Anchor Relocation – Rincon 5.8 Crack

This application is for relocating the existing anchor on 5.8 crack.

Route Name5.8 Crack
LocationRincon
Grade5.8
FAunknown

Vote on this Hardware Application

You must be logged in to vote! Click here to login

If you cannot vote you are not logged in, or you already voted.

Approve the anchor relocation of 5.8 crack?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
6 replies
  1. Michal Matyjasik
    Michal Matyjasik says:

    I conditionally agree with moving this anchor. Please read my argument. I agree that there should be an anchor that doesn’t require excessive amounts of traversing from the other routes for safety reasons. Considering the amount of traffic that these routes (including P1 of Rincon) add to the 5.8 crack anchor, I think it is wiser that an anchor is added approximately at the top of 5.10 crack, which can be used as a central location for toproping the other routes, as well as a better rappel anchor from the top of P2 of Rincon. I think it would be foolish to pull a perfectly good, existing anchor at the top of 5.8 crack and end up with two unused, plugged holes in the rock. In conclusion, an ADDITIONAL anchor should simply be added at the top of 5.10 crack without removing the existing anchor.

    • daveholliday
      daveholliday says:

      Although I think this proposal is a good idea, I agree with Michal that the area would be better served by an additional anchor. I would put one closer to the top of the first pitch of Rincon; that way people bailing off that route by doing only the first one or two pitches wouldn’t interfere with the other single-pitch routes in the area.

  2. nbb
    nbb says:

    I agree with moving the bolts as described, and I also agree with adding another anchor closer to Rincon. This area is crowded and more convenience anchors may not seem like the best solution to that, but it seems better than the mess of crossed ropes now that effectively limit 4 perfectly good routes to only 1-2 parties.

  3. tonybubb
    tonybubb says:

    I vote no here for what some may consider a strange reason perhaps. I’m uncomfortable with the turn this is taking.
    This started with adding an anchor to replace that which was on a tree: it was a “save a tree” anchor.
    And that is within ACE’s charter, and makes some sense in terms of preservation of the crags and their character.

    But then we have the “move the anchor” submission, which by comment appears to be morhping into a “leave the anchor and also add an anchor” sort of thing.

    Now, if we were to have submitted a proposal in the first place to add 2 anchors (the tree is still there), in the first place, one of them would be called a convenience anchor for sure. And that is outside of the ACE charter and not in the nature of preservation of the crag and it’s character. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. It’s expressly prohibited unless I am mistaken.

    So “no” from me for now if we’re talking multiple anchors. People rapping from Rincon can still rap to the tree and then access the existing anchors from there can’t they?
    Or they could just finish the route, or use 2 ropes to descend. Let’s call a duck a duck. The extra anchor here is adding a set of bolts to a mid-route bailing point and a TR anchor for other climbs that don’t have one. It is, by definition, a swap into a “convenience anchor.”

    And that goes against the charter of the committee.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply