Ranger Bolts rebolting

[kylequeener]

Hey guys,

I was asked for my opinion about rebolting Ranger Bolts this morning and wanted to open the discussion up to a wider audience for opinions, help and beta.

I'm going to paraphrase the conversation and address a few things specifically. I will list them and maybe we can weigh in with some thoughts and recourses to help out our newest Pinnacles steward.

First was rebolting some of or all of the free climbing bolts. For reference these are mostly wedge style anchors.

Secondly was dealing with the loose hold near the top of the route which is of a size big enough to create serious consequences to the belayer if it pulled out but if removed, would drastically change the character of the route.

Third was the relocation of the third bolt on the direct start variation.

Fourth was the removal and relocation of the anchors. The suggestion was to lower the first set of anchors down a bolt. And to remove the two bolt anchor near the lip completely. The second set of anchor bolts are not original to the FFA and subsequently placed by someone else. By removing those bolts you would have to climb to the tippy top and do the route as Yabo and Thornburg did during their FFA's.

Fifth was the removal of all the aid bolts.



Okay, I think that covers it all. Now please, weigh in on the topics.  

[Jim Thornburg]

Hey Kyle, thanks for bringing this up! I think you addressed all the issues well.

I'd just add that the reasoning behind lowering the (first) mid anchor is that holds have broken in that zone, and now the route feels really awkward and has unnecessary hard clipping and rope-drag as a result. Maybe lowering the anchor is the best idea, though moving the bolt just before might fix the rope drag. I need to get on the route again to be certain.

I can't think of another route that is more of a mess in terms of old bolts and anchors all over the place. If you're free climbing the route it really detracts from the climbing.

My ideal solution would be to remove all the old bolts that aren't necessary for the free climb, and to put a new anchor just over the lip (an angle change, really) at the end of the hard climbing. The current (upper) lower off anchor is smack dab in the middle of the final crux, a spot Yabo fell off of about 20 times before finally sending. Clipping this anchor and calling it good is not Ranger Bolts, but rather the "Yabo Rolling over in his Grave" variation.

I think Chris Belizzi put that anchor there so that it would be possible to safely lower off with a 60m. A good idea in many ways, but now with 70m ropes being common there is zero reason to have that anchor there.

If there are people who are still passionate about the aid ladder, I would amend my solution above.

Its a beautiful wall with beautiful climbing. I'd love to see the crafting of the bolting match that beauty.

[Brad Young]

Jim and Kyle,

I'll share two thoughts:

1. The whole concept of moving bolts and anchors on a route "you" didn't establish seems weird. But it may not be all that weird in the specific case of Ranger Bolts. This route's history is different than most Pinnacles routes. It was established as a bolt ladder for practice. One might say that it was "created" more than it was "first ascended." Later, changes were made to it by the Pinnacles climbing community and it became a great and iconic free climb (it was "created" into a free climb by many members of the community).

This seems to me to be very different than a route put up by one team as a free climb to start with.

Perhaps another way to look at it is that, possibly more than any other Pinnacles climb, this one truly does "belong" to the whole climbing community.

2. I think that removing the aid ladder aspect of the climb would be completely unfair to other climbers, and, frankly, unfair to the route's history. Whatever rebolting is done should leave a climbable aid bolt ladder. "Climbable" as in a normal climber can ascend the route bolt to bolt on aid as was intended at the route's creation (this could be done even without leaving all of the old aid bolts in place, although leaving at least a "representative sample" of them would be nice).

I'd be OK with whatever rebolting (including some movement of bolt/anchor positions) people of your caliber (both of you) feel is appropriate (as long as an aid ladder can still be climbed).

[mungeclimber]

First, I would like to preserve the aid-ability of the climb, in addition to the free climbing. No question. That was the FA. And there are few long good rock aid lines at Pinns.

That doesn't mean it needs to be a A0 bolt ladder, but not putting a bolt within distance of a t-off or high step clip means a hole, hookable edge, or rivet to clip. Putting a rivet inadvertently invites someone not familiar with the situation to "upgrade" it over time, unless there is mass education about why it is there. A hookable edge is a free edge and may disintegrate. A hole will like disintegrate too, absent the educated and diligent use of Removable Bolts (RBs). Leaving the hole count the same and then filled the holes with good bolts seems completely appropriate and consistent with existing ethical approaches (minus removing agreed extraneous anchors).

