New Route at Above Down Home Wall

[Greg]

Crimson and Clover 5.11b R 80’/N/T
FA: G. and S. Hughes 2010,05.14
FFA: C. Hall, G. Hughes 2011.11.13
Found on Above Down Home Wall, 15 feet left of Tercel Tower directly below a large Spruce tree at the top of the cliff. Climb up initial blocky section to steep face with small fiddly gear and crimpy holds at crux. Gain a triangular shaped feature that leads to a short vertical crack and the tree anchor. Crux protects well but it is a bit run out to the anchor hence the R gear rating.

Nicely done Cory! Glad to see this line get sent. This is a really nice route and a great addition to ADH Wall.

[Adam]

Crimson and Clover 5.11b R 80’/N/T
FA: G. and S. Hughes 2010,05.14
FFA: C. Hall, G. Hughes 2011.11.13
Found on Above Down Home Wall, 15 feet left of Tercel Tower directly below a large Spruce tree at the top of the cliff. Climb up initial blocky section to steep face with small fiddly gear and crimpy holds at crux. Gain a triangular shaped feature that leads to a short vertical crack and the tree anchor. Crux protects well but it is a bit run out to the anchor hence the R gear rating.

Nicely done Cory! Glad to see this line get sent. This is a really nice route and a great addition to ADH Wall.

what is the grade of the R section?

[coryhal]

the was i understand R and X ratings, and this seems to be how most places grade, is that the protection rating applies to the climbing at the crux, or close to crux difficulty. So in as in this case the R section is through the crux 20 feet of climbing (5.11 ish), same with "the butterfly effect". If a climb is a 5.10 and there is a 30 foot runout on 5.7 ground, my opinion is that it is not R rated.

that being said i think there are a few routes that should get climbed way more often

sweepstakes: no way this is r rated, good pro every 5 feet or less, amasing climb
swarmed: get on this guys, did it again sunday 5.10d G with some 5,8 R face
aint gerbonie touching this bologna: soo cool like desert varnish probably R rated tho
human erazer direct: the 5.10 climbing is well protected, dan whipped off the crux 3 times in a row! the 5.8 at the end is R

and there are definitly some very runout routes hiding under PG in welsford, buts thats all part of the fun!!

[Adam]

the was i understand R and X ratings....

that being said i think there are a few routes that should get climbed way more often

i see the logic in that but don't think a route should get a G rating just b/c the crux is well protected, then supper runout on easier ground to the top. i don't feel that it would give a person a good heads up as to what commitment level there is. otherwise, what's the point of giving a rating at all? granted there is *some* threshold there that is acceptable for sure.... 5.10->5.7? maybe, maybe not. def grey area.

we all know a route will get a lot more traffic if it is not runout, even if the runout comes on easier ground.

[coryhal]

i agree, maby just mentioning somthing about the runout in the route description would be good enough? and runout/dangerous routes do get climbed way less, but i think its important to have a few around, if nothing more than good mental training for thoses big scarry alping lines.

[theriault]

...i think its important to have a few around, if nothing more than good mental training for thoses big scarry alping lines.

+1
Well said and good job on the route!

[Greg]

Crimson and Clover 5.11b R 80’/N/T
FA: G. and S. Hughes 2010,05.14
FFA: C. Hall, G. Hughes 2011.11.13
Found on Above Down Home Wall, 15 feet left of Tercel Tower directly below a large Spruce tree at the top of the cliff. Climb up initial blocky section to steep face with small fiddly gear and crimpy holds at crux. Gain a triangular shaped feature that leads to a short vertical crack and the tree anchor. Crux protects well but it is a bit run out to the anchor hence the R gear rating.

Nicely done Cory! Glad to see this line get sent. This is a really nice route and a great addition to ADH Wall.

what is the grade of the R section?

I thought the climbing after the crux/near the top was around mid ten. There is gear after the crux but the pump factor is going to make placing it seem to be a poor choice compared to just giviner to the anchor. The pro at the crux is super bomber but falling near the top could have nasty results. It is a test piece route for sure.

[Shawn B]

If the R section is at the crux it should be graded as 5.11R. If the R section is not at the crux it should still be mentioned. Could be either included in the actual grade...5.11(5.8R) ...or mentioned in the route description. Any significant runout should be mentioned regardless of grade (a multipitch 5.11 that is well protected but has a pitch of 5.4 slab that is unprotected for 120 feet should be mentioned in the description). Pump factor limiting one's ability to place gear should not make it R if there is gear available. Again good thing to mention in the description tho.

I don't disagree that there is a place for mental test pieces (aka R rated routes). That said however chances are it isn't going to get climbed (esp at 5.11R...5.8R maybe) and will grow over and then get climbed even less. If it is a high quality route and will go to waste being unclimbed why not consider adding fixed pro to bring it at least from R to PG. I'm sure it would still get your mojo going at PG and maybe then it won't grow over. If it's not really that nice then leave it for its once in 5 years ascent. Just means if someone wants to get their "mental training" they're going to have to scrub it first. Heck Pink Panther rarely gets climbed anymore and its nowhere near 11r. It can always be mentioned in the guidebook that FA was done without fixed gear...see that lots of places.

[*Chris*]

Spot-on Shawn. Well put.

[Dom]

I don't disagree that there is a place for mental test pieces (aka R rated routes). That said however chances are it isn't going to get climbed (esp at 5.11R...5.8R maybe) and will grow over and then get climbed even less. If it is a high quality route and will go to waste being unclimbed why not consider adding fixed pro to bring it at least from R to PG. I'm sure it would still get your mojo going at PG and maybe then it won't grow over. If it's not really that nice then leave it for its once in 5 years ascent. Just means if someone wants to get their "mental training" they're going to have to scrub it first. Heck Pink Panther rarely gets climbed anymore and its nowhere near 11r. It can always be mentioned in the guidebook that FA was done without fixed gear...see that lots of places.

Although I'm usually all for bolts and well protected routes, in this case specifically, I don't think putting bolts would bring more traffic. Nobody goes up there. Who else has done Tercel tower this season? It's an awesome dihedral up there yet I haven't heard of anyone else going up there this season. (maybe I'm wrong and there were lineups on the route every weekend hehe). Anyways, It's a good spot for a mental testpiece route.

[cory]

Well said, Shawn. I agree. In fact, everyone's comments have been valid, and civil. What's up with that?

I think that in terms of difficulty, an unprotected section that is easy climbing, but otherwise would be given an R, could warrant an overall PG rating. Or a 20 foot section 5.8 PG, on an otherwise 5.11 could be accepted as an overall rating of G. Afterall, "generally well protected", "big but generally safe falls", and "falls will likely result in some injury, but you'll probably won't die" are pretty ambiguous and subjective. But X is X . ("ground/ledge fall with serious injury or death likely") –lots of people die every year on 5.3 when a hold breaks and they hit the ground.

[STeveA]

If the R section is at the crux it should be graded as 5.11R. If the R section is not at the crux it should still be mentioned. Could be either included in the actual grade...5.11(5.8R) ...or mentioned in the route description. Any significant runout should be mentioned regardless of grade (a multipitch 5.11 that is well protected but has a pitch of 5.4 slab that is unprotected for 120 feet should be mentioned in the description).

This is a fairly standard way of listing a route. Whether there should or should not be R and X routes is another debate altogether. The route listing in an area should at least be consistant, and I vote for the method that Shawn stated. I also vote to have a few R and X routes to see who has balls and who doesn't.

[GKelly]

Well said Steve. I rarely climb r rated routes but i think they are absolutely essential. I would however be pretty cheesed if i got on a 5.11G and found a huge run out on 5.8 ground.

[coryhal]

in the case of this route there is some minimal gear through the "runout section", were talking 2kn nuts in crumbling rock, and maby a super blind super micro cam. but you would have to rap the route to know where to place it. its not a super dangerous line youll just hit a few blocks if you fell.

remember most of my trad routes have been put up ground up..... sometimes they are safe and easy, and other times you get really really scared, or fall and blow gear, just part of it. i find it hard to go back and add pro after ive already led it.

the routes on above down home are very nice, just top rope them if you dont want to lead them. and they will get led again.....someday.

[Dom]

super blind super micro cam

Where can I find one of these? hehe This sounds like something a superhero would carry.

