Shout Box

Who's Online
2 registered (beau, 1 invisible), 9 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 10 of 27 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 26 27 >
Topic Options
#65196 - 06/03/12 10:14 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: jhurwitz]
jhurwitz Offline
stranger

Registered: 05/04/12
Posts: 14
Loc: Stone Ridge, NY
As far as the the "not replacing it" sentiment goes : I completely disagree with this and it is just not reality. Anything I remove completely will be replaced within a week.

As far as the general sentiment goes : I'm asking far more people about this than just the few who happen to lurk on Gunks.com. The general sentiment is do it and do it right!

As to dealing with the Preserve, I've spoken with Frank and other rangers about this and other anchors numerous times in the past and I'm not going outside of their guidelines in any way.

-Jason

Top
#65201 - 06/03/12 11:39 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: jhurwitz]
Dana Offline
addict

Registered: 07/13/00
Posts: 619
What did you mean in your last post when you mentioned "the few who lurk on 'Gunks.com?"


Edited by Dana (06/03/12 11:42 PM)

Top
#65202 - 06/03/12 11:56 PM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: Dana]
Bill Offline
journeyman

Registered: 06/18/03
Posts: 85
Loc: Mass Land
Chop it. Keep chopping it.

Top
#65205 - 06/04/12 12:46 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: Bill]
rg@ofmc Online   content
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2454
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Sigh. I still think it would be better not to have an anchor there at all. Well, its the Trapps, they've already been sacrificed to the convenience gods. One can only hope that concentrating top rope/rap anchors there will give those who care more energy to try to protect other areas from degradation.

Personally, I hate wire rope and am one of those who will always back it up, at least for the first person down. I think something like 80% of the strength of wire rope is in internal strands that are subject to breaking under repeated flexing, but such internal damage cannot be detected by inspection---only the outer 20% of strands are visible.

As for crosby clamps, I know how they are supposed to go on (never saddle a dead horse) and have seen some examples of incorrectly installed ones. I also have no idea whether the installer correctly tightened the nuts with a torque wrench, and I'd have to consult an industrial standards sheet to see if the correct number of clamps had been installed. Finally, I don't think there is anything uglier.

Top
#65206 - 06/04/12 12:58 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: Bill]
jhurwitz Offline
stranger

Registered: 05/04/12
Posts: 14
Loc: Stone Ridge, NY
Sorry Bill, no can do, though I do hear ya and understand where you are coming from. I secretly yearn for the cliff in it's most natural state, lichen and all, and the beauty and challenges of bonding with nature on it's own terms. That is not a reality as I'm about 50 years too late and chopping an anchor won't reverse time and change that. Again, it's been there for a very long time and it would be replaced soon after. It makes more sense to do it right.

Dana, what I meant by "...the few who happen to lurk on Gunks.com" was just that. Out of the many climbers who visit the cliff and the many who call it home, only a small percentage of them lurk around this site and actually communicate within this forum. Just because I'm one of them doesn't mean that I will take only those opinions offered to me from this forum and base decisions and "public opinion" on just this small group. I'm at the cliffs quite often and make it a point to speak with different climbers and groups (guides, locals, weekenders, visitors, old-schoolers, etc.) and gather opinions.

Dana, out of curiosity, why do you ask?

-Jason

Top
#65207 - 06/04/12 01:10 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: jhurwitz]
jhurwitz Offline
stranger

Registered: 05/04/12
Posts: 14
Loc: Stone Ridge, NY
rg, I do hear ya and I agree. The wire rope idea was brought up to me by a couple of others. I do know how to install crosby clamps correctly (background in building and directing ropes courses), but I feel that the negatives far outweigh the only positive that I can think of. Negatives being unsightly and unnatural (the main reasons I'm removing the other crap) and many user's inability to identify the solidity of the anchor. The positive being strength.

The truth is that one way or another, there will be an eyesore and unnatural anchor there with or without me. Time and MANY CLIMBERS have proven this to be true. My intention is to make it bombproof and as aesthetic as possible. To not make a decision is to leave the crap there and continue to use the old mank and it's somewhat poorly equalized nylon anchor.

What makes sense to me is to make the strongest anchor and maintain it as needed by replacing the nylon, etc... when necessary.

