'll lose money).
-
You could make money. No question. Just use low grade paper, existing topos, and overseas printing. I'm not advocating that btw. It's just possible to get past break even faster. Call it a Sport Climbing guide and you've got it. lol
Cell phones small form factor make guidebooks in print really useful. There is some market no question, but the cost to the buyer has to be in reach.
How many SPH guides do you need to sell to break even? I'll buy. It's a worthwhile endeavor. To at least break even seems like something a lot of us would get behind.
-
How many SPH guides do you need to sell to break even? I'll buy. It's a worthwhile endeavor. To at least break even seems like something a lot of us would get behind.
I have no idea and I really don't care.
A lot?
And, as usual, thanks for the offered support.
-
When we were over at Pipsqueak, someone has added a bolt next to the last bolt on Rightfoot probably to create a two-bolt anchor(no chains) which is about 5-7 feet or so below the existing anchor(which has the massive chains). My guess is that this was done so topropes could be set up on both the Regular Route and Rightfoot when larger groups were climbing there.
-
larger groups
Stereotyping, we just enjoy eating.
someone has added a bolt
What the f-four?
-
When we were over at Pipsqueak, someone has added a bolt next to the last bolt on Rightfoot probably to create a two-bolt anchor(no chains) which is about 5-7 feet or so below the existing anchor(which has the massive chains). My guess is that this was done so topropes could be set up on both the Regular Route and Rightfoot when larger groups were climbing there.
Bruce - Brad actually shows two bolts there on his topo - page 159. He also describes the climb as 4 bolts - so maybe this sub-summit anchor has been there since the climb was established? Rubine's 1995 says 4 bolts too but doesn't mention the anchor and has no topo.
Bob? Care to chime in?
-
You could make money. No question. Just use low grade paper, existing topos, and overseas printing.
Munge, I re-read your post when I looked back at this thread (partially quoted above). Now I wonder if I understood you correctly the first time I read it.
By using "existing topos" did you mean me using my existing topos, or someone else doing a Pinns "select" book using my existing topos?
I ask because I thought you were talking about me (when I first read it), but then I think you know I'd never do a book "on the cheap." So now I wonder if you were talking about someone else?
I don't think that someone else using my topos for a different book would be fair to me.
-
Sorry about the confusion. Yeah, that was directed at you.
And I know you wouldn't do it on the cheap, so it was more of lark post. Should have dropped a winking smiley on there. And I know you are hip to copyright law in any event, so a full explanation wasn't really required.
-
Bruce - Brad actually shows two bolts there on his topo - page 159. He also describes the climb as 4 bolts - so maybe this sub-summit anchor has been there since the climb was established? Rubine's 1995 says 4 bolts too but doesn't mention the anchor and has no topo.
Bob? Care to chime in?
My friend Frosty and I replaced the upper three protection bolts(first bolt was already a 5-piece Rawl/Poers) on Rightfoot in December 2002. At the time there was not a second bolt at the last bolt. My guess is that after Brad and crew did Scragglepuss in 2006 he updated the topo. So the second bolt was added sometime between 2002 and 2006.
It's a 5-piece Rawl/Powers. I didn't look at it closely to see if it was plated or SS.
-
Several notes about the Goal Posts...
South Goal Post - though there are no bolts for protection, I would call this route 5.5 rather than 4th class.
North Goal Post - the climbing route is on the North Face and not the East face as described in the guidebook. There are two ways to do this route. You can scramble down a poison oak infested gully on the north side of the formation and begin by climbing a mossy water streak with big holds for about 25' to the shoulder of the formation and a bolt on
the right. From there climb up and left to the obvious weakness and the second bolt.
Another way to do this route is to traverse right 10' from the big ledge between the two goal posts to the second bolt and go up from there.
-
Several notes about the Goal Posts...
South Goal Post - though there are no bolts for protection, I would call this route 5.5 rather than 4th class.
North Goal Post - the climbing route is on the North Face and not the East face as described in the guidebook. There are two ways to do this route. You can scramble down a poison oak infested gully on the north side of the formation and begin by climbing a mossy water streak with big holds for about 25' to the shoulder of the formation and a bolt on
the right. From there climb up and left to the obvious weakness and the second bolt.
Another way to do this route is to traverse right 10' from the big ledge between the two goal posts to the second bolt and go up from there.
Thanks for the heads up Bruce - yes I have found 4th class to be a BS rating - I never trust it.
Another PO infested obscurity - perfect! Option 2 sounds good except Brad will tell me I haven't done the route :(
-
A couple of notes from the Hanging Valley.
On the Wad I would mention that the fixed pin which 'protects' (and I use that term loosely) the crux of the 5.5 route is basically worthless(a very poorly placed ring wafer) making this route in the 'R' or 'X' category. I would add to watch out for poison oak at the base of the climb.