[Stacey]

Well said Steve. I rarely climb r rated routes but i think they are absolutely essential. I would however be pretty cheesed if i got on a 5.11G and found a huge run out on 5.8 ground.

Not to be devil's advocate...but if it were a 5.8G with a huge run out on 5.3....would that make a difference?
It would be the same (ish) grade difference...

I'm guessing most 5.11 climbers aren't going to chatter about runout on 5.8 ground?

[GKelly]

Stacey. I think the same rules should apply in that case. If someone is at there limit on 5.8 but taking advantage of the g rating to push it a little, they may get into seriouse trouble when they are 20 feet above their gear on the 5.3 section and elvis shakes them off. If we are going to go to the extent of grading routes for difficulty and quality of pro followed by a route discription, we might as well add in a detail about a runout section. It isnt going to double the size of the guide book. Just an extra sentence here and there where it may save a life.

[*Chris*]

Well said Steve. I rarely climb r rated routes but i think they are absolutely essential. I would however be pretty cheesed if i got on a 5.11G and found a huge run out on 5.8 ground.

Not to be devil's advocate...but if it were a 5.8G with a huge run out on 5.3....would that make a difference?
It would be the same (ish) grade difference...

I'm guessing most 5.11 climbers aren't going to chatter about runout on 5.8 ground?

Yes. Quite different. In my experience, the YDS is not linear.

[Dom]

Stacey. I think the same rules should apply in that case. If someone is at there limit on 5.8 but taking advantage of the g rating to push it a little, they may get into seriouse trouble when they are 20 feet above their gear on the 5.3 section and elvis shakes them off. If we are going to go to the extent of grading routes for difficulty and quality of pro followed by a route discription, we might as well add in a detail about a runout section. It isnt going to double the size of the guide book. Just an extra sentence here and there where it may save a life.

I agree. The description for Weeping whisker is the perfect example.

[john]

My incoherent opinion to add a different perspective:

Why do people want to describe routes in great detail in guidebooks. does anyone still like the sense of figuring it out as you go. One advantage of trad routes is it preserves the adventure, bolts dont show the path. Guidebooks also give away the suprise. You can always avoid the guidebook but not the bots

Some people love the adventure of figuring it out for yourself, especially a mentally challenging route. We need to preserve the few of these mental test pieces, for those who enjoy it and those who come after us. What is hard and scary today might be common tomorrow. I see it as generous to walk away from a marginal line and leave it for someone else who wants a mental adventure, or to hang it out and go for it with avaialable natural protection.

If we bolt everything, anything becomes possible to climb, literally everything by going bolt to bolt. Some people rather confront the adventure in a natural way and leave no sign. I think its great if a climb grows over and is rediscovered with the adventure preserved in the future. why is there such a push to develop every square inch with any technology necessary.

I would rather see some things left for others to aspire to. All fixed gear changes the experience of those coming behind them and resources are finite, we should remember this before every piece of fixed is added. Not that they should not be added, just that their addition should always be considered from a future impact perspective. I think each generation should aspire to improve on the previous generations efforts in every way. I see a huge improvement in physical climbing ability and available gear, but not in equiping ethics, this has regressed.

I am glad cory has left the adventure preserved in this case.

[Adam]

Why do people want to describe routes in great detail in guidebooks.

for the very reason that guidebooks exist. it is a continuum reaching from the bare minimum of details, to guidebooks that even tell u what gear you'll want. in some cases, people want to know if they're getting themselves in over their heads... last time you went to a new crag, did you just walk up to every route and climb it w/o first reading *something* about the route?

If we bolt everything, anything becomes possible to climb, literally everything by going bolt to bolt.

disagree. greenspit in italy was bolted for ages and was never climbed successfully. of course then Berthod came along and yanked the bolts and sent on gear. to me, bolts aren't about making anything possible to climb, it's about making routes that would otherwise be dangerous to climb (and again this is relative) into climbs that will be 'safer' and will thus see more traffic. it's a slippery slope you're on there... .you could extend the argument to trad gear too... i mean, cracks can be climbed without placing gear... so perhaps we should stop using gear and really make every climb a test piece by adding the requirement that you never fall.

