Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
doofus
climber
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2005 - 09:54pm PT
|
beautiful winter day....roaming the high peaks...half rope...climbing any line we saw.....sitting on top of a tower, feeling a woosh and hearing a hollow thud.....a puff of feathers rains down on us....falcon just snuffed a another bird
|
|
billygoat
climber
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2005 - 03:38am PT
|
Oh yeah, I almost left out the time I was establishing a route and came across a Peregrine nest. Route is incomplete, not in the guidebook, and I want it that way. Let the birds be.
Hey, where was the hold on the 3rd pitch of Cuidado. As I recall, there was some sort of odd hole near the top of the pitch.
As for the glue in spinning issue, call Petzl. You're the bullshitters until you do so. They are okay when spinning b/c of the bend in their shaft and the fact that the epoxy and it's bond with the rock is what makes them so strong. When mixed correctly, the bond of the epoxy is supposed to be stronger than the rock itself. What determines the reliability of a glue in is the bond of the epoxy. Stop calling me a bullshitter just because you don't have any idea how a piece of gear is designed. You're just displaying your ignorance, and I find it really annoying.
|
|
salad
climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2005 - 07:01am PT
|
putting up some shitty obscure line in the rain. condors everywhere. drinking king cobra. meowing like a cat and experimenting.
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Straight Outta Squamton
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2005 - 12:25pm PT
|
I came into this thread late, but I have some first-hand info about the spinning bolt issue.
It pertains mainly to the type of spinning bolt(s) on Cantaloupe Death in Pinnacles.
I'll cut to the chase, and anyone who so desires can read my rambling mini-novel below,
which includes info on Nancy and other routes at Mickey's Beach––and some important testing info.
The bottom line is that the bolts on Cantaloupe Death are bomber
despite any "spinning", and they will not come out no matter what.
And now for the mini-novel:
These bolts––and threaded rod, rebar, ect––are not held by "glue" bonding to them.
Hilti C-100 and HY-150 are more accurately referred to as Adhesive Mortars.
It is the threads, rings or dimples on the bolts that create the resistance to pulling out.
When the two parts of adhesive are mixed, a strong chemical reaction occurs and much heat
is generated. The mortar actually penetrates the pores of the rock, and when it sets
creates a fantastically strong resistance to pulling out, even though the mortar
doesn't stick very well to metal, if at all. If you look at the design of the first-generation
Tortuga (shown below), it will make sense that a bit radial movement is possible,
but is of no consequence (other than understandably causing some concern).
You will notice that there is no up and down or side to side movement of
any of the installed bolts, due to the immense strength of the mortar.
The only movement you might see is strictly a slight "spinning" on a radial plane.
Ushba Tortuga titanium bolt.
(Click photo for product and installation info)
John Byrnes (aka Lord Slime on rec.climbing) helped design a new bolt made of titanium
for rebolting in Thailand and Cayman Brac. He showed us a prototype
over beers at Jupiter in Berkeley––some time in 2000. I'm pretty sure Melissa, Brutus, and possibly
even Matt were there for the rare Lord Slime appearance in Berkeley (He lives in CO).
Having heard about Stress Corrosion Cracking, I was concerned about the bolts
on Nancy at Mickey's Beach. John Byrnes put me in touch with Jim Bowes of Ushba Mountain Works.
Jim was kind enough to sell me 8 of the very expensive bolts for half-price, since they were for a rebolting effort.
Chris McNamara put me in touch with ASCA's Greg Barnes, and I contacted first-ascentionist
Jim Thornburg, who also participated and oversaw the re-bolting.
A week or so later, I spent a couple days in Pinnacles with Greg Barnes hand-drilling holes
for new replacement bolts on Cantaloupe Death, Feed The Beast, and Regular Route Of The Thumb.
Shortly after, I noticed that a couple bolts on Nancy were moving ever-so-slightly.
Naturally, I was rather alarmed, and contacted John Byrnes, and Jim Bowes at Ushba.
John said that he had seen this happen occasionally, and explained in depth how the C-100 worked.
As an experiment, he had installed a couple of Tortugas, and let them set normally.
He then inserted a crow bar and began to wiggle back and forth until some movement started.
He kept at it until it spun so freely that it could easily be turned 360 degrees by hand.
He then set up the crowbar to pull straight out, using leverage to create a huge
amount of force––surpassing the strength of the bolt. The head of the bolt sheered off,
leaving the adhesive intact. He repeated the same experiment on the other bolt.
To further illustrate the immense holding power of Hilti C-100 adhesive, John sent me a little
pamplet from the German engineering/testing agency DAV, in which a special bolt
was designed that would actually exceed the pull-out strength of several popular
glues and mortars, This was one beefy bolt!! Hilti C-100 had the highest pull out strength,
and the mortar finally failed at 50 KN. Yes, you read correctly, that's fifty kilo-newtons!