On Teeter Tower, I would add that the 5.6 route on the east side takes gear in the crack up to 1.5" Also, there is a poison oak bush at the top of the crack in the original route.
On the Driver, I would add that this is basically an unprotected boulder problem.
-
Couple of things:
Please note that there is a poison oak bush at the base of Sorcerer's Slab (I washed my rope twice-didn't see the bush as I was rapping in from the top!....where there is still no anchor).
There appears to be only one bolt (now three with the new rap anchor) on top of Teeter Tower. The lone bolt is at the top of the crack of 'Obvious'. There is no bolt at the top of the 'Original.'
-
My friend Frosty and I replaced the upper three protection bolts(first bolt was already a 5-piece Rawl/Poers) on Rightfoot in December 2002. At the time there was not a second bolt at the last bolt. My guess is that after Brad and crew did Scragglepuss in 2006 he updated the topo. So the second bolt was added sometime between 2002 and 2006.
It's a 5-piece Rawl/Powers. I didn't look at it closely to see if it was plated or SS.
I think Bruce has this right. I placed only Stars back in the day and I certainly didn't put in a lower anchor.
-
I added corrections 29 and 30 today (regarding the routes Lion's Head and Holiday Ordeal).
-
10d?
Someone is doing it wrong.
-
Someone is doing it wrong.
Nope.
Shortly after you reported the route (top-rope, 5.10a) I repeated it. I thought it was a little stiff for 5.10a, and that therefore, 5.10a was just the right rating ;)
Since then I've done or tried it with both Dawsons about two years ago and then again yesterday with Gavin. Both Dawsons (known lightweights, BTW - but don't tell 'em I said that) thought it was really hard. Yesterday I stopped climbing it, since I was warming up and it was too much for a warmup. Then Gavin struggled on it but got it. Fifteen minutes later he walked up The Verdict.
Go try it yourself again (maybe that Sunday of M.O.M.?). One huge hold is still about to come off.
-
where are you starting from?
Is the it the start holds, or holds in the lower middle?
-
where are you starting from?
Is the it the start holds, or holds in the lower middle?
Move up Ordeal maybe 10 or 15 feet and then follow the line of least resistance up and very, very slightly right to the Ordeal intermediate anchor. The line to climb is clear.
The hardest part of it is the middle (the part that starts after leaving Ordeal but before the intermediate ledge that allows a no-hands rest).
-
Try starting on the bottom left, independent of the 10-15 feet up you describe.
-
Try starting on the bottom left, independent of the 10-15 feet up you describe.
In other words, stay a little further left. Yeah, we tried that.
Remember, I did do it at about 5.10a years ago. It isn't that now.
I will gladly belay you on it during M.O.M. If you can find any way to climb it then that is easier than 5.10d, I will buy you a beer (real or kool-aid type). Or give you a pair of pants :D
-
10d sit start?
-
The three bolt cluster was declustered by Mucci.
stumbled across my pic of what the Ridge Rock mess used to look like.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6409485493_b9664b4a57_z.jpg)
-
Thursday 7-16-15 I noticed an anchor bolt that's not on the topo. The route is The Love Handles #220. The topo shows one anchor bolt. There are two on the summit. One looks just like the belay bolt at the base of the climb - a wedge bolt and a squarish blue tinted hanger (undoubtedly the original single bolt anchor). The 2nd bolt appears to be a 5 pc Rawl with no washer, on an SMC hanger. I can't see any ridges on the bolt head but the resolution of my pic isn't super sharp. There is no rust on the bolt or hanger. Anyone know why people remove the washers from bolts?
-
they stay dryer?
;)
-
Route #261 - South Face of South Yak
Pitch #1 - has three bolts and one fixed pin. The fixed pin looks to actually be a homemade angle iron bolt hanger pounded into a crack. The climbing may only be 5.4 but it is very, very loose at the top. Two-bolt anchor with quick links and rings. 90' rap.
Pitch #2 - eight bolts to a 2-bolt anchor with quick links and rings.
Pitch #3 - looks like at least 4 bolts (with the same swaged cable hangers) heading out and right in a horizontal groove feature. It looks like this pitch is trying to reach the very prominent black water streak on the upper part of the southeast face. We didn't have time to go out on the bolts and look, but from the top of South Yak there is no indication that the route actually tops out.
-
Brad,
Rather than suggest that the belay for the top of the 2nd pitch for Daedulus use the first bolt of the 7-bolt ladder and some gear, I would suggest that they use the belay at the top of Drop Zone, etc. It is a much better belay location and much safer with all the loose rock on that ledge that could rain down on the trail below.
-
Brad,
Rather than suggest that the belay for the top of the 2nd pitch for Daedulus use the first bolt of the 7-bolt ladder and some gear, I would suggest that they use the belay at the top of Drop Zone, etc. It is a much better belay location and much safer with all the loose rock on that ledge that could rain down on the trail below.
Zactly!
-
The topo for Freedom Dome says 125' for rapping off. If you use the bolts and chains that we put up in 1995 and rap straight down it is 80'.
-
The topo for Freedom Dome says 125' for rapping off. If you use the bolts and chains that we put up in 1995 and rap straight down it is 80'.
Bruce - that is correction #18 in the list on page 1. It says 95 feet but you are right - I know there was more than a few feet left when Julius and I rapped that with a 60m last year.
-
If the rap is 95 feet than I got a heck of a deal on my 165' (50m) rope. BTW, for those of us who still use 50m ropes the difference between 80' and 95' is significant. It is important to get that distance as correct as possible.
-
Clint and I reworked the rappel off of North Condor Crag by lengthening the chains a bit. It was dark when we rapped off so we just went down to the anchor between the two summits and continued rapping from there. With the longer chains you might be able to get down to the anchor just above the crux crack, but it is probably best that the guidebook recommend that you rappel 50' to the anchor between the two summits and then continue rapping from there. Otherwise the rope might not pull.
-
Thanks Bruce. Yeah, the chains were a but short. Breaking the rappel into 2x makes it easier.
-
I added a correction today to the route “Solotero Pina Especial” as follows:
33. Correction, page 131, (route 324, “Solotero Pina Especial”): There is a strong consensus that this route is 5.8 not 5.7 (the crux is getting to the first bolt).
-
I added a correction today to the route “Solotero Pina Especial” as follows:
33. Correction, page 131, (route 324, “Solotero Pina Especial”): There is a strong consensus that this route is 5.8 not 5.7 (the crux is getting to the first bolt).
The crux is getting past the first bolt. Getting to it is easy.
-
Getting over it?
-
Getting over it?
Nope. Getting past it. Don't worry, you'll get over it.
-
Fixed.
-
Fixed.
Nice. We don't have to worry about clink getting to it, around it, past it or over it - he doesn't climb other people's routes! :frown2: :idea: :nonod: :prrr:
-
Nice. We don't have to worry about clink getting to it, around it, past it or over it - he doesn't climb other people's routes! :frown2: :idea: :nonod: :purr:
OMFFFG - pot/kettle (lately).
-
Just a couple of corrections:
1) Page 52 - topo shows three bolt anchors on top at 56/57/58 and 66/67. These are
now two bolt anchors.
2) page 56 - topo shows two bolt anchor at 86. Four of us looked for about 10 minutes and we could not find this anchor or any traces of an anchor.
3) Page 52 - we replaced a bolt stud in the vicinity of the top of 59. There is now a single bolt to provide a directional to the finish of route 59 and the two bolt anchor at 56/57/58
-
Just a couple of corrections:
1) Page 52 - topo shows three bolt anchors on top at 56/57/58 and 66/67. These are
now two bolt anchors.
2) page 56 - topo shows two bolt anchor at 86. Four of us looked for about 10 minutes and we could not find this anchor or any traces of an anchor.
3) Page 52 - we replaced a bolt stud in the vicinity of the top of 59. There is now a single bolt to provide a directional to the finish of route 59 and the two bolt anchor at 56/57/58
Thanks Bruce. I didn't want to try and explain that on the rebolting master list.
-
I added correction number 34 today:
34. Correction, page 146, (route 367, “Little Flatiron - North Chimney”): This route was named “North Chimney” decades ago. But it isn’t really a chimney, it’s much better described as a slot. So, although the name will stay the same, future descriptions will use the word slot, instead of the word chimney. More critically, this 70 foot route really should have a fifth class rating. It is 5.4 R. It is possible to use cams in the slot portion of the climb, although these provide only so-so protection for the slot and no protection at all for the upper slab.
-
I added correction number 34 today:
34. Correction, page 146, (route 367, “Little Flatiron - North Chimney”): This route was named “North Chimney” decades ago. But it isn’t really a chimney, it’s much better described as a slot. So, although the name will stay the same, future descriptions will use the word slot, instead of the word chimney. More critically, this 70 foot route really should have a fifth class rating. It is 5.3 R. It is possible to use cams in the slot portion of the climb, although these provide only so-so protection for the slot and no protection at all for the upper slab.
I wrote 5.4 with minimal pro in my climbing log - a green and yellow alien and a couple of sling knobs.
-
I wrote 5.4 with minimal pro in my climbing log - a green and yellow alien and a couple of sling knobs.
Well, it might be 5.3d R :P ;)
I'll go with 5.4 R if you think that's better. What say you?
-
Well, it might be 5.3d R :P ;)
I'll go with 5.4 R if you think that's better. What say you?
Probably okay either way - just giving feedback- that was with me leading and input from clink and Missy on the follow.
-
Probably okay either way - just giving feedback- that was with me leading and input from clink and Missy on the follow.
I was in approach shoes and so maybe not as well positioned to judge. I changed it :-*
-
I was in approach shoes and so maybe not as well positioned to judge. I changed it :-*
It was my first climb of the day and they were following.
Either rating gives folks a heads up.
I had in my notes that nelkins soloed up the other route while we were doing that. :yikes: :puke:
-
I made a correction to the route Crud and Mud - East Side (correction # 35). J.C. please review and edit/comment.
-
I made a correction to the route Crud and Mud - East Side (correction # 35). J.C. please review and edit/comment.
Looks great.
-
The Western Front route Y.F.T. acronym is for Yummy Frontal Tickles. FYI
-
At J.C.'s suggestion I added a (sort of) correction indicating that the topo for Shoot the Tube is now wrong by one bolt.
-
At J.C.'s suggestion I added a (sort of) correction indicating that the topo for Shoot the Tube is now wrong by one bolt.
Weird - not the post but the fact that I didn't see it until I saw a "new" on the sticky.
EDIT - I just missed it. It was back 56 posts.
Thanks for doing/clarifying that.
-
I added correction number 37 regarding route 354, "Looking For the Past."
-
I added correction number 37 regarding route 354, "Looking For the Past."
Looking For the Past - aka The Kissing Boulders :lol:
-
Correction suggestion:
Route 464 South Toe. The lead bolt is three quarters of the way up the route. The current description says half way up.
I also think the description might be better as: Chimney as high as possible, clip a bolt and then commit to that side.
I just added the phrase clip a bolt although that is going to be obvious right about the time you get there. It just isn't obvious from below when you are in it. The bolt can be seen if you stand way back from the formation.
The anchor has been replaced and is set for rappel down the west side. The rappel is 45 feet.
-
I just added correction #38 regarding the mixed free/aid route South Yak - South Face.
Our efforts Saturday were partly a rebolting and partly an exploration to determine how far and to what end the recently discovered third pitch went.
It was a fun and successful effort.
While I replaced spinner bolts low, Jennifer belayed Bruce's lead of the aid portion of the climb. The second pitch is slightly overhanging and physical and the third, traversing pitch, is awkward as hell (equally so on lead and follow). The remaining old bolts add spice to the lead (trust me - you'll see the photos below and NOT want to hang on those that remain!).
I followed Bruce (on aid of course) to the anchor and we rappelled off. Here's me following (and grunting, slicing my hand and swearing) the third pitch:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4682/25699953938_610a80d607_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4639/25699955928_18776808ac_c.jpg)
Bruce rapping off:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4727/25699956978_9e3d2f99a6_c.jpg)
Me rapping off:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4737/25699961038_011d8b1c1b_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4598/39570038021_ff0247e2ab_c.jpg)
And, the stars of this post, the old bolts that made up the aid ladder (all are quarter inch with screw tops). Imagine hanging on these with no new bolts for backup (yuck!):
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4732/39570039571_d4127a33bd_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4687/39570040751_37d8796f8e_b.jpg)
J.C., I assume you can extrapolate enough information to complete the post about the rebolting effort on the master list? If not, lemme know and I'll fill in any gaps. And although Bruce and Clint were the heavy re-bolters on this one, you and I and Jennifer Wang and Kathy and Tricia all played a role (the latter two were ground support for us when we replaced a few of the bolts).
Anyone looking for some tricky aid climbing practice should give this one a go. It's certainly not an "average" aid training bolt ladder!
-
Steep!
I followed Bruce (on aid of course) to the anchor and we rappelled off. Here's me following (and grunting, slicing my hand and swearing) the third pitch:
You sweared? Must'a been tuff.
-
You sweared? Must'a been tuff.
I've heard Brad swear changing from shorts to pants :smilewinkgrin:
-
I've heard Brad swear changing from shorts to pants :smilewinkgrin:
Funny, he didn't swear yesterday :biggrin:
He hiked up in shorts but with the intermittent cloud cover and the uncertainty of how long we would be on the first deck of Quadruple Decker, he changed back.
-
I've heard Brad swear changing from shorts to pants :smilewinkgrin:
Hey punk, don't you have some icicle to hang off of for a while?
-
While I replaced spinner bolts low, Jennifer belayed Bruce's lead of the aid portion of the climb. The second pitch is slightly overhanging and physical and the third, traversing pitch, is awkward as hell (equally so on lead and follow). The remaining old bolts add spice to the lead (trust me - you'll see the photos below and NOT want to hang on those that remain!).
bolts that made up the aid ladder (all are quarter inch with screw tops). Imagine hanging on these with no new bolts for backup (yuck!):
Bomber.
-
Nice work, looks cool.
-
Bomber.
Aerial Destruction Device you mean.
-
Funny, he didn't swear yesterday Big Grin
He should get the job of announcing the second coming.
-
Page 210, route 529. Condor Conduit- Regular... "Approach as for Condor Condom Condiment but..."
-
Keeping it safe.
-
I added correction number 39 (regarding North Goal Post) today.
