Everyone's got different criteria for what should get replaced and what shouldn't.

I think this argues for an Eldorado style committee. Our subjective/aesthetic opinions should be aired publicly, not as a go it alone, unilateral action by an individual under the cover of darkness.

Pointed question - would anyone reading this chop the route if it were rebolted tomorrow? (or know anyone who would likely do so) Note that KN is banned from the Trapps AFAIK.

Julie, I've led it. Todd just led it a couple of weeks ago. Sure those bolts aren't great but I bet they're as good as blue aliens.

I'd just like to know if those bolts were *ever* considered great before I vote for replacing them. Does anyone know if, in their day, those bolts represented the ultimate in safety or did they always look homemade and suspect?

Yeah...Sente IS leadable -- it just depends on what level of risk you´re willing to accept or, like many leaders, be oblivious to.

In response to your post, Mike: I find it much more likely that, should the bolts on the route be stripped, someone will go and rebolt it. And I don´t like the idea of bolt wars at all, especially those that run in reverse...

I've already expressed my personal preference for letting Sente fade into the obscurity it has always deserved by removing the bad bolts, patching the holes, and making no replacements.

BUT, if we really can't do without this thoroughly artificial "lead," then the bolts should be replaced. In my opinion, there is absolutely no justification for a climb that is dangerous by design. If the climb is naturally protected and nature dictates that the protection is sketchy, than that is the way the climb was meant to be. But to purposely manufacture a dangerous climb, or to purposely allow a manufactured climb to become dangerous, is sociopathic at best. Confronting natural danger is part of the essence of trad climbing, but manufacturing danger on purpose is stupid, with apologies (by no means heartfelt) to all the so-called extreme sports and TV shoes that do exactly that.

Consequently, I cannot agree with Dawn that maybe Sente should be left as is if the bolts were always questionable. By current standards, they were always questionable, because bolting technology has, like all other climbing technologies, evolved and our understanding of bolts has evolved. In retrospect, the bolts may never have been very good, and they are certainly now much worse. If you lead this climb, you have absolutely no idea how much impact those bolts will take. Small aliens are extremely hard to judge accurately, but I'd much rather deal with that situation, where I place the pro and arrive at a judgement based on whatever objective observations I can bring to bear, rather than the pure russian roulette of clipping old bolts.

I also think Julie's complaint about ethical handwringing is way off base. The fact is that rebolting is a lot of work and no one cares that much about Sente, and for good reason. I really don't think fear of reaction is holding anyone back, because there isn't going to be any reaction, other than the gratitude of those souls whose life isn't complete until they "lead" Sente.

Re: ethical handwringing ... my 'take' on that is mostly an extrapolation from the guidebook's description of the route (which makes some less-than-laudatory comment about the bolts' origins). Reading that, then looking up and seeing russian roulette above while other routes (Arrow, NNLand, Roseland) get routine maintenance, leads me to infer that there's a Reason those bolts haven't been updated.

I can tell you that the Reason is that those Individuals that normally handle that kind of job haven't gotten a round tuit. Round Tuits can be real hard to come by when people get real busy. Rest assured it will happen pretty soon. The bolt on Never Never Land was replaced relatively recently and these will be too eventually. It's only a matter of time (and time can go by pretty slow out in the boondocks of the Gunks.)

I have one question regarding the replacement of fixed pitons. Some climbs sport two pitons right next to each other: the crux of Coex comes to mind or the two pitons at the corner move on Feast of Fools (P1). In particular, in the case of Feast of Fools one of the pitons is much "younger" than the other. Was one placed as a backup for the other piton in a nearby crack instead of replacing the older one? It seems strange that the first ascentionists would have placed both pitons at that spot, especially in the Coex case where they are both very solid placements. Is this yet another tolerated exception to the hard and fast no retrogear rule? I understand the preserve agreement with the climbing community, but what is the general practice that is accepted for piton replacement? Use the same hole or add another piton and wait for the older one to rot away? Obviously, the issue is much more straightforward for bolts.

Cheers,

Luca