Second, about the first anchor. Not that I could free climb at the level past the first bolts anytime soon, but if the position of the first anchor is arbitrary, then dropping it down one, or moving it to reduce drag, seems to not be an issue in my mind, in that you can also get the benefit of upgrading that anchor when it is moved.

Third, about the second higher midway anchor. That seems to be unnecessary based on what Jim mentioned. I wouldn't mind it going. Put the anchors at the top so that a long TR can be rigged.

Last, whatever bolts go in, I would ask that a really good job of camouflaging is done and that the anchor be made durable (i.e. replaceable lower offs, or chain. The metal should match: hanger color to stone color, paint the heads of the bolts and chain.

Oh and get more folks to weigh hopefully. Looks like it is making the rounds on FB.

[MudMittens]

I'm strongly of the opinion that first does not mean best, and in the case of Ranger Bolts or any other bolt ladder at the Pinnacles, this route was first "created" in poor style. There are some aspects of history that just aren't worth preserving, and this is one of them in my opinion. If you want to climb a bolt ladder, do one that will never go free, such as Bridwell Bolts. I think that rebolting this in such a way that makes hooking necessary for aid parties would be particularly damaging, and unfair to people that want this free climb to stand the test of time.

I wouldn't say that the free climb was "created" in the same way that the bolt ladder was. The free line was dictated by the natural features that the rock presents, while the bolt ladder was not. I think that Jim (et al) didn't rebolt it then partially out of respect for the bolt ladder, but mostly out of convenience (not to put words in your mouth, Jim, that's just my impression). Now that this route is getting the traffic that it deserves, the shitshow of bolts on that route is getting unmanageable. One should be able to lead any free climb from the ground to the anchors while hanging draws. This is almost impossible on this route due to the museum of mank splattered all over this beautiful face.

Here's my comment that I posted to Facebook:

"Yep- Jim nailed it. If you want to climb a bolt ladder at the Pinns (why would you?), do Bridwell Bolts. You know… one that isn’t desecrating the best 5.13 in the Bay Area. The bolts that you use to free the route would be best climbed using twin ropes currently (Euros are psyched!). So much zigzagging, clipping and unclipping is required. It really detracts from the route. Furthermore, I think the only way to climb that route is to top it out. I’d pull the second anchor and forgo the anchor at the lip of the slab. It’s the Pinnacles- summits matter! Also, I would discretely reinforce the big lodestone with epoxy before it breaks off."

Maybe I'm being ignorant, but I just don't see the value (historical or otherwise) of a manky bolt ladder drilled up a beautiful free-climbable face. The quality and significance of this as a free climb is immense, and I think the free climb should dictate the bolt placement. Just as Astroman is no longer the Southeast Face of Washington Column, Ranger Bolts is not an aid climb.

[Brad Young]

Mark, thanks for quote from Book Face. Some of us dinosaurs (Jim excluded, apparently?) aren't on that site, and so I wouldn't otherwise have see what you said there.

Jim, why, oh why haven't you raised this issue on Supertopo?       

[Brad Young]

...I wouldn't say that the free climb was "created" in the same way that the bolt ladder was.

Mark, if you're talking about "created" in the same sense that I was using it, that's not what I meant.

As I understand both routes' history, each was the product of multiple members of the climbing community over time more than the product of one "first ascent" team or person. In that sense each route is a little unusual in that it was "created" by the community.

[mungeclimber]

I'm strongly of the opinion that first does not mean best, and in the case of Ranger Bolts or any other bolt ladder at the Pinnacles, this route was first "created" in poor style. There are some aspects of history that just aren't worth preserving, and this is one of them in my opinion. If you want to climb a bolt ladder, do one that will never go free, such as Bridwell Bolts. I think that rebolting this in such a way that makes hooking necessary for aid parties would be particularly damaging, and unfair to people that want this free climb to stand the test of time.

I wouldn't say that the free climb was "created" in the same way that the bolt ladder was. The free line was dictated by the natural features that the rock presents, while the bolt ladder was not. I think that Jim (et al) didn't rebolt it then partially out of respect for the bolt ladder, but mostly out of convenience (not to put words in your mouth, Jim, that's just my impression). Now that this route is getting the traffic that it deserves, the shitshow of bolts on that route is getting unmanageable. One should be able to lead any free climb from the ground to the anchors while hanging draws. This is almost impossible on this route due to the museum of mank splattered all over this beautiful face.