-
I added correction number 39 (regarding North Goal Post) today.
Might be the easiest route I will ever do. Walk up, touch the second bolt, walk away :yesnod: :biggrin: :thumbup: :ihih:
-
Page 210, route 529. Condor Conduit - Regular... "Approach as for Condor Condom Condiment but..."
A lovely leftover from the original name. Maybe waldo can elaborate. Where is waldo? Last I saw, he was in the Valley.
P.S. I heard that there is a lot of PO to get to and up the chimney - might still need a protective covering :lol:
-
P.S. I heard that there is a lot of PO to get to and up the chimney - might still need a protective covering :lol:
Don't go making a rash decision.
-
Yes, you have to bushwack-thrash to get to the bottom of the chimney.
Versus rappelling in as that part is chocked with PO.
The chimney did look clean.
I recommend eating a leaf a day, rolled up into bread.
-
I noticed an issue in the description of the route 830 "Serpiente de Cascabel" that may need clarification. The language in the 2007 guide book states that the route ends at the top of the second pitch of "Derringer". If you ignore the approach for "Derringer" or the route "Bullseye", "Serpiente de Cascabel" ends at the top of the first pitch of "Derringer".
-
I just added correction number 40, about route 702 "Point Five Pinnacle - Regular."
-
I just added a (very long) correction number 41.
-
I just added a (very long) correction number 41.
Everything looks good except the anchor listed as one bolt below. It's listed correctly elsewhere.
Regards,
The OCD team
676. The Buzzard - North Face 5.6 R Start on The Buzzard’s uphill (west) side. A class four ramp on the left leads to a point partway up the pinnacle’s north face. Crux moves lead to easy ground, the summit, and a one-bolt anchor. The only protection on this climb consists of small to two inch gear in a poor-quality crack at the far top of the ramp.
-
- The Buzzard - East Face is a route that Clint and I discovered/found back when we were researching the 2007 guidebook. In retrospect, we may well have done an FA up the entire face. I won’t claim this as an FA though on the remote chance that it wasn’t. We’ll leave this longer route as FA “unknown.”
I wouldn't hesitate to claim it and name it Nevermore...
Because no one is ever going to repeat it! :lol: :nono: :nonod: :frown2: :crazy:
-
I wouldn't hesitate to claim it and name it Nevermore...
Because no one is ever going to repeat it! :lol: :nono: :nonod: :frown2: :crazy:
I'll give some thought to the first suggestion, but the second is wrong - I hear about people free-soloing it at least once a week >:D
-
I will free solo it next week
8)
-
I will free solo it next week
8)
No you won't.
You're perfectly capable of it, but it's too far away from stuff that you're much more interested in working on. Just walking there would eat way too far into your unfortunately limited time.
-
I added correction number 42 today.
-
I added correction number 43 today (actually a change), regarding the route Burtons Below.
-
Thank you for the changes to "Burtons Below".
-
I added correction number 43 today (actually a change), regarding the route Burtons Below.
This route is now 5.9 * and adequately protected.
I'll consider that an early Christmas present and I'd go climb it tomorrow for our Pinns anniversary but that ain't happenin'
-
I'll consider that an early Christmas present and I'd go climb it tomorrow for our Pinns anniversary but that ain't happenin'
Doesn't a nice, warm, sunny day in that east side of The Flatiron staging area sound good right now?
-
Doesn't a nice, warm, sunny day in that east side of The Flatiron staging area sound good right now?
It does.
I'm about to lose what is left of my mind.
I updated the Master List to reflect the work and change.
-
Burton's Below dries out really fast.
-
Burton's Below dries out really fast.
Yeah, once it stops raining in the first place.
-
It has stopped raining and is currently sunny in Santa Cruz
-
^^^
Is it just me, or do your posts seem somehow older, maybe more mature?
-
It has stopped raining and is currently sunny in Santa Cruz
True - but Pinns got rain in the last hour - .40 since midnight. Looks like we won't be climbing on our climbing anniversary tomorrow :(
-
^^^
Is it just me, or do your posts seem somehow older, maybe more mature?
No-one picked up on the clue. Which, admittedly wasn't a very strong clue.
Our illustrious youngster turned 30 on Friday. He'll never again be half my age.
-
Man, Santa Cruz dried out today.....I bet Pinns needs a day to dry.
Tempting!
XMas eve looks nice
-
Is it just me, or do your posts seem somehow older, maybe more mature?
Ha!
-
Man, Santa Cruz dried out today.....I bet Pinns needs a day to dry.
Tempting!
XMas eve looks nice
Yesterday from 5:30am to 11:30pm the gauge showed .49 inches of rain at Pinns.
Looks like the sun is shining pretty good so far today.
There is still a 20% chance of light rain today and the high is only forecast to be 51.
High of 48 tamale with more rain overnight and 90% chance of rain on Christmas Day.
Looks like we may get some sunny days with highs in the low 50's for a while after that.