Some people love the adventure of figuring it out for yourself, especially a mentally challenging route.

I definitely see the benefit of having 'test pieces' around... but i personally don't see the need for a route to have extreme injury potential in order to experience it. that's why i don't put up routes like this. that being said, good on ya Cory for leading this route.... i'm sure it took some mental fortitude and u must be happy with it, and i hope it sees more traffic. ironically, i just hope it's not a good route b/c if it *is*, it just won't see the traffic it would deserve

I see a huge improvement in physical climbing ability and available gear, but not in equiping ethics, this has regressed.

i don't think physical climbing ability would have progressed if equipping ethics had not changed... and to say that we now need to move back to 'no trace' is hypocritical if you also hope climbing ability progresses in the future. Ondra and Sharma would not be climbing 5.15 w/o bolts.

further, i would say with your stance, that TC is not improving el cap by putting up dawn wall b/c he's adding bolts... i am doubting you feel this way so it just shows how grey an area it is and that to say bolts are bad/runouts good etc is not a rule any of us live by.

anyway, just some thoughts. John and I rarely see eye to eye on this subject, but we still get along well in person!

[PeterA]

for the very reason that guidebooks exist. it is a continuum reaching from the bare minimum of details, to guidebooks that even tell u what gear you'll want. in some cases, people want to know if they're getting themselves in over their heads... last time you went to a new crag, did you just walk up to every route and climb it w/o first reading *something* about the route?

disagree. greenspit in italy was bolted for ages and was never climbed successfully. of course then Berthod came along and yanked the bolts and sent on gear. to me, bolts aren't about making anything possible to climb, it's about making routes that would otherwise be dangerous to climb (and again this is relative) into climbs that will be 'safer' and will thus see more traffic. it's a slippery slope you're on there... .you could extend the argument to trad gear too... i mean, cracks can be climbed without placing gear... so perhaps we should stop using gear and really make every climb a test piece by adding the requirement that you never fall.

I definitely see the benefit of having 'test pieces' around... but i personally don't see the need for a route to have extreme injury potential in order to experience it. that's why i don't put up routes like this. that being said, good on ya Cory for leading this route.... i'm sure it took some mental fortitude and u must be happy with it, and i hope it sees more traffic. ironically, i just hope it's not a good route b/c if it *is*, it just won't see the traffic it would deserve

i don't think physical climbing ability would have progressed if equipping ethics had not changed... and to say that we now need to move back to 'no trace' is hypocritical if you also hope climbing ability progresses in the future. Ondra and Sharma would not be climbing 5.15 w/o bolts.

further, i would say with your stance, that TC is not improving el cap by putting up dawn wall b/c he's adding bolts... i am doubting you feel this way so it just shows how grey an area it is and that to say bolts are bad/runouts good etc is not a rule any of us live by.

anyway, just some thoughts. John and I rarely see eye to eye on this subject, but we still get along well in person!

I can think of many times that I've walked up to a route and hopped on it without consulting a guidebook. Lots of times we're just too cheap to buy the guide to an area so we just go and see what we can find.

I would be impressed if you could give a convincing argument as to why we shouldn't be placing trad gear in cracks because they could be free soloed. It seems like a big leap to connect the argument against permanent pro to the argument against removable pro.

If we put bolts every 10 feet, then we do get progression on the physical side of climbing, but not on the mental. However, climbing isn't a purely physical endeavour. There are plenty of routes that are within my physical ability that I haven't climbed because I'm a pansy I could toprope them and climb them if i wanted to do it safely, but I'm 99% sure I wouldn't get the same satisfaction as if i had led it proper.

-PJ

[Adam]

I can think of many times that I've walked up to a route and hopped on it without consulting a guidebook. Lots of times we're just too cheap to buy the guide to an area so we just go and see what we can find.

As have I. My point is that at some point you relied on a guidebook for route info.

I would be impressed if you could give a convincing argument as to why we shouldn't be placing trad gear in cracks because they could be free soloed. It seems like a big leap to connect the argument against permanent pro to the argument against removable pro.

