Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Fixed gear guidelines in the Grampians 27-May-2018 At 3:24:59 PM jacksonclimbs

Message

 I don’t think this is the right forum for getting feedback on proposed bolting standards. The call went out across Facebook and other media for contribution to this conversation, and I’m not seeing a lot of posts here of other less vocal climbers in the community, it’s just the usual chockstone suspects. That’s fine, but it’s hardly a cross section of Victorian climbing community opinion.   

Generally I take an ‘each to their own’ philosophy on the climbing style wars debate, which I think can be widely adhered to, until it comes down to bolting and how it can effect each others experience of climbing.

  I climb in the Grampians probably 2 weekends a month. I come from sport climbing in the US and have at least climbed at about a dozen different locations in both the US and in Australia. I enjoy a bit of trad here and there, but sport is my first love.

  Sport climbing accessibility seems to be a common issue among beginner to intermediate climbers in the Grampians. I think this just comes down to the ‘mixed’ ethic of the region, reflected in 1.3 of the VCC policy - routes in the mid teens will nearly always take gear at some point of the route. It’s the established ethic here that new development is carried out in this manner. This is where I think there should be some room to move with new development. Commentary in this thread around Dreamtime and how it’s a choss pile etc. - I can’t disagree with, but the reason people climb there is because some people only want to climb sport, and are not interested in trad, and may for whatever reason not be able to push their climbing up into the high teens, low 20s where sport climbing starts to become more accessible in the Gramps.   

I think there should be some room for new development of sport crags in the Grampians with potential for mid teens routes, where bolts are placed despite opportunities for gear. I don’t accept the ‘slippery slope’ argument - I think both mixed, sport, and trad crags can exist. They exist elsewhere in the world - take Horseshoe Canyon Ranch in Arkansas for example, there are trad, mixed and sport routes, including many easy low to mid teen routes that could take gear, but have been bolted. The mixed and trad routes are not getting retro-bolted by the sports masses. There really is no need, because there are a multitude of sport opportunities in the 12-17 grade range for climbers going to HCR - something like 150 well bolted, easily accessible routes.   

Comparatively, there are just 4-5 routes grade 15 sport in the Grampians that I would describe as such. So I think it’s understandable that sport climbers would like to see a little bit more development in that grade range. There are more than 1000 trad routes between the grades of 12-17 in the Grampians - there are just 56 sport routes in the same grade range. 2/3 of those routes are 16/17. If we drilled down into those routes - I’m sure we could cut out about a third of those routes as being suitable for beginners as they would garner PG or R ratings. I’m not suggesting that we go retro-bolting trad lines, and I'd be the first to grab my pitch-fork and join you for the burning if someone was to do that. However, I think there is at least enough untouched rock in the Gramps that could be candidate for this type of development. Say another half dozen crags that would yield another 50 or so routes in that 12-17 grade range.   

So I put my argument forward for some relaxation of the mixed ethic requirement on all new development.

 With regards to sport bolting approach, my thoughts;

  - Bolt spacing - In the Grampians, bolt spacing is generally widely spaced compared to international sport climbing crags I have visited. If you meet any international climbers coming to the Gramps, many of them note the broad spacing of the bolts. I don’t think broad spacing is that big of an issue provided;

 - Always 2 bolts between you and hitting the deck - redundancy.  
- ‘Easy climbing’, not a reason for ignoring above point. Bolts fail, holds break, tendons pop, all unexpectedly.
 - Reasonably limiting fall potential - if falls are on overhung rock into air, then sure, let’s take 20m whippers. If it’s vertical and there is potential for an impact with the wall, then it might be wise to reduce the potential fall length, and fall factor. Legs can get caught behind ropes, and catches can be hard, heads hit walls and ankles break. High fall factors can cause harness injuries and lower back injuries. I make this point because I think that even if you’re 40m off the ground, a 20m fall might not mean a deck, but it could still cause serious injury.

  Notwithstanding my above comments, some of which depart from the accepted norm in this region - I value any community decision on guidelines, and would respect said guidelines. I don’t think community members should be going rogue and following their own ethic.  I donate to Victorian CliffCare and when I was in the US was a regular contributor to bolting funds and the Access Fund.