-
No-one picked up on the clue. Which, admittedly wasn't a very strong clue.
Our illustrious youngster turned 30 on Friday. He'll never again be half my age.
Unless I've got your age listed wrong on my calendar...he'll never be half your age.
He's half my age.
-
Unless I've got your age listed wrong on my calendar...he'll never be half your age.
He's half my age.
You might have it wrong.
He was half my age from December 22, 2018 (he had been 29 for two days and I turned 58 that day), until December 20, 2019 (I was still 58 and he turned 30).
He's now half your age until April 5, 2020.
Either way, he's still a punk (a tall punk).
-
Why?
-
Brian is half of my age from 12/20/2015 till 6/20/2016, he was 26, and I was 52. :D
-
Why did Cindy fall off the swing?
-
(a tall punk)
I resemble that comment
-
Why did Cindy fall off the swing?
No idea. Why did she?
-
She had no arms.
Knock knock
-
She had no arms.
Knock knock
That's not even slightly funny.
Who's there?
-
Not Cindy
-
Where did her arms go ???
-
Must've ran into someone very disarming, or maybe bought her x a chainsaw?
Next year we should all go caroling at the Eastside employee housing. :guitar:
-
It's ok. Maybe Cindy can still climb squeeze chimneys.
-
I tried to add a correction number 44 just now, but the site won't let me modify my post. Is this only a problem for sticky threads? Or just the corrections sticky thread?
Earlier this morning I made a small modification to the route description for Grin and Bear It and that worked smoothly.
Hoping that the site Gods can fix these issues, including the weirdness that seems to result from apostrophes in, at least, lists (look at the new routes list for example).
Meanwhile, here's correction number 44, which I will add to the main list if and when it is possible to do so:
44. Change, page 231 (route 577, Clean Sweep): There are obvious signs that many holds have broken off of this route. And the climbing on it is no longer 5.8. In the new book, this route will be rated 5.10a (no stars) and the topo will show that rating above the second bolt. This 5.10a is current, but depends a lot on one "flake top" hold that flexes, but which should be there for a while unless someone pulls out on it.
-
I tried to add a correction number 44 just now, but the site won't let me modify my post. Is this only a problem for sticky threads? Or just the corrections sticky thread?
Earlier this morning I made a small modification to the route description for Grin and Bear It and that worked smoothly.
I tried to modify the message after "un-sticky" the message, and I also got the 500 error. So that has nothing to do with it.
Hoping that the site Gods can fix these issues, including the weirdness that seems to result from apostrophes in, at least, lists (look at the new routes list for example).
I don't know much, but one thing I know is there are no site Gods, not here at least. Site janitors more likely, but a janitor will not be able to fix a crumbling pre-historic outhouse perched precariously on an unstable hill side. She's been shoving rocks under exposed posts here and there.
-
^^^
Well we love you. Keep trying anything you can. I've got almost all my stuff saved anyway (including PCT trip reports).
-
I tried again with correction number 45, but no, it won't post.
So here it is:
EDIT: Wow... it won't post the whole thing. I'll try to do it in pieces?
SECOND EDIT: OK, I've narrowed down the issue - it's apostrophes. When I attempt to copy/paste from my text document, the text copies but then will not appear at and after the first apostrophe. And apostrophes are the issue with the other text documents too. I'll try the whole post in a separate box, but will modify it so that there are no apostrophes (modifying the quoted sections that way too).
45. Change, page 231 (route 576, Swept Away): About a year ago J. C. from this site called an issue with this route to my attention. As shown on the topo and, to my knowledge, as climbed by climbers, the route's second of only three protection points was a small tree growing from the rock (the tree is about 2 1/2 inches in diameter at its base). In John's view, the rock in which the tree was growing looked unstable; his concern was that any fall onto the tree (if tied off) would blow the supporting rock and the tree clear out.
John knows Pinnacles and knows Pinnacles rock. I believed him. So I reached out to one of the first ascent party, Tim Kemple. Here's the relevant part of our email exchange on this issue:
ONE (me to Tim): "Hi Tim,
I looked you up to raise an issue about the current status of your Pinnacles route Swept Away. I suspect that you remember the route - the 5.9 on The Smokestack. You might also remember that the route used a tied off tree as a protection point about halfway up (at least everything I
-
45. Change, page 231 (route 576, Swept Away): About a year ago J. C. from this site called an issue with this route to my attention. As shown on the topo and, to my knowledge, as climbed by climbers, the route's second of only three protection points was a small tree growing from the rock (the tree is about 2 1/2 inches in diameter at its base). In John's view, the rock in which the tree was growing looked unstable; his concern was that any fall onto the tree (if tied off) would blow the supporting rock and the tree clear out.
