[Boredboy]

Hi,

I was bouldering at Rivelin last weekend and noticed that one of the holds on 'Sparks' had been over brushed to the point of breaking the 'crust' of the rock and improving a hold (that you don't even need). While I'm sure it's a well worn subject (no pun intended) this kind of 'over brushing' is steadily eroding lots of grit bouldering and almost definitely won't help you get up the problem. Sorry if it's a bit tedious but I was gutted to see a good problem at one of my favourite crags looking like it did, pointless. 

Cheers

Dan

[yankcranker]

dont you guys use lapis brushes?

[slackline]

dont you guys use lapis brushes?

The majority of regulars on these forums know how to treat rock and not over-brush (be it with a lapis or anything else).

Not everyone who boulders is registered on these forums or knows what you should or shouldn't do when brushing.

[andy_e]

Lapis brushes are amongst the hardest bouldering brushes and can do the most damage.

[Drew]

Really? I thought they were supposed to be so good because they were really fine and soft, and got into all the tiny features? Surely the fibres on nylon brushes (Metolius etc) are stiffer?

[andy_e]

If they do get into pore spaces, then brushing with a Lapis brush would be more damaging than if the brush just skittered over the top.

[Drew]

That does make sense. But I've basically ruined a Lapis before now trying to clean moss/lichen from a hold, and the Lapis picked loads of it up, but left loads. surely the rock has more structural integrity than moss?
This is a genuine question by the way. I hope it doesn't sound sarcy.

[andy_e]

Yes, usually, the weathered outer surface of the rock is more structurally integral than lichen. I would imagine, however, that lichen can anchor itself quite well to the rock with roots and tendrils and the suchlike. Once the weathered outer surface is removed however, sandstone can be very weak indeed if there's no cement or other diagenetic processes to hold the grains together and any brushing (or even touching it) can remove grains. Think of a sandy crag such as Brimham for example.

[Bonjoy]

All seems rather beside the point to me given how much more damaging standing on/heel hooking a foothold in a pair of rock boots is than any amount of toothbrush/lapis brushing. 
I'm always wary of people claiming holds have been toothbrushed to destruction, usually they just look like they've been stood on to me.

[Danny]

Andi, you may be knowledgeable on the geology front (I am not), but that's clearly pure conjecture.

Anecdotal at best.

You're telling us that lapis is more damaging than nylon. That may or may not be true and, if there is a difference, it's surely a case of splitting hairs. We're not talking about wire brushing and blowtorching here.   

[andy_e]

Bonjoy:

Hmmm, it's a different force acting on it. Usually holds with lots of foot-traffic become polished (unless the outer layer is removed such as Hanging Arete at Higgar) because pressure is exerted downwards and the pressure is spread out over a wider area whereas brushing exerts downwards force and force backwards and forwards with brushing and is localised in a small area. Look at New Jerusalem for example, nobody stands on that hold and yet it's become massive through overbrushing.

Danny, despite your pun, it seems to be true from opinions I've heard over the years that Lapis brushes are far harsher to rock than any other type. I'm sure there've been discussions about it on here before.

[tomtom]

I very much doubt the fine hairs of a Lapis brush are fine enough to make it through the patina and into any pore spaces - which at largest would be incredibly small in the sandstone/gritstone of N.England...

There are lots of issues that can help/hinder the development of the patina (sorry harder armoured outer) on grit/sandstone - lichen and other biological activity may well help in this - as biofilms have been shown to have a large role in cementing together  and in some cases pretty much forming rock.

But something rarely discussed is the chemical changes that have occurred over the last 300 years on these outcrops.. 50 and especially 100 years ago, air quality was awful - smog, and associated large amounts of acidified rainfall linked to the industrial revolution and growth of towns/cities would have had some impact on exposed rock faces. This would have (likely) killed off any lichen/green on the surface and I expect would have some sort of impact on the formation of the harder outer layer (I dont know how acidic water running over the surface effects cementation etc.. but would be surprised if it wasnt a factor). In other words, the hardened surface we get at places like Almscliff (which has quite a few spots of softer rock too) may be due to us... There is anecdotal evidence of places such as Wimberry only recently developing the habit of getting very green quite quickly - which again reflects the better air quality found nowadays... I'm no expert on any of the above - its just my semi informed views/interpretations but I'd be interested what anyone better informed can say or if there is any SCIENCE to back this up...

[andy_e]

Fair enough, you're probably right about it getting into the pore spaces. Maybe the fact the bristles can deform more easily and are in denser clumps means it's like those toothbrush advert claims were they say "this toothbrush reaches bits others can't"...

[tomtom]

Fair enough, you're probably right about it getting into the pore spaces. Maybe the fact the bristles can deform more easily and are in denser clumps means it's like those toothbrush advert claims were they say "this toothbrush reaches bits others can't"...

I just use alternate bleach and acid sprays...

[andy_e]

On your teeth or the rock?

[tomtom]

On your teeth or the rock?

Only UV on my teeth... I get it done when I top up at Tantastic down the road..

[andy_e]

Ah, following the Adam Lincoln Training Plan I see...

[tomtom]

Ah, following the Adam Lincoln Training Plan I see...