Here's my comment that I posted to Facebook:

"Yep- Jim nailed it. If you want to climb a bolt ladder at the Pinns (why would you?), do Bridwell Bolts. You know… one that isn’t desecrating the best 5.13 in the Bay Area. The bolts that you use to free the route would be best climbed using twin ropes currently (Euros are psyched!). So much zigzagging, clipping and unclipping is required. It really detracts from the route. Furthermore, I think the only way to climb that route is to top it out. I’d pull the second anchor and forgo the anchor at the lip of the slab. It’s the Pinnacles- summits matter! Also, I would discretely reinforce the big lodestone with epoxy before it breaks off."

Maybe I'm being ignorant, but I just don't see the value (historical or otherwise) of a manky bolt ladder drilled up a beautiful free-climbable face. The quality and significance of this as a free climb is immense, and I think the free climb should dictate the bolt placement. Just as Astroman is no longer the Southeast Face of Washington Column, Ranger Bolts is not an aid climb.

At the risk of being seen in a bad light "If you don't like the extra aid bolts, don't clip them." Never thought I'd get to say that in context.  LOL

Sorry Mudmittens, all snark on that one is meant in a light hearted way.


On the slightly more serious side, my thought on an approach to rebolting this climb is to focus the replacing effort with an eye to free climbing position. This will take time and multiple climbers at the grade should weigh in on which ones should be replaced. This is not a retro bolt session across the board, but a judicious replacement of resources to maximize how it is free climbed with input from all the climbing community, if possible. But at the same time preserve the ability to aid climb through it. Typically this means an extra point of aid here or there to make the reaches do-able by a competent aid climber.  It does not mean a bolt every 2 feet. And it doesn't mean additional bolts or reducing the bolt count. It doesn't mean preservation of old mank gear. But it does mean preserving a way to aid through the sport clips. There's nothing incompatible with having both good sport clips and good aid reaches. In fact, they often overlap. And if there is a piece or two that aren't obviously close enough to clip some other solution can be devised.

Hope that helps allay Mudmitten's concerns and helps clarify generally.

[MudMittens]

Mark, if you're talking about "created" in the same sense that I was using it, that's not what I meant.

As I understand both routes' history, each was the product of multiple members of the climbing community over time more than the product of one "first ascent" team or person. In that sense each route is a little unusual in that it was "created" by the community.

Gotcha. I was more interpreting what you said as creating a route in the way that Cesare Maestri created the Compressor Route. The party that freed Ranger Bolts simply applied themselves to the natural challenge that the features presented. Of course, free climbing the route wasn't reasonable at the time the bolt ladder was drilled. But you're right, both routes were collaborative efforts involving entire communities.

If you recall, a few years ago Adam Long and I tactfully convinced a party to stop drilling another bolt ladder up the face to the right of Bridwell Bolts. A few bolts remain there today. This is all to say that I think that the era of drilling bolt ladders up faces should be over. There's just no sense to it. The relic bolt ladders that haven't been free climbed can remain, but let's not let an ancient practice ladder interfere with the quality of a great rock climb.

[kylequeener]

I think the free climbing bolts are all in good places and I climb this route while hanging my own draws frequently. Bringing a couple extendable slings takes care of the rope drag. See Jim's photo of me on Ranger Bolts in the California Climber Magazine and you'll see my use of extendable slings. Why would you climb this route with two ropes when all you need are two shoulder length slings? The bolts follow the natural free climbing line. Replace them but don't move them. I know there is one bolt that I skip every time down low that is an upgraded wedge bolt.

I'd say take the first set of anchors completely out and move the additional retro-added anchors just above the lip, keeping the final moves over the lip in play but making it convenient to top rope while using a 70m. And if you want to go to the top by all means just keep going the last 15 feet of 5.6 slab.

I think the aid bolts are unsightly but I'm also a proponent of persevering history whether its good or bad.

I would also support reinforcing the suspect hold IF it could be done in an aesthetic and clean manner.