FWIW, I mentioned/suggested to Jim Bowes that if the bolt somehow had a
flat area to resist radial movement, the bolt would no longer be able to move.
His solution was simple: He created small flat areas in just two spots on the shaft of the bolt
using a grinder. I received the first batch of these, and used them to replace the
hideously rusted carbon-steel bolts on Hot Tuna. That was in 2002. To this day
none of them have moved even a fraction. All of the subsequent re-bolted routes
also used this same modified bolt, and none of them move either – as far as I know.
I had a feeling that some of the 1st-gen. Tortugas in Pinnacles might be moving.
I never made it back down there, and was also not able to get definitive info
on the status of the bolts on Cantaloupe Death, Reg. Route, or Feed The Beast.
Incidentally, we used Fixe 6-inch long, 1/2" wide Stainless bolts
for Feed The Beast, and I would be curious to know how those are doing
(hand drilling those were a bitch––even in the relatively soft rock).
Ken Ariza told me that a couple of his Fixe bolts that he used on The Egg at Mickey's several
years ago moved ever so slightly.
Finally, I pondered long and hard over what to do about these bolts.
In the end, we felt is was best to let them be, but to try to inform as many
people as possible to reassure them that the bolts are indeed bomber.
I added some info to the Mickey's Beach Nancy section of Rockclimbing.com.
I suppose I should add similar info for the Pinnacles section.
It would be great if you locals could spread the info as well.
|
|
Claude
climber
where I'll end up
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2005 - 02:04pm PT
|
Tom Davis, sensing my ignorant arrogance as a beginning climber told me to get on "Cantaloupe Death." At the time i'm thinking, "Dude thats only 10d, i can frickin send 11a in the gym, it'll be eeeeeaaaasy." Sketched from just looking at it, i still told myelf i could climb it 'cause i can send "so hard" in the gym and "i've been climbing for six months, i'll be fine." Seven moves into it i freak. I am thinking, "what the hell? where are the foot holds?" I fall right onto the boulder, grait off the thing, sliding down to where i started. Humble pie tasted great that day. mmm. Thanks Tom! Just one of the many great lessons learned from that man. Serioulsy, i owe a bunch to him.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Sonora, California
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2005 - 02:34pm PT
|
Hardman, did Greg ever tell you why you used 6" bolts on Feed the Beast? I made a big donation to ASCA on the condition that he use it to rebolt that route and other trade routes at Pinns. I insisted on 6" on Feed the Beast because two people had already been hurt when the original first bolt (a 5 piece Rawl) had come out by unscrewing after repeated hangdoging. (Lots of people hang on that bolt, which protects the crux.) The bolt had been literally screwed back in each time, but it was clearly time for a better fix. The self interest that led to my request for 6" bolts on Feed the Beast in particular was that I had not yet redpointed that route at the time. You guys did a great job on all of these glue-ins. Diligent replacement and patching/camo of the old holes. ASCA is a fine organization, thanks.
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Straight Outta Squamton
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2005 - 02:54pm PT
|
Hey Brad –– yes I remember that story quite well, and remember that Greg said you made a donation which was extremely generous. Greg told me that you were adamant about using those those bolts––LOL. Good call! It seemed like a really good idea considering the rock there.
There's a write-up somewhere Greg did on the rebolting, perhaps on the Friends Of Pinnacles site.
I remember that two of those old bolts were moving quite a bit, especially the crux bolt.
I had been thinking about trying to on-sight Feed The Beast before we chopped the old bolts;
I'm damned glad I didn't! I'll see if I can find the article.
Edit: I found Greg's write up on Clint Cummins' site. Lots of detailed info:
http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/pin/boltm301.txt
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 01:46am PT
|
Not to hijack this topic, but, I know a few people who don't use 5-piece Rawls and swear against them based on the incident on Feed the Beast. Personally, I think, other than glue-ins, the 5-piece Rawl is the best bolt for soft rock, much better than wedge bolts, a number of which stick a long ways out at the Pinnacles because it took a huge number of turns for the cone at the back to finally catch in the soft Pinnacles rock.
What I don't understand about the Feed the Beast accident is how an experienced climber could allow a bolt to unscrew itself. It takes about 2.5 - 3 full turns for a 5-piece Rawl to unscrew itself and with only about 1/4 of a turn, the hanger is already spinning, a clear sign that the bolt is not tight.
OK, so maybe nobody climbs with a wrench but, c'mon, hand tightening a bolt and then expecting it to hold. That's not the Rawl's fault, that's the climber's fault. I hate to see incidents such as this cause a very good bolt to get a bad name.
