Moderators: PeterA, chossmonkey, Stacey, Dom, granite_grrl, Greg, Joe
The Nose is 5.9R and possibly R/X depending on whether the shallow flaring cams hold. Challenging gear on the majority of the route. Very nice climbing with great moves.
austinconrad wrote:Which pitch of "the Nose" are you refering to? Are you referring to the whole route?
Dom wrote:
BTW the white pine that had a fixed rope and a sign on it near 50 Mission Cap has fallen, presumably during Arthur, rendering the access to 50 mission cap difficult.
Also, I'm too drunk for this is a nice route but I presume you guys were intoxicated when you gave it its gear rating.
Shawn B wrote:After jumping on a few more routes and talking with other climbers here are a few thoughts about some of the routes' protection rating...
Morpheus should be PG rated
Bottom of Mr. Anderson is R rated. Climbing is prob 5.4 or 5.5 and a bit insecure and slippery. Deck fall potential until gear at about 18 or so feet. Crux well protected by the bolt. Superb rock.
Too Drunk is PG rated.
Night Bird should prob be PG rated as well...depending on how much you wander possibly.
Zen has a 5.6 face climbing section that is PG...although the climbing is on positive face holds. Crux is very well protected. Absolutely superb route...at least the way we climbed it finishing on a thin finger crack on the black face directly below the big pine tree. Combine with Neutral Tribe for 200 feet of amazing climbing.
The Nose is 5.9R and possibly R/X depending on whether the shallow flaring cams hold. Challenging gear on the majority of the route. Very nice climbing with great moves.
cory wrote:What a cool place this is! Great features on quality rock. Thank you gentlemen for all the work you've put in so far.
Unless I'm mistaken of what we actually climbed (and this is quite likely) I see a couple errors in the guide with regards to Red Pill/Blue Pill. Both are worth climbing and Red in particular is beautiful, fun and highly recommended. 1) The wall is only 8m (25ft) tall, maybe 9m.
2) Blue should be R for gear rating. It takes a couple bomber pieces in the first 2.5 meters (crack ending at 8 or 9ft). At about 4m there is a fat, left-facing horn off to the right, which I could not get a sling to stay on even with a slip hitch. I could not find any other gear placements (though I left tricams at the base) until another bomber big cam maybe 2m from the top. The starting ledge is fairly flat, wide and grass covered, so as long as your belayer/spotter is tethered to the tree, and you've got a couple pieces down low, a ledge fall would end there and shouldn't be so bad. It's highball bouldering, really, but totally worth it (unless you're a 5.6 climber).
Greg wrote: I didn't know if anyone would bother with these two climbs but I agree that they are quite fun.
Greg wrote:As for the gear rating on Too Drunk I think it is G. Mike plans on doing some more work on cleaning it and when that is done you I bet you will agree
cory wrote:Greg wrote: I didn't know if anyone would bother with these two climbs but I agree that they are quite fun.
The Red Pill is definitely worth doing -a beautiful continuous 5.5 finger crack! I give it a star.
I also appreciate how you've taken these posts exactly as they were intended: constructive feedback. It's often tough to be objective after putting so much work into a climb (and McQuirks was a lot of work!) as you become too familiar with the nuances of the rock, and comfortable with the climb. Ultimately the FA has the final word, but it's nice to be receptive to others. Consistency and accuracy are more likely with open discussion. As much as it's a labour of love, you're putting all this effort into establishing and documenting climbs so that others can enjoy it. Without accuracy and consistency, people are unlikely to frequent this crag as much as they should ('cause the climbing is great).
Dom wrote:As with any new routes, there will be discussions regarding grades and gear ratings and the majority of posts regarding new routes or new crags tends to focus toward these things. Not everyone will agree with you but make no mistake, these "disagreements" does not negate in any way the appreciation we have of the labour and devotion your poured into making this cliff a wonderful addition to the realm of crags in NB.
With that in mind, here is my opinion:
Greg wrote:As for the gear rating on Too Drunk I think it is G. Mike plans on doing some more work on cleaning it and when that is done you I bet you will agree
I thought it was reasonably clean.
I disagree. I think it is PG. In my opinion a 5.5 G should not have any runouts. In my recollection, there are at least two 10'-15' runouts. One is close to the start and would probably be close to a deck fall.
Maybe I missed something but if that's the case, I'm not the only one. My partner that day also found it spicy and another climber told me they bailed off of this route.
Ultimately, it is Mike's decision to leave the route as is and I have no problem with that. I simply think a better warning should be given to a trad leader with limited experience to warn them of the potential dangers of this route.
Do not misinterpret my post - I'm not saying this route is dangerous. I'm simply saying that this route contains more "risks" than a 5.5 G route should.
Climb on!
Dom wrote:BTW the white pine that had a fixed rope and a sign on it near 50 Mission Cap has fallen, presumably during Arthur, rendering the access to 50 mission cap difficult.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 85 guests