[MudMittens]

At the risk of being seen in a bad light "If you don't like the extra aid bolts, don't clip them." Never thought I'd get to say that in context.  LOL

Sorry Mudmittens, all snark on that one is meant in a light hearted way.


On the slightly more serious side, my thought on an approach to rebolting this climb is to focus the replacing effort with an eye to free climbing position. This will take time and multiple climbers at the grade should weigh in on which ones should be replaced. This is not a retro bolt session across the board, but a judicious replacement of resources to maximize how it is free climbed with input from all the climbing community, if possible. But at the same time preserve the ability to aid climb through it. Typically this means an extra point of aid here or there to make the reaches do-able by a competent aid climber.  It does not mean a bolt every 2 feet. And it doesn't mean additional bolts or reducing the bolt count. It doesn't mean preservation of old mank gear. But it does mean preserving a way to aid through the sport clips. There's nothing incompatible with having both good sport clips and good aid reaches. In fact, they often overlap. And if there is a piece or two that aren't obviously close enough to clip some other solution can be devised.

Hope that helps allay Mudmitten's concerns and helps clarify generally.

I think that it could be rebolted in a such a way that you could still aid up it, but to make Ranger Bolts make sense as a free climb, one would have to pull many bolts and add new holes more in line with the free climbing. Simply replacing bolts won't work here. Would it be acceptable to do this and add buttonhead rivets in between the bolts for aid climbers? It won't be the original line that the bolt ladder took but do people care about that?

[MudMittens]

I think the free climbing bolts are all in good places and I climb this route while hanging my own draws frequently. Bringing a couple extendable slings takes care of the rope drag. See Jim's photo of me on Ranger Bolts in the California Climber Magazine and you'll see my use of extendable slings. Why would you climb this route with two ropes when all you need are two shoulder length slings? The bolts follow the natural free climbing line. Replace them but don't move them. I know there is one bolt that I skip every time down low that is an upgraded wedge bolt.

I'd say take the first set of anchors completely out and move the additional retro-added anchors just above the lip, keeping the final moves over the lip in play but making it convenient to top rope while using a 70m. And if you want to go to the top by all means just keep going the last 15 feet of 5.6 slab.

I think the aid bolts are unsightly but I'm also a proponent of persevering history whether its good or bad.

I would also support reinforcing the suspect hold IF it could be done in an aesthetic and clean manner.

*While hanging draws onsite is what I meant. This would be a very difficult onsite not because of the climbing, but because of the bolt job.

[kylequeener]

*While hanging draws onsite is what I meant. This would be a very difficult onsite not because of the climbing, but because of the bolt job.

I've seen people attempt onsights on this route while extending slings on the correct bolts. It just adds to the challenge. You have to bring more to the table than just gym strength. While the plethora of hardware up there could be confusing to some it's sort of obvious what's a manky 1/4" and whats a replaced or retobolted 3/8" used for the free climb. The two bolts that need to be extended are #6 and #8, btw.

[MudMittens]

I've seen people attempt onsights on this route while extending slings on the correct bolts. It just adds to the challenge. You have to bring more to the table than just gym strength. While the plethora of hardware up there could be confusing to some it's sort of obvious what's a manky 1/4" and whats a replaced or retobolted 3/8" used for the free climb. The two bolts that need to be extended are #6 and #8, btw.

The fact that the bolting just "adds to the challenge" is proof of how contrived the difficulty is. Furthermore, onsiting this route even if it wasn't bolted like shit would require more than just "gym strength". Let's let the challenge come from the rock, not the aid climbers.

[mynameismud]

Here is my .02

This and Hot Lava were my dream routes for years. I have attempted Ranger Bolts dozens of times.  Perhaps I will get back to strength enough to give them ago once again.  This is at my very upper limit hence I have not gotten it clean yet.  On lead I have gotten to the upper chains with a couple of hangs at the crux.  I have only gotten the crux clean on TR but never clean from the bottom.  I still think I can do the route but perhaps that is just my ego speaking.  This is my point of reference.

I have no problem leading with the bolts in the current locations up to the first set of chains and when I have managed to get the second set of anchors the bolt locations were not the limiting factor.  When I was working it regularly I skipped a couple of bolts to save time and to try and be more efficient.  The mid anchor I would just move to the left a bit.  I kind of like the character of that last clip before the midpoint anchor, it is always a challenge to pull through the bulge make that clip ( which is strenuous ) then go up into the moves for the dyno.  Of course if your Karl you avoid the bulge and just go straight up to the chains ( He tried to talk me through the sequence but I am a mere mortal ).

