Official Rebolting and Route Hardware suggestion thread

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

Thanks Bruce. Powers did a design change and the new bolts don't look like they used to. I should have ordered a few from Fixe just to check them out. The expansion sleeve looks much shorter than the old design and the blue cap looks completely different. Fixe wasn't weren't selling the Powers plated steel bolts for a while and then they introduced this new design. In the interim they started selling the Cobra bolts - which they still have on their site.
Take a look at Fixe's site and you'll see all what I'm talking about.

Yes, the new Power Bolt + is a complete redesign.  For the 3/8" models the bolt in the middle is no longer 5/16" but is now 1/4".  Powers did upgrade the bolt from Grade 5 to Grade 8 carbon steel. For this reason, Kevin Daniels started selling the Cobra bolts and the ASCA scrambled at the beginning of 2015 to stock up on all the SS bolts it could afford fearing that the SS bolts would also be redesigned.

Luckily, the redesign, for now, has only affected the plated steel models.  It is not clear if Powers will do some major redesign for the SS bolts, but not right now.

[JC w KC redux]

It sounds like you did your homework Bruce. I did not notice that the diameter of the PS bolt was also different. I just checked the specs - that is disturbing even with the higher grade steel.

Here are some details for the time challenged among our group - and also for those that like pictures better 

Powers PS (plated steel) bolt with head marking explanation.
The old PS bolt heads had no other markings except 3 raised ridges that radiate out like the spokes of a wheel.
The new bolts no longer have these ridges - making identification harder at a glance. The upside is - if you are close enough to see it - the letter tells you the bolt length. Of course that is dependent on memorizing which letter goes with which length - shortest is A (1 1/2") and alphabetically they get longer in half inch increments - E is 3 1/2.





Here is a diagram of the new bolt design with labels.
The main thing I noticed with the new design is how short the expansion sleeve is now.
The blue plastic piece at the end is also different and instead of being a plug, it is a dust cover that covers a retention nut on the end of the cone (see picture above - I have to scroll right to see the whole thing). The cone has no slots. 
The old PS bolts looked identical to the current Stainless Steel (SS) versions.
The only way to tell them apart was by luster, the 3 raised markings on the bolt head or with a magnet. PS bolts are magnetic, SS aren’t.





This diagram shows the nut on the end of the nose cone without the dust cover.

[JC w KC redux]

On a side note - clink gave me yet another failed 5 piece yesterday and it was just like the others I have - smashed slits on the nose cone will not allow the bolt to advance.

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

I am in the process of working with Dan Merrick (Banquo to some of you), to setup some testing of 3/8" bolts in 10mm holes.  I think the first step will be to see how well they work in some sort of hard medium such as concrete.

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

Clint came up with a suggestion to help out the spinners problem that we plan on trying when Noah and his Ark clear out of the Pinns.

If you look at the cone of the Powers Bolt you will see four slits on the end which creates 2 big sections and 2 small sections.  What we think what is happening is that when pounding the bolt in the 2 small sections get bent inward and keep the bolt from turning up the cone.  Clint's suggestion is to use a grinder or a file to reduce the size of the bump on the outside of the 2 small sections so they won't contact the rock when pounding in the bolt.

I am still planning on pursuing the 10mm vs 3/8" drill bit alternative as well, but Clint suggestion could be the ticket.

[JC w KC redux]

If you look at the cone of the Powers Bolt you will see four slits on the end which creates 2 big sections and 2 small sections. 

I threw in your prior visual for effect Bruce.

[clink]

What about the magic fairy goo we heard of this weekend?

[JC w KC redux]

I stand by my contention that the design is the problem.
The nose cone on the sleeve bolt is designed to smash slightly.
When the bolt is advanced past the initial tightening phase (sleeve expansion) - it is supposed to expand the slightly smashed cone and add a second stage of holding power.

I think this second stage is where the problem occurs. If the nose cone smashes too much, the torque required to expand the nose cone probably exceeds the torque it takes to start the bolt and nose cone spinning together - the bolt locks in the cone and continued attempts at tightening start the spinning. This is where a torque wrench would be useful - to prevent overtightening.

I have seen some of the spinners "lock out". In other words, you can't tighten the bolt or unscrew it. This suggests to me that the bolt entered the slotted area and expanded it - but then the torque situation described above occurred.

In other cases, the spinner will unscrew - which suggests to me that the cone was so smashed that the bolt couldn't engage the slotted area and simply bottomed out in the cone.