It's the same argument taken to a further conclusion. trad gear provides the same service that bolts provide. Just at a different point along a continuum. I guess you could say that place in eastern Germany where they use the knotted slings is further along the continuum than welsford, and at the opposite end from a gridbolted sport crag

[Fred]

No need to argue over this one anymore folks... greenpointing!!

[john]

Adam,

I am really not against bolts, I just think that they should really be considered before they are added.

Greenspit is a perfect example, it was climbed bolt to bolt years ago, but ended up going on gear and became something to aspire to. Sonny's route the Path is the same.

What I like more about trad is the preservation of adventure. When you look up at a line of bolts you know exactly where to go. It removes the mental aspect of the figuring out process and the composure under pressure component.

Bolts certainly have there place. What struck me in this thread was the thought that a line was climbed, as naturally as possible in the view of the first ascentionist given his circumstances at the time, yet instead of applauding the effort some suggested to retrofit with fixed gear, so it would be more accessible and would not grow over? I see this as completely backwards. Not the gear or fixed pro part but the attitude.

In my view Cory to the harder path of stepping up and facing the challenge of hat was there as is which in this case involved some scary climbing, it certainly would have been easier to add bolts, he didn't, he reserved the adventure and I think thats admirable style.

good points by all

[PeterA]

It's the same argument taken to a further conclusion. trad gear provides the same service that bolts provide. Just at a different point along a continuum. I guess you could say that place in eastern Germany where they use the knotted slings is further along the continuum than welsford, and at the opposite end from a gridbolted sport crag

The difference being that bolts stay put, trad gear leaves with you. I still haven't seen the connection

-PJ

[cory]

Thank you John for hijacking a friendly conversation about whether a R/X rating should take the YDS difficulty of the "dangerous" section relative to the YDS grade of the overall route, and turning it into an argument on the subject of bolts. No one suggested that coryhal/Greg should add any fixed pro to Crimson and Clover, let alone turn it into a sport route.

Since you wanted to get onto your soap box, I will point out the weaknesses in your rant.

Why do people want to describe routes in great detail in guidebooks.

Because it's a BOOK that provides GUIDance, flowerhead!

One advantage of trad routes is it preserves the adventure, bolts dont show the path.

I'm not sure about what routes you've climbed, but cracks, dihedrals, water grooves, ridges and seams are pretty obvious paths. Alternately, rock quality, pendulum/ledge fall potential, and rope drag considerations often mean the bolts do NOT show the path on a sport or mixed route either.

Some people love the adventure of figuring it out for yourself, especially a mentally challenging route. We need to preserve the few of these mental test pieces, for those who enjoy it and those who come after us.

Agreed. When's the last time you emptied your water bottle and scrubbed all your chalk off a boulder problem or route?

[STeveA]

Thank you John for hijacking a friendly conversation about whether a R/X rating should take the YDS difficulty of the "dangerous" section relative to the YDS grade of the overall route, and turning it into an argument on the subject of bolts. No one suggested that coryhal/Greg should add any fixed pro to Crimson and Clover, let alone turn it into a sport route.

Since you wanted to get onto your soap box, I will point out the weaknesses in your rant.

Why do people want to describe routes in great detail in guidebooks.

Because it's a BOOK that provides GUIDance, flowerhead!

One advantage of trad routes is it preserves the adventure, bolts dont show the path.

I'm not sure about what routes you've climbed, but cracks, dihedrals, water grooves, ridges and seams are pretty obvious paths. Alternately, rock quality, pendulum/ledge fall potential, and rope drag considerations often mean the bolts do NOT show the path on a sport or mixed route either.

Some people love the adventure of figuring it out for yourself, especially a mentally challenging route. We need to preserve the few of these mental test pieces, for those who enjoy it and those who come after us.

Agreed. When's the last time you emptied your water bottle and scrubbed all your chalk off a boulder problem or route?

Who pissed in your Wheatties?

[Leehammer]

Because it's a BOOK that provides GUIDance, flowerhead!

I read that and I thought: "What's a guid?" haha.

[Adam]

The difference being that bolts stay put, trad gear leaves with you. I still haven't seen the connection

-PJ

well, even trad gear becomes fixed at times....

in any case, the point was that whether we use trad gear or bolts, we're relying on gear to make the experience 'safe'. nothing to do with the removability of the gear.