I have no issue removing the upper anchor even though I see myself lowering off there more often than not.  Typically I am against reinforcing but if this can be done very discreetly I might get kind of soft

The aid line.  I have spent a lot of time looking at this and thinking of alternatives.  What if those bolts were hand painted so they were very camo.  Having bolts between bolts on the free line I think is a worse solution.  That one spot where the free line goes out right and the aid line goes out left does look rather unsightly. 

Here is what I put on FB:
The bolts on Cataract do not need to be moved.  This is one of my hardest leads and the bolts where they are worked fine.  ( adding here, all you guys climb way harder than me so I am the lowest common denominator).

The bolt that protects the crux climbing on Future Shock really needs to be replaced.

[JC w KC redux]

I like carrots 

[mungeclimber]

Here's another question to ask, would it be ok to move the bolts on another aid climb at Pinns to make clips easier?  What about making it easier to clip when the 2 aid bolts had long since been freed at 5.7?  There are several of these at Pinns. In that case, even though it is contrived to clip the aid bolt, the climbing is well within my grasp at 5.7, but not for the 5.5 leader. Couldn't the 5.14 climber similarly make the clips without effort on an existing line? Or are strong climbers special and specially deserving? I don't buy that, but I also don't care if a couple bolts are moved a couple inches in the process of replacing older bolts.

In other words, let's try to universalize the idea of this type of rebolting (i.e. with some moved bolts to ease clipping). Does it still stand as reasonable?

My recommendation is someone should post a pic with the existing bolt positions and where the new bolts should go, then we can go through them one by one and if it really must be moved, and not appeal to ideological bases.

No making 'perfect clips' on 'all' clips. Its not necessary. Move some hard ones that are awkward at bad fall potential spots, let's look at it.

Not a fan of the reinforcing, mostly because it will be used as an example to do it elsewhere and is probably illegal under common interpretations of the USC.  

[MudMittens]

Here's another question to ask, would it be ok to move the bolts on another aid climb at Pinns to make clips easier?  What about making it easier to clip when the 2 aid bolts had long since been freed at 5.7?  There are several of these at Pinns. In that case, even though it is contrived to clip the aid bolt, the climbing is well within my grasp at 5.7, but not for the 5.5 leader. Couldn't the 5.14 climber similarly make the clips without effort on an existing line? Or are strong climbers special and specially deserving? I don't buy that, but I also don't care if a couple bolts are moved a couple inches in the process of replacing older bolts.

In other words, let's try to universalize the idea of this type of rebolting (i.e. with some moved bolts to ease clipping). Does it still stand as reasonable?

My recommendation is someone should post a pic with the existing bolt positions and where the new bolts should go, then we can go through them one by one and if it really must be moved, and not appeal to ideological bases.

No making 'perfect clips' on 'all' clips. Its not necessary. Move some hard ones that are awkward at bad fall potential spots, let's look at it.

Not a fan of the reinforcing, mostly because it will be used as an example to do it elsewhere and is probably illegal under common interpretations of the USC.  

Ignoring the ridiculousness of someone drilling a bolt ladder up a 5.7, and the unlikeliness of someone being able to lead 5.5 and not 5.7, I would say yes, it is reasonable to move bolts on a bolt ladder once it is climbed in better style (regardless of the grade).

The end product, aesthetics, and impact are my primary concerns. Ground-up climbing became the style at the Pinns for a few reasons: adventure, uncertainty, natural lines, and natural clipping positions (where a stance or hook offers them). This style lets the rock dictate the line. The bolt ladder has none of these: it's not adventurous, you'll certainly summit, and no natural weakness was followed. This isn't about making "perfect clips" or fulfilling some kind of hard-climber prophesy. It's about not letting past mistakes mar good quality lines (there aren't many). I don't see how reinforcing a hold would be considered illegal when that entire face is littered with 50+ year old trash!

[clink]

 What are the dimensions of the loose hold? Is it a cobble/loadstone? I have ideas about reinforcing it that are complicated but would not be noticeable.

[mungeclimber]

So do we agree or not about moving bolts on a climb like this?