I just measured two different design wedge bolts (Powers and Fixe) and a Powers sleeve bolt to compare the cone diameters.
The wedges have a solid cone that is 3/8"
The sleeve bolt has a slotted cone with a diameter of 7/16" - a full 1/16" bigger than the intended hole it is placed in.

The sleeve bolt will turn 4 full turns into the cone before it starts to engage the slotted area.

That means if a sleeve bolt starts spinning in less than 4 turns - the upper edge of the cone may be stuck on the lower edge of the sleeve and the cone may not be engaged.

I haven't placed very many wedge bolts but when I have - they pounded in easily and tightened up nicely. I also see from the Fixe website that the torque on wedges is 25 instead of the 12 recommended with the sleeve bolts.

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

I got a 10mm SDS bit and did a bit of preliminary testing.  First off, I measured the diameter of the 10mm bit versus a 3/8" bit.  The 10mm bit measured .410" (10.4mm).  The 3/8" bit measured .390"(9.9mm).

Next, I drilled a hole in a piece of concrete with the 10mm bit to see how it performed with a 3/8" 5-piece bolt.  It was easier, but there was still some resistance, to pound the bolt into the hole.  After the bolt was in the hole it did tighten up completely as a good bolt does in rock.

The next step is to work with Dan Merrick(AKA Banquo) to determine the pullout strength of the 3/8" bolt in the 10mm hole.  Hopefully, it is close to spec.  Stay tuned for details.

[mungeclimber]

I stand by my contention that the design is the problem.
The nose cone on the sleeve bolt is designed to smash slightly.
When the bolt is advanced past the initial tightening phase (sleeve expansion) - it is supposed to expand the slightly smashed cone and add a second stage of holding power.

I think this second stage is where the problem occurs. If the nose cone smashes too much, the torque required to expand the nose cone probably exceeds the torque it takes to start the bolt and nose cone spinning together - the bolt locks in the cone and continued attempts at tightening start the spinning. This is where a torque wrench would be useful - to prevent overtightening.

I have seen some of the spinners "lock out". In other words, you can't tighten the bolt or unscrew it. This suggests to me that the bolt entered the slotted area and expanded it - but then the torque situation described above occurred.

In other cases, the spinner will unscrew - which suggests to me that the cone was so smashed that the bolt couldn't engage the slotted area and simply bottomed out in the cone.

I just measured two different design wedge bolts (Powers and Fixe) and a Powers sleeve bolt to compare the cone diameters.
The wedges have a solid cone that is 3/8"
The sleeve bolt has a slotted cone with a diameter of 7/16" - a full 1/16" bigger than the intended hole it is placed in.

The sleeve bolt will turn 4 full turns into the cone before it starts to engage the slotted area.

That means if a sleeve bolt starts spinning in less than 4 turns - the upper edge of the cone may be stuck on the lower edge of the sleeve and the cone may not be engaged.

I haven't placed very many wedge bolts but when I have - they pounded in easily and tightened up nicely. I also see from the Fixe website that the torque on wedges is 25 instead of the 12 recommended with the sleeve bolts.

There is another possibility, that the standard deviation (we are bunch of deviants, no?) is growing with the larger sample size. As a result, we're noticing more failed bolts since there is a regular crew climbing these days on this particular type of bolt.


Alternatively, I'd offer up that the issue is not "nose cone smashes too much" but that the *change* in design is the issue, but has anyone noticed the outside diameter of the cone looks larger in the one on the right?  Is the increased diameter at issue?  Or the knurling?  <--not just rhetorical questions but trying to get to the crux of which part of the design is being rendered problematic by the condition of the sub-par substrate.

[JC w KC redux]

There is another possibility, that the standard deviation (we are bunch of deviants, no?) is growing with the larger sample size. As a result, we're noticing more failed bolts since there is a regular crew climbing these days on this particular type of bolt.
Alternatively, I'd offer up that the issue is not "nose cone smashes too much" but that the *change* in design is the issue, but has anyone noticed the outside diameter of the cone looks larger in the one on the right?  Is the increased diameter at issue?  Or the knurling?  <--not just rhetorical questions but trying to get to the crux of which part of the design is being rendered problematic by the condition of the sub-par substrate.