Clearly, the bolt was poorly placed so as to unscrew itself and secondly, the climbers using it were not aware of the dangers of a loose bolt nor how to properly tighten a loose bolt. That's hardly the bolt's fault.
Bruce
|
|
billygoat
climber
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 02:56am PT
|
Rawl five piece bolts are extermely hard to place. The require about 30 ft/lbs of torque to work. Too much, and they are useless. Too little, and they pose the problem encountered on Feed The Beast. That's why they are generally inapropriate for use in climbing: who takes a torque wrench with them to the crags.
Brad, did you use a torque wrench on Bridwell Bolts? If not, perhaps you actually did help maintain the character of the line. Personally, I think wedge anchors are a good choice (second to glue-ins) for pinnacles. Especially the double cone kind.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 03:41am PT
|
Billygoat,
I just don't believe what you are saying. There are literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Rawl 5-piece bolts in use throughout the world. If these were such a poor choice as a bolt, then why don't we see a much higher failure rate (I know of only two instances when these bolts unscrewed themselves and I only know the details..Feed the Beast..of one of them and it was not, IMHO the fault of the bolt but the fault of the climbers and the poor placement of the bolt).
I just don't understand how you could hold the belief that the 5-piece bolts are bad. There is virtually no data to back up what you are saying. I like to make informed decisions and not base my decisions on speculation which is nowhere backed up by fact.
Bruce
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 03:58am PT
|
It's hard to use glue-ins when you're going ground up.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Sonora, California
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 10:42am PT
|
Bruce, I disagree with one part of what you said. I don't think that the bolt on Feed the Beast was poorly placed. I think Rubine was very careful and conscientious with his bolt placements. And the rock where it was placed was good too. I think what happened is that the first bolt saw an ungodly amount of hangdogging. I did some of it. You'd try the route and fail at the crux and hang on the first bolt. It overhangs a little there, and so any movement to any degree is always outward. Again and again and again people would hang on it, moving around, pulling up or out to get a better vantage point on the crux moves. Over years the bolt slowly loosened. That is , it unscrewed a tiny bit by a tiny bit. This was exacerbated by the sight overhang. And it was compounded by inexperienced sport climbers. No fault of their own necessarily, but they were brought up to think of bolts as bomber. You're right, no-one climbs with a wrench. It took years and years, but eventually some poor, unlucky sap was the wrong one to fall on the bolt without having checked it. Over those same years the hole itself became worse from the same forces, but I don't think this played a really significant role in the bolt failure. (I talked to Belizzi about this after he replaced the bolt the first time by simply screwing it back into the hole tight.) Other than this, I agree that Rawl 5 Piece are fine for Pinns, although in a few crucial places I've been replacing with 1/2" by 4" when I'm rebolting. An experienced bolt placer using this bolt leaves a perfectly safe placement (subject to rock quality and the ravages of time).
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 12:56pm PT
|
Brad,
What I meant by poorly placed was that the placement allowed the bolt to unscrew itself. Could it have been placed in a manner such that it couldn't unscrew itself or maybe if the hanger was turned upside down it would have minimized the outward pull. But, that is just niggling and I think David Rubine has a track record of doing a good job of placing bolts.
I guess my major concern here is was there any warning the the bolt was going to pull out? No one of will ever know what actually happened but, it is very hard for me to believe that the bolt looked and felt bomber and just fell out of the rock. As I said before, with just 1/4" turn on a Rawl 5-piece the hanger will spin. If it takes 2.5-3 turns of the bolt to have it fall out, I have to believe that there was some indication that this bolt was not bomber before it failed.
Bolts will loosen over time. Even properly placed bolts. It is the responsibilty of every climber to inspect the bolts they are climbing on and determine if they are safe. In the case of Feed the Beast I just can't believe that a bolt that is about to fall out still appears safe. For that reason, I think the responsibility for the accident rests with the climbers and not with the bolt.
Bruce
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Sonora, California
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 03:17pm PT
|
Bruce, I agree with everything you said. During the mid - late 90s, hoping to climb Feed the Beast I looked at, didn't like and so tightened the bolt at least twice. One of the reasons I gave to ASCA was because on this particular route I was convinced that the combination of factors wasn't "fixable." (Also, I wanted to redpoint it, but not die - you know, enlightened self interest.) This combination is very rare, even at Pinns, and when it occurs can be fixed by a careful rebolting using glue-ins.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 05:17pm PT
|
Bruce, a "bad" bolt placement implies that the bolter didn't do a good job. I don't think the Feed The Beast bolts were "bad," but their location made them prone to loosening. Both the first and second bolts on Feed The Beast loosened over time, so I don't think we can say it's an isolated condition.
The possibility of a RAWL loosening over time is something that you have to consider when placing 5-pieces. It's almost impossible to predict how a hanger will spin before the route is complete, so I think it's something worth thinking about.