I get my inspiration from The Only Way Is Essex...  Back sack and crack booked in for friday...

[yankcranker]

seriously lol @ lapis ruining rock..

peeps get BENT out here (east coast) over nylon brushes..they polish conglomerates + granite till they feel like gym holds. certain places in the south have active bannings on nylon, as it has + will easily carve holds in sandstone.

nylon's only really acceptable for cleaning new problems

[andy_e]

We're not talking about conglomerates or granite here though.

[yankcranker]

fair enough, but theres tons and tons of rock types here, with tons and tons of subsets....im sure you could find a few that share most of gritstone's characteristics. this topic was dissected on b3 pretty well about a year or so ago maybe? i know we got the lapis thing from the frogs, surprised you guys are still living in the dark ages...

[andy_e]

Have you got a link to this thread? Sounds like interesting reading.

We've been using lapis brushes since I were a lad... 

[SA Chris]

So one week then?

[yankcranker]

 

http://www.b3bouldering.com/2011/06/27/toothbrushes/


edited to add....currently rocking revolution's double sided brush (horse/boar). so tight. thing is clutch, has been the deciding factor in being able to pull onto certain problems.

the gunks get abused by visitors when the season is in....caked up black greasy balls come off holds when you use lapis. if you use nylon, it creates a bit of dust, but thats it. the holds remain greased to all hell.

gunks = most overrated zone on the planet

[andy_e]

Well I've trawled this forum for mention of lapis being worse than other brushes but I can't find anything. I'm sure I've heard of it though. I'll give that thread a read.

[Danny]

So let's put it down to a brain fart on your part for the time being.
I would be interested to learn otherwise, but until then I'll be merrily lapis-brushing away

[old cheese]

 :offtopic:Personally I use snow leopard ear hair brushes. Expensive yes but soft on the rock. Save the rock I say

[masonwoods101]

Is there anyway you can advertise UKB as being the only climbing forum with resident geologists at hand to answer any questions...

[andy_e]

So let's put it down to a brain fart on your part for the time being.

Brain fart due to being bored at work if you please...

[Bonjoy]

Bonjoy:

Hmmm, it's a different force acting on it. Usually holds with lots of foot-traffic become polished (unless the outer layer is removed such as Hanging Arete at Higgar) because pressure is exerted downwards and the pressure is spread out over a wider area whereas brushing exerts downwards force and force backwards and forwards with brushing and is localised in a small area. Look at New Jerusalem for example, nobody stands on that hold and yet it's become massive through overbrushing.

Sorry Andi but you are failing to see the wood for the trees. Pressure on footholds is multi-directional for various obvious reasons (do I really need to go into those reasons). Rotational force is particularly common on footholds and especially damaging. The difference in area over which load is spread is irrelevant as it is hugely outweighted by the difference in in scale between the force. Let me illustrate this another way. Which would be more damaging to your teeth, me brushing them with a toothbrush, or me jumping up and down on them?



The bottom bit of the Higgar arete is soft damp rock and never had a resistant crust to speak of. As someone who does the odd new problem I can tell you that some rock (especially near ground level), is shit from day one. I've actually heard people blame the damaged footholds on this problem on brushing. Do these people never notice the sand on their boots every time they use such footholds?!*
Can't comment on NJ as I haven't seen it for years. Where a handhold is so fragile is crumbles under a toothbrush I tend to favour re-enforcement with superglue rather than a doomed to failure brushing veto.




* I sealed these footholds with rock sealant some years ago so they should be stable, but haven't been back to check in a long time.

[andy_e]

Good point. Both brushing and standing on holds can damage them. I didn't realise the holds at Higgar had been stabilised, they're still quite sandy and crumbly (I avoided using them on the few goes I had on it).

[Bonjoy]

It was ages ago using some rock sealant. Probably needs re-doing with superglue (much more effective).

[Bonjoy]

Blood Falls had a pocket so soft it got damage by use and brushing. Hopefully that's now stable.

[dave]

I rescaled the higher arête a couple of years after love joy, not sure how well it's held up.

[andy_e]

How does superglue look/feel once applied? Is it invisible?

[slackline]

How does superglue look/feel once applied? Is it invisible?

It looks Super!

[Bonjoy]

How does superglue look/feel once applied? Is it invisible?

Next to invisible. Very minor reduction in friction. That's assuming it's applied well i.e. the excess is sopped up with a rag.

[Boredboy]

The hold I posted about had definitely been abused by over brushing, you can tell because the rock had a 'scoured' look about it in a wide area.

That American person had a good point. I'll be putting away my denture brush for a nice soft Lapis from now on. 

[nai]

which hold is it that you are referring to?

[Boredboy]

The one that's by your face when you get the left hand slopey cusp thing. It's chalked a bit with a pale crumbly look to it and is different to the natural colour of the grit around it, you don't need it when you do the problem, I don't think it was like that about 8-ish years ago. 

[nai]

Sounds like the crozzly crimp with thumb sprag on the side that I did actually use, found it easier that using the pinch below.
The little ear flake out right looked more worn to me. Can't imagine either would get brushed really hard though, they're both out of reach so surely any brushing would be done with a stick