Nice use of crux and substrate.
Nose cone smashes too much satisfies the null hypothesis.
It's no wonder the bolts are so hard to drive in with a 7/16" diameter cone.
I think Bruce may be on to something with the 10mm tests since driving the over-sized nose cone must enlarge the hole at least a little (even with compression/smashing). His measurements only indicate a 0.5mm enlargement so it's no wonder there is still some resistance to driving in the cone. 1/16"= 1.5875mm - so the cone is still 1mm+ oversized.

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

There is another possibility, that the standard deviation (we are bunch of deviants, no?) is growing with the larger sample size. As a result, we're noticing more failed bolts since there is a regular crew climbing these days on this particular type of bolt.


Alternatively, I'd offer up that the issue is not "nose cone smashes too much" but that the *change* in design is the issue, but has anyone noticed the outside diameter of the cone looks larger in the one on the right?  Is the increased diameter at issue?  Or the knurling?  <--not just rhetorical questions but trying to get to the crux of which part of the design is being rendered problematic by the condition of the sub-par substrate.

Munge,

I have been placing the Powers SS 3/8"x3.5" bolt at the Pinnacles since about 2004/2005.  I had never had a spinner until last year.  Now, I get them all too often so I don't think it is a sampling size issue.

I have asked Greg Barnes to measure the diameter of the two cones.  Results to follow.

[JC w KC redux]

I measured the nose cones on two of the failed bolts I have. The first one measured 13/32 (compressed 1/32) at the little tabs and 27/64 at the big tabs (compressed 1/64). The second one measured 13/32 at both locations. The second bolt failed sooner than the first - it never did tighten properly. The less compressed first bolt tightened initially and then failed during phase two tightening.

The measurements give us an idea of how much compression the soft Pinns rock causes and also how much compression it takes to keep the bolt from advancing and re-expanding the nose cone.

The other thing I noticed is that the blue plastic end piece is very tight in the nose cone - it did not come out since the bolt was unable to advance through the tabs. I have to wonder if that stuck plastic doesn't add to the bolt resistance to penetrate and the torque required to initiate the phase two tightening.

I cannot remove the blue plastic end piece with finger pressure. I also cannot unscrew bolt 2 with finger pressure.

 
 

[F4?]

+1 for Glue-ins

[mungeclimber]

Munge,

I have been placing the Powers SS 3/8"x3.5" bolt at the Pinnacles since about 2004/2005.  I had never had a spinner until last year.  Now, I get them all too often so I don't think it is a sampling size issue.

I have asked Greg Barnes to measure the diameter of the two cones.  Results to follow.

copy that, thx

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

So I went down to Dan Merrick's(AKA Banquo) house today to test the pullout strength of a 3/8" Power Bolt in a 10mm hole.  Dan confirmed that the 10mm bit is about 0.02" bigger than a 3/8" bit.  I drilled a hole in a block of granite that Clint loaned me.  It was easier to pound the bolt into the 10mm hole than a 3/8" hole, but there was still significant resistance.

We hooked up Dan's load cell and did a pullout test.  At 6000lbs of static pull Dan's hydraulic press was maxed out so we stopped the test.  The 5/16" quick link and Petzl Courer bolt hanger were very deformed and the bolt was out of the hole by about 1/4", but there was no failure.

I think this is good news.  Dan seems to think that if you can tighten the bolt all the way to torque specs in the hole with no spinning then you are home free.  We clearly saw that in the test.

Also, Dan had another suggestion for fixing the problem.  Using his drill press and a 5/16" drill bit(remember the bolt on a 3/8" Power Bolt is 5/16") he removed the threads on the end of the cone to the depth where the slits are cut into the cone.  His reasoning is that if the slits bend when pounding in the bolt to impede forward progress, if there aren't any threads than the bolt should continue to turn.  I will be testing out this idea as well.

[climberdude]

Today I added painted SS hangers and painted rappel chains to the hanger-less studs on "The Anvil" (5.3) R.  I used the existing SS studs, washers, and nuts.  Pulling the rope should work well now and the anchor is directly above the climb.  I also found two hangers above a steeper variation of the climb.

Mark Fletcher

[mungeclimber]

Banquo Test Lab!


Hi Mark, I didn't even realize there were hangerless studs up there. Or had forgotten.

Where were the hangers for the variation?  Facing the trail or on the back side like the regular route?

[Brad Young]

Really glad to see you've joined us here on Mudn'Crud Mark!

(And thanks for doing the work and donating the gear.)

[climberdude]

Both of the sets of bolts are on the backside, i.e., the side opposite of the trail.  The two sets of anchors are about 8-10' apart.  The set that did have existing hangers were not above the normal climbing route.