Err to the Throne

[Greg]

I would like to hear some thoughts and opinions on the protection bolts on this route in Kingston. I know that some folks think the second and maybe third bolts are too run out. I am inclined to add a bolt but Stacey is against the idea. When we decided on the placement of the bolts we felt that they were adequate but I do recognize that there is ground fall potential clipping the second bolt and it is somewhat of a precarious stance to clip from. I would like to know what others think about whether or not this climb should be retro-bolted.

[STeveA]

The Kingston cliff is a fine area to climb. I do not see any benefit in having a risky route at the cliff. If you feel it needs another bolt, stick it in. Unless it gets in the way of the climbing there should be no real downsides to keeping the cliff fun.

LOL. IMOA. (I added the symbols because everyone else does, however I really don't know what they are supposed to represent.LOL)

[GKelly]

I say add the bolt. This is a fine route but it is not very sporty feeling wich does not jive with the rest of the crag. NB needs more options for newer leaders. This route would be a great part of those options but as it is I see it as being potentially dangerous for someone who is at their limit at 5.9.

[*Chris*]

Greg... do as you see fit. I've only climbed at Kingston the one time. My partner and I both agreed that this bolt causes the leader to be very alert. The route overall is quality and adding a bolt won't cause me to loose any sleep.

Developing a sport route with otherwise avoidable ground-fall potential is asinine. It's great that you're willing to critically evaluate your own work... that's the mark of a wise man. Either way, do as you see fit.

[Dom]

I've always felt this route is dangerous for a 5.9 leader. I come from a sport climbing background and so my philosophy for sport routes has always been about pushing physical ability not mental abilities. This doesn't mean that bolts should necessarily be close but ground falls should be avoided. Sometimes the 3 first bolts have to be close in order to avoid that dreaded groundfall though. Anyways thats my philosophy, take from it what you want. Thanks for bolting that cliff. Most routes there are well bolted but I feel ETTT should be retroed to be more consistant with the rest of the bolting there.

[cory]

I support adding another bolt. I think it's the nicest route on the cliff and one I like to do, yet I must get psyched into "highball boulder mode" before I attempt it.

It's great that you're willing to critically evaluate your own work... that's the mark of a wise man.

Agreed.

[cory]

To clarify: The second bolt is ground fall distance from the first, so another should be added between the two. I'm not sure if the 3rd is ground fall or just a long way down. Does anyone volunteer themselves to test this? If its the former, add a bolt, if the latter, I say leave it. Maybe a good solution is to chop and plug current #2, adding a new #2 a bit lower, and a new #3 a bit above the chopped spot.

[Stacey]

Who are you people ...just teasing...

My understanding from what the 'boys' are saying is that it's just 'trad' climbs who warrant the need for test pieces?

My reasoning for not wanting another bolt is simple. I know I'm a pansy-flowered leader, and this climb doesn't wig me out :S perhaps not the best reason, but that's where my opinion stems from. (plus I don't think it's 5.9 (more 5.8ish) but I lost that battle) ...

[STeveA]

My reasoning for not wanting another bolt is simple. I know I'm a pansy-flowered leader, and this climb doesn't wig me out

We know who has the bigger balls, eh!

[Shawn B]

There is groundfall potential from 15 feet getting to a position to be able to clip bolt 2 (not even considering if you are hauling slack to clip the draw). Someone at some point will break their ankles on this climb. It is a 5.9 and you are going to get less experienced leaders on this route. It is not a 5.9 for a new 5.9 leader with its current protection. A crag developed as a low commitment sport crag should not have a pg/r rated grade imo... esp on arguably the nicest climb at the crag. My feeling is similar to Cory's in that the current 2nd bolt should be chopped and replaced by a new B2 a few feet lower and a new B3 a few feet higher leaving 5 bolts on the route instead of the current 4. Rock quality at this crag is always in the back of my mind at this crag too...I kicked off a big hold on the route that steps over the chimney and had parts of other holds break off in my hand on Sunday. This was pretty much the consensus of all that were at this crag on Sunday too.

Sidenote I feel the 2 5.7 routes at the Mt. Doug slabs would be better if the same thing were done. If B1 on a route is 12 feet off the ground and your feet have to go above B1 to clip B2 you are looking at groundfall.

PS One loses their ability to subjectively grade and comment on protection when they have intimate knowledge of a route (scrubbed, cleaned, worked out moves in their sleep, bolted, etc.).

[GKelly]

I agree about chopping the second bolt to replace with one lower and one higher.
There has been one significant injury on this route. The leader was at his limit on the route but in my opinion was at and beyond the point where he/she should be able to safely climb 5.9 sport.
The leader fell with feet at about the level of the first bolt. I believe they freaked out at the prospect of climbing higher above the bolt on cruxy moves adding to the groundfall potential. The fall went bad though the "master" belayer did keep the leader from hitting the ground. The fall resulted in some serious soft tissue damage. Apparently a broken ankle would have been better.
Anyway, had the bolts been placed as suggested above the leader most definatly would have had the confidence to send without trouble.

I am in no way blaming Greg H or Stacey and i commend them for establishing an awsome crag.

[Dom]

Sidenote I feel the 2 5.7 routes at the Mt. Doug slabs would be better if the same thing were done. If B1 on a route is 12 feet off the ground and your feet have to go above B1 to clip B2 you are looking at groundfall.