I've had nothing but good luck placing wedge anchors and the stainless ones are pretty darn nice. Still, if I know the rock is especially soft, I'll use a 5-piece, no question.
:- k
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005 - 09:30pm PT
|
anyone have any good sites that show a real mechanical advantage of having one type versus the other...
At first blush...
R5P (Rawl 5 Piece)-
1. more surface area of the expanding sleeve to hold onto inner part of the hole.
2. additional 'bite' from cone at the bottom as it expands when cranked down. So for a shorter bolt length, you get 2 points of contact, rather than 1 on a FSW.
FSW (Fixe Single Wedge)-
1. Easy to inspect threads.
2. drill the hole extra deep at first, and it is easy to hammer in and patch, but otherwise NOT replaceable compared to 5piece.
FTP (Fixe TriPlex)-
1. easy to replace
edited to clarify #2 for FSW about replaceability.
|
|
billygoat
climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2005 - 01:45am PT
|
You know, I don't know that I need to say anything more about my opinion, because it seems like ya'll are kinda on my track. Except Bruce. All bolts loosen over time. I've had a close friend almost die b/c the nut on the head of a wedge anchor came loose when he took. Bummer. He didn't look at the bolt, but maybe that has something to do with how gripped he was when he clipped it (the route was 14a). So, even if he had a wrench, he probably wasn't going to reach over and tighten it on his onsight attempt. Of course, if Sonny Trotter (I believe that's who had placed the bolt, could be wrong) had used locktite on the nut, there never would have been a problem.
So, wedge anchors have their issues as well. My point about Rawl 5-pieces is this: the cone is drawn into the the sleeve and requires a specific amount of torque to (1) not break the blue plastic bit and (2) they unscrew easily when not tighted enough. So clearly they're easier to f-u-c-k up. They're tricky, and that's that. Many people use them, and many don't know what they're doing. Therefore, I have a harder time trusting them. If you're concerned about a wedge anchor pulling out 'cause of soft rock, then drill deeper and use a longer bolt. I don't think the problem at Pinnacles is so much how soft the rock is, as how prone to air pockets it is. But no bolt is going to mitigate that issue. Knock on the f*#king rock b4 you drill. Choose solid locations, or go for safety in numbers. But, either way, I'm much more comfortable trusting someone else's wedge anchors to their 5-piece, b/c I can read it quicker. If the nut is on, the nut is on. If the threads are way out of the rock, the threads are way of the rock. On a five piece, there's virtually no way to tell what kind of mechanics are going on inside the rock. And for god sakes, don't go tightening them a bit extra just for you supposed safety.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2005 - 03:10am PT
|
Billygoat,
I don't know where you get the "except Bruce" impression. If you read my last post preceding yours, I clearly state that bolts loosen over time.
Bruce
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2005 - 03:17am PT
|
Kelly, Brad,
I understand that when doing routes ground up sometimes the hanger on the bolt doesn't get properly aligned with the direction of pull. What I don't understand is why it is not possible to go back on the climb (most likely on rappel) and fix the problem by realigning the hanger to properly take the load without unscrewing.
Obviously, a completely flat surface is ideal, I usually carry a chisel (some people I know just use the chisel end of the drill bit) to make the placement as flat as possible. That should assure that the hanger gets properly aligned.
Also, on overhanging routes, you can minimize leverage on the bolt by rotating the hanger 180 degrees so that the carabiner is closer to the bolt hole when it is clipped.
Bruce
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2005 - 11:21am PT
|
Actually, if the rock on Feed the Beast had been really good we could have used shorter bolts. But the rock there is very soft for the first 3-4", then hits hard stuff. Cantaloupe Death is much better rock right from the surface.
And the last bolt on Feed the Beast was in REALLY soft rock - I hand-drilled a 6" deep 7/16" hole in about 5 minutes. The old bolt was a 4" long 5-piece that moved up and down in the hole with about 1/2" of play.
Anyway, glue-in rotation is a common problem, and that's why most glue-ins you see in Europe are placed with the head inset into the rock (by drilling a little slot when you start the hole).
And k-man - if you're ground-upping and you want glue-ins, those new Fixe Triplex 12mm bolts are the bomb - use with a 12mm hole hanger, place the bolt ground-up, and to pull the bolt all you do is loosen the nut a bit and yard out on the draw - bolt pulls no problem. 3/8" or 10mm glue-ins use either 7/16" or 12mm holes, so all you do is make sure the depth is right and the route is ready to go for glue-ins. The Triplex bolts are re-usable as well. If you're leaving them in the wall for good, don't use the 12mm hole hangers since someone could pull the bolt super-easily if the nut loosens - use 10mm hole hangers (which are above the top of the sleeve/washer piece).
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!