-Jason

Top
#65208 - 06/04/12 01:57 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: jhurwitz]
tradjunkie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/19/04
Posts: 359
If you are so certain it will be replaced within a week, why not clean the anchor and wait 2 weeks to see what happens? Clean the anchor this week. Let 2 weekends elapse. On June 18, check the route and post the status of the anchor site here.

If the anchor is replaced with some leaver nuts or something, then by all means put in a good replacement anchor on June 18.

If the anchor is not replaced, consider that a signal and listen carefully to it; report back to gunks.com and let 2 weeks of flame wars inform your decision.

Top
#65209 - 06/04/12 02:01 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: jhurwitz]
Dana Offline
addict

Registered: 07/13/00
Posts: 619
Jason,

I asked about the "few who lurk" part of your message because it had the tone of being dismissive, dismissive of the people who posted with whom you did not agree. If you review what you wrote, it would be easy and not unreasonable for someone reading the post to come to that conclusion.
I don't know if that was your intent, so I asked in order to have my assumption confirmed or denied.
But the content of your posts gives me the impression (I'm being careful to add that it gives me the impression) that you feel that people who disagree with you are a small minority and you have a clear line to, and a better idea of what 'Gunks climbers want - and you seem to be basing that on several assumptions , e.g., you are out there all the time talking to a large, representative section of the 'Gunks climbing community. That assumes that others are not: how can you know that? Of course, you may be right - and when I say that I am not being patronzing.
The basic issue here is should there be/ should there not be a fixed anchor and we all agree it should be decided by consensus. In many ways I don't care; I've never used that anchor, and I climbed SOEO many times, the last time 2 weeks ago. But consensus building is not done by forcing a viewpoint or by slighting what people say and feel, and you have been doing that.

Dana


Edited by Dana (06/04/12 03:17 AM)

Top
#65210 - 06/04/12 02:07 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: Dana]
socialist1 Offline
member

Registered: 08/05/04
Posts: 145
Loc: New Brunswick, NJ

Jason,

Many of us would *really* not like to see that anchor there, and this goes beyond the discussion had in this board. The main objection to removing and not replacing the anchor (beyond convenience), is the concern for the loose rocks above. How about instead, the anchor is removed and some effort is made to control the rock/erosion situation above? You (and others here) seem to be convinced the anchor will be back within a week. I am not so sure - most are to lazy/cheap to construct something they are willing to rap off. This is not as simple as webbing around a tree.

What do ya say, can we just try to see what will happen if its removed but not instantly replaced? If the anchor springs right back up as you claim, then have at it. Here's hoping for a less clutter filled, more free cliff.

Ross

PS - Thanks for your motivation and willingness to take action on this issue, few are willing.

Top
#65213 - 06/04/12 02:42 AM Re: Son of easy o rap [Re: jhurwitz]
Valpine Online   content
journeyman

Registered: 06/29/10
Posts: 53
Loc: W.Sand Lake, NY
…just throwing my $.02 to provide a better idea of "general sentiment".

I find talk about aesthetics and a natural state amusing when one is referring to a climb on which one can often smell exhaust fumes from a state route that is spitting distance away. The natural state of the Trapps was forgone many years ago when the road was put in and then on top of that, a carriage road was built to provide even easier access to the "natural" beauty. Aesthetics as a reason to not have an anchor on SOEO just does not hold any water in my opinion. I view the area around SOEO as busy and circus-like. The absence of an anchor is not going to change that. Nothing is going to change that save a nuclear apocalypse and the 50 or so years that it would take nature to reclaim that area. I really see no reason to not have an anchor there and in my mind safety trumps no reason. I say have a good, safe anchor there that allows people to get up and get down quickly so they can beat the hordes to the next climb without worrying about showering rocks on the line of noobs waiting to get on EO.


So I'm not understood I'll add that I am a great lover of wilderness. When I want to find wild, natural, lichen-laden rock I don't go to the Trapps to find it. Don't get me wrong, I do love the Trapps for what the Trapps offers. When I want clean, dry rock, convenience, easy access and to get in a lot of great climbing without having to clean lichen out of my eyes for the next two days the Trapps is where I head to. Even when in the Trapps, if I want a more peaceful, natural experience I head down way past the Frog's Head area and visit Sleepy Hollow. When I want a wilderness feel and natural, dirty rock protected from convenience-seeking crowds by long, muddy approaches, I head north to the Adirondacks.

Top
Page 10 of 27 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 26 27 >


Moderator:  Mike Rawdon, Steven Cherry 
Sponsored