I figure you're talking about le ti-store 5.7 (the one to the left) and 2 Tours (the one to the right)? I bolted 2 Tours and have always been considering adding a new 2nd bolt to eliminate the committing move right after the 1st bolt. I would always ask the others at les dalles to see if a new 2nd bolt should be added. Most comments I received were something like ''not necessary''. More recently Goodman talked to me about it though, and mentioned it was prob. groundfall. In any case, I would hate for someone to get hurt on a route I bolted so I will add a bolt on it. The rest of the route is IMO well protected. (Anyone, please let me know if you find it's not the case on any of the routes I put up)

As for le ti-store, I didn't bolt it but IMO it also has groundfall potential. For what it's worth I told that to the FAist about 20 minutes after he did the FFA...

PS One loses their ability to subjectively grade and comment on protection when they have intimate knowledge of a route (scrubbed, cleaned, worked out moves in their sleep, bolted, etc.).

I agree with this 100% that's why it's good to hear feedback (good or bad) on new routes.

Sorry for hijacking your thread Greg but Shawn started it

[SteveK]

There has been one significant injury on this route. The leader was at his limit on the route but in my opinion was at and beyond the point where he/she should be able to safely climb 5.9 sport.

Greg did you just call me a he/she?

This climb did fall apart on me my second time leading it. The injury was a bit of a fluke in the way I ended up coming down but I'm glad I wasn't higher.

Greg and Stacey, kudos for all the work you guys have put in establishing the area. It's great having a place like Kingston so close to home!

[Leehammer]

I was belaying someone on this route and they fell from about the second bolt and they didn't deck, you just have to belay them pretty tight. If you fall on most climbs with slack out while clipping a second bolt you are looking at ground fall. I liked this route even more because it was a little spicy, but I guess that's just me.

[breau]

My reasoning for not wanting another bolt is simple. I know I'm a pansy-flowered leader, and this climb doesn't wig me out :S perhaps not the best reason, but that's where my opinion stems from. (plus I don't think it's 5.9 (more 5.8ish) but I lost that battle) ...

I always thought of bolts as something that was meant to protect my ankles and not my thoughts.



The Kingston crag is nice and I thank everyone that helped develop it.

[cory]

If you fall on most climbs with slack out while clipping a second bolt you are looking at ground fall.

No you're not. And if you are, you shouldn't be: The rule of thumb is to clip the second bolt when it's at your waist, so no extraneous slack is involved.

[PeterA]

If you fall on most climbs with slack out while clipping a second bolt you are looking at ground fall.

No you're not. And if you are, you shouldn't be: The rule of thumb is to clip the second bolt when it's at your waist, so no extraneous slack is involved.

A lot (most) of the time though the second bolt is placed so that to clip it from a comfortable stance, you have to reach up to it.

I haven't encountered a huge amount of climbs where the second bolt has been in a place where it's more advantageous to clip at your waist than above your head.

-PJ

[Mike D]

I think that if you want something with a spicy favor ... Good trad climbing
IMO sport routes are for safely pushing one's limited where you can climb to that limit and a fall is 'safe'.
More bolts please

[Stacey]

perhaps the bolts are close enough now....

[Greg]

Err to the Throne has been retro-bolted. It now has a total of 5 bolts. I chopped the second bolt and installed two new bolts between the first and original third. I should acknowledge that the better half of the fa party (Stacey) was gracious enough to allow this to happen even though she was not a supporter of adding any bolts to this route. Stacey felt that the climb was safe the way it was, although perhaps a bit spicy due to the spacing. When I re-climbed it today to judge the original bolts I tended to agree with her, however, there was a significant amount of run out between bolts 1 and 2 which is both out of character for the cliff and unnecessary. I think the way it is bolted now will provide an acceptable margin of safety for a 5.9 leader. Thanks to everyone who chimed in and gave their opinions. Much appreciated.

[GKelly]

Saddle up Steve!

[Dom]

Good call on the retro-bolt.

Just thought I'd add what is written as a guideline for the first 3 bolts here in Kalymnos. It's definitely a guideline (i.e. shoud be adapted to the route in question) but I think it makes sense.

3. When equipping a new route on Kalymnos, always put the first bolt about 2.8m off the ground, the second about 1.2m further up and the third 2m above the second. This will help avoid climbers hitting the deck.

[breau]

Greg and Stacey, setting bolts for the people.

[Stacey]

Greg and Stacey, setting bolts for the people.

we aim to please

[Dom]

Sidenote I feel the 2 5.7 routes at the Mt. Doug slabs would be better if the same thing were done. If B1 on a route is 12 feet off the ground and your feet have to go above B1 to clip B2 you are looking at groundfall.

I figure you're talking about le Ti-store 5.7 (the one to the left) and 2 Tours (the one to the right)? I bolted 2 Tours and have always been considering adding a new 2nd bolt to eliminate the committing move right after the 1st bolt. I would always ask the others at les dalles to see if a new 2nd bolt should be added. Most comments I received were something like ''not necessary''. More recently Goodman talked to me about it though, and mentioned it was prob. groundfall. In any case, I would hate for someone to get hurt on a route I bolted so I will add a bolt on it. The rest of the route is IMO well protected. (Anyone, please let me know if you find it's not the case on any of the routes I put up)

As for le ti-store, I didn't bolt it but IMO it also has groundfall potential. For what it's worth I told that to the FAist about 20 minutes after he did the FFA...

I added a bolt on 2 TOURS 5.7 at Les Dalles yesterday. I don't think there was groundfall potential per se, but a fall after the 1st bolt crux would not have been pleasant. Very Well protected route now. The new bolt is about 5' above the first bolt.

I also added a bolt on C'EST LOIN DU LAUNDROMAT 5.8 G. Not because it wasn't well bolted before but because Marty added an extra 10' to the climb by removing a moss carpet at the start.

[GKelly]

If you guys keep peeling moss those routes will be a full 30 metres!