John knows Pinnacles and knows Pinnacles rock. I believed him. So I reached out to one of the first ascent party, Tim Kemple. Here's the relevant part of our email exchange on this issue:
ONE (me to Tim): "Hi Tim,
I looked you up to raise an issue about the current status of your Pinnacles route Swept Away. I suspect that you remember the route - the 5.9 on The Smokestack. You might also remember that the route used a tied off tree as a protection point about halfway up (at least everything I have ever heard about the route indicates a tied off tree, and it would be ground fall without it).
The issue is that that tree, and the flake it is growing behind, seem to be failing. A friend of mine recently replaced one of the bolts on the route (he has replaced literally hundreds of Pinnacles bolts with modern stainless steel hardware and is very, very skilled at it). He inspected the tree while he was doing this and was aghast (he is retired now, but was a geology professor and used a bunch of geology terms to describe his worries - the phrases were not all that clear to me, but the worries about the tree and the flake were).
No doubt that climbers using the tree has not helped its health, but I doubt that that has had that much of an impact. The situation has simply changed over the what, 37 years since the route was established, and the tree probably is not good pro any more.
Rather than rate the route
-
...X in the new book, it seems like a bolt should be added as a protection point near the tree. But I would not even consider doing that without the express permission of a first ascentionist.
Do you still live close enough to Pinns that you could go look at the situation? Are you still climbing? Do you still live close enough to Pinns that you could go look at the situation? Are you still climbing? Any thoughts on what you would like to see done if you are not around yourself? It is a fine route and I for one would like to see it continue without the dreaded X rating."
TWO (Tim to me): "Thanks again for reaching out. I am currently living in Salt Lake, still climbing, and still putting in new routes.
That lead was one of the scariest of my life. I do not know how I managed to get both hands free to drill. I did not use hooks, did not know about that technique. Did not know much about anything!!
We were operating in a vacuum.
That said, I like my routes to be safe. No point in excessive risk. Especially with that rock quality. So feel free to add bolts to any of my routes to make them safe."
THREE (me back to Tim): "Tim, thanks for being open minded about this. I will pass on your thoughts to John and he and I will talk more about what to do. As an example, it is probably critical that any bolt added to replace the tree as a protection point be added low enough that a climber clips it before they might grab the tree as a handhold (so that if the tree then fails, well you get the picture).
I will report back to you, hopefully with a photo or two if/when John does add a bolt. I suppose I should also post to Mountain Project so that readers there do not get an idea that the bolt was just added randomly."
On November 21, 2021 I finally got to Chimney Sweep with Jenn Wang.
I inspected Swept Away from the ground before we climbed. My first observation was that the tree is now dead. Similar species of oak nearby all have green leaves and photos of this tree on the route have green leaves in shots Noal posted to Mountain Project some years ago. There is no green at all on the tree now. All the leaves are brown.
So this issue alone (the tree now dead) would probably compel some action.
But what about the issue John raised, the tree's lack of support in the rock? Well, from the ground there's an obvious fracture running straight down from the base of the tree. That's worrisome. And upon inspection from above and actually at the tree? Holy wow! Yeah, John, I see what you mean. My closer inspection showed fractures to both sides of the tree horizontally and, yes, a serious fracture below it. And rock that was being pried out from the main face. Fists thumping on the rock near the tree sounded like styrofoam.
My estimate is that, even if the tree were alive, a fall onto it (if tied off as protection) would more likely than not dislodge the large flakes it was growing behind and either dislodge the tree or even break it off. If this occurred, a climber would likely continue another 35 feet and hit the ground. The falling flakes could badly injure a belayer.
As John suspected, this tree has become an illusory protection point. Maybe it was adequate once (I tied it off when I led the route in the early '90s), but it no longer is.
With Jenn's help I looked at the possibility of adding a bolt to the route as close to the tree as possible (with Tim's express permission).
The idea being that, with the tree failing, the bolt will be actual, not illusory protection at the same place on the climb.
Finding a place to drill proved challenging. Tapping in the area with a hammer was terrifying. If the rock around the tree had looked loose, the tapping made it all seem much looser, much worse. "Thunk" is not a good sound when looking for decent rock in which to drill.
After some work, I finally found good rock three feet to the right from the base of the tree and two inches higher in elevation. I placed a bolt. I think this new bolt will be exactly as clipable for a leader as the tree was and it's within two inches of the tree's base in height. But the rock left no choice regardless - the bolt had to go in good enough rock so that it too wasn't going to be an illusion.
I got it done, a 3/8 inch stainless bolt that I would give a "6" in quality (on a scale where a 1 will barely stay in the rock and a 10 is the best rock possible). I'm satisfied and would gladly use it for protection if I were ever to lead the route again.
-
Holy f$%ing shit, that was like pulling teeth out of a condor.
Both apostrophes and quotes around short bits of text are the problem. When posting new material, the site just stops it from posting at and then after either one.
It took me nearly an hour to remove all of the offending marks and get that to post, and it's not even in the main text of the corrections.
We may be at a place where the site is effectively dead to new stuff?
-
^^^
And yet in post 222 above some apostrophes did import. WTF?
-
WTF?
It's usually those moments that make root causing tricky.
I think at this point, the best alternative for you is to document the list in a nice Google document, which you can edit any time, freely, and with beautiful format. Get the sharable link (with view permission only) to that document, and just supply the link in the sticky. I hear Google might have a few engineers who work for them so they might keep the boat afloat longer.
-
^^^
That's ridiculous and I'm deeply hurt that you would even suggest "change." Bah f$%king humbug.
I'll back everything up and be prepared to post it to something else in the future (not Mountain Project though). And then wait until the ship actually sinks before I abandon it.
And I will beseech both you and what's his name for action while it lasts. Like I said, we love you. And we'll love you even more if you at least try to keep it going ;D
-
A link will get shared out faster than a fart leaks through lycra.
Maybe a separate couple of web pages using a content creation app from your host provider with an unshareable link?
This is also Robert's test post using an apostrophe. <-- this posted fine. It's Word formatting for the apostrophes when you paste it in? Maybe use a text editor/notepad instead?
-
A link will get shared out faster than a fart leaks through lycra.
Maybe a separate couple of web pages using a content creation app from your host provider with an unshareable link?
This is also Robert's test post using an apostrophe. <-- this posted fine. It's Word formatting for the apostrophes when you paste it in? Maybe use a text editor/notepad instead?
It is pasted in from Word, yes. All my documents start as Word docs (with Ellen, of course).
I can try first pasting it into Text Edit and then copying that. Any chance that the first copy/paste cycle would taint the second though?
-
I don't know much, but one thing I know is there are no site Gods, not here at least. Site janitors more likely, but a janitor will not be able to fix a crumbling pre-historic outhouse perched precariously on an unstable hill side. She's been shoving rocks under exposed posts here and there.
Everything you all are posting is over my head, but this I get. Thanks Mudworm. Brad, a few perfect words??
-
MS products mess with everything. I use Word every day and have for over 20 years now and it still drives me bonkers, but then I guess it doesn't take much to do that.
-
It looks like the site is creaking again. I can't modify the initial post in this thread anymore. I don't know if this is a temporary glitch or if it will be the new normal.
So, correction number 46 will have to be a separate post. It's actually a change with a correction blended in:
46. Three of the old guys on the old-guys’ trip led Bob Walton’s route Miss Piggy on Spike’s Peak yesterday. All three have over 50 years of climbing experience. All three liked the route, but thought that they would like it better if the first bolt wasn’t 30 or so feet up (the 2007 book says 20 feet, but that’s not right).
After the climbing day yesterday, Caleb and family were nice enough to host a barbecue at a property he has access to to four miles away from their house, on the Arroyo Seco River (an absolutely gorgeous riverside parking and barbecuing facility). Bob and his wife came over from King City. The three old guys talked to Bob about having just climbed Miss Piggy (Bob went to the High Peaks with us yesterday, but headed down early).
Bob’s comment was that “yeah, the first bolt was high because [he hadn’t been] able to stop and drill lower.” Bob suggested that a new, lower first bolt could (should) be added to the route.
When they all told me of this conversation, I told them that Joel and I would be in the High Peaks again today and that if Bob wanted me to we could add a new first bolt to his route. He wanted me to. So Miss Piggy now has four lead bolts. The new first bolt is between 12 and 15 feet off the ground and will be very helpful in preventing what could have been a long ground-fall (if a hold broke or someone screwed up).
EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot that I'd had this same problem a few years ago. So this one is correction number 46.
-
46. Three of the old guys on the old-guys’ trip led Bob Walton’s route Miss Piggy on Spike’s Peak yesterday. All three have over 50 years of climbing experience. All three liked the route, but thought that they would like it better if the first bolt wasn’t 30 or so feet up (the 2007 book says 20 feet, but that’s not right).
After the climbing day yesterday, Caleb and family were nice enough to host a barbecue at a property he has access to to four miles away from their house, on the Arroyo Seco River (an absolutely gorgeous riverside parking and barbecuing facility). Bob and his wife came over from King City. The three old guys talked to Bob about having just climbed Miss Piggy (Bob went to the High Peaks with us yesterday, but headed down early).
Bob’s comment was that “yeah, the first bolt was high because [he hadn’t been] able to stop and drill lower.” Bob suggested that a new, lower first bolt could (should) be added to the route.
When they all told me of this conversation, I told them that Joel and I would be in the High Peaks again today and that if Bob wanted me to we could add a new first bolt to his route. He wanted me to. So Miss Piggy now has four lead bolts. The new first bolt is between 12 and 15 feet off the ground and will be very helpful in preventing what could have been a long ground-fall (if a hold broke or someone screwed up).
I thank Brad and Joel for placing the new bolt on Miss Piggy! Hey, maybe it gets a star now?