In situ threads

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

Steve R

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
674
I’ve been contemplating the ethics, possible history and my own preferences of in situ threads a bit recently. It’s not something I’ve seen discussed very much so thought it might be worth putting this out there. There's quite a whiff of UKC about all this but I'll crack on anyway.

Up until recently I’d not really questioned threads (often of the right length for easy clipping) just being there in lots of limestone routes and generous spirited folk renewing and leaving notes on ukc logbooks of when specific threads were last renewed. I was climbing pretty well for me last summer and was potentially up for a go at Ghost train at Bosherston if/when decent cons were available. I didn’t get on it and one of the reasons was increased uncertainty about the length and seriousness of the run out as Crispin Waddy had removed and shortened one of the threads. I was aware it had been comically long at times and potentially made the difference between the route being E6 or E7. I’m grateful to Crispin for removing it and personally, aim to do the route whilst embracing the full run out experience hopefully maybe this year. Anyway, it was mainly that (non) experience which got me thinking….

Is the status quo that in-situ threads are fine?

My thoughts:

-They’re very inexpensive to leave behind/renew so people always have?

-they’re often hard/fiddly/impossible to place without a broddler and/or two hands on the job so if you want to use them as gear, they have to be pre-placed or left in situ (not sure this one is a particularly strong justification for having in-situ gear generally, eg. doesn’t seem to apply to wires)

-sort of viewed as ‘like a peg’ in that it’s a natural feature in the rock that makes protection available but you wouldn’t be able to (or wouldn’t want to!?) place it on lead

-Nice new threads on a route can certainly make it a more appealing proposition, potentially more inspiring and help with discerning/following the line


Personally I’ve always liked threads, what trad climber wouldn’t? I guess it’s probably a case by case thing but I think I’m probably in favour of ones that are easy to thread on lead not having anything left in situ on them whilst ones that are desperate/impossible to thread on lead having regularly renewed in situ stuff left on them, especially when really crucial so the character and grade of the route depends on it being there or not. Obviously there’s a wide grey area between the above two extremes…?
There’s something to be said of the satisfying experience of struggling to get a sling through a tricky thread but just managing to hook it with a nut key, have it then slide round nicely and then clip.
Interested to hear thoughts from others.
 
Interested to hear thoughts from others.
Pretty much the same as yours and not Duma's. I like them in the right situations - where they're genuinely useful, hard to place otherwise, would be significantly more dangerous without. Same applies to comical extensions.
 
I changed my view on in-situ threads over the course of projecting just one route. Previously hadn't thought much about it and just happily clipped threads wherever I found them. But abbed down the project to find loads of in-situ/'stuck' wires all over it. Thought this is bollocks so took them out. Then thought about the slowly rotting in-situ peg and why that's any different? So decided not to clip it*.

But then thought about the in-situ threads dangling all over it and why they're treated differently from preplaced wires or pegs? Couldn't see any logic as to why they're considered ok, especially when other gear is available, even if it makes the route a bit more dangerous (upgrade it if needs be).

So my view is they should be treated like any other bit of preplaced kit. If someone preplaces a thread or wire on a FA then ok. But most people would then consider it an improvement in style to place everything on lead and something to strive for. Aim to get rid of all in-situ gear on trad routes over time instead of constantly replacing.

*(was going to remove it but never got round to it and haven't been back)
 
But then thought about the in-situ threads dangling all over it and why they're treated differently from preplaced wires or pegs?
At least threads can be replaced more easily than a slowly rotting peg.
 
At least threads can be replaced more easily than a slowly rotting peg.
True, but so can a preplaced wire or cam. Personally just can't see why it's seen as fair game to ab down a route and put a fiddly/impossible to place thread in, but frowned on to do the same with a wire.
 
Agreed, I more meant pegs than wires/cams. The issue with pegs is that their quality can change over time, whereas with threads at least if you want the same challenge as the FA then you can refresh them. I pre-placed a very fiddly cam on a route a few years ago to backup a peg, with the logic that if the peg was fresh I wouldn't have needed it.
 
I've always liked tham, maybe more than pegs. There's something emotive about them to me.

I was with Crispin and encouraged him to chop the Ghost Train thread, but mainly because I was hoping he'd get lots abouse for it online more than any real ethical concerns

 
I have no skin in this particular game wrt to ethics. But for safety, based on my experience wires should never be left in place. The wires rust at an alarming rate, even far from the sea. I've investigated and removed a few stuck wires from routes, and it is usually trivial to break the cable with a funkness device if they been stuck for a few years.

When static rope is used for fixed extensions threaded directly through bolts (quite common on multi-pitch routes), they usually are strong enough for a really long time.

Drilled threads are stupid though, especially where it is windy. The sharp edges of rock seem to cut rope better than the steel on hangers.
 
I’d agree with you mostly, Steve, I think particularly fiddly threads are fair game to be in-situ but ones you can thread yourself should be left out.

Remember someone replacing some and adding quite a few threads to Huntsman’s the new ones were in threads that I had placed on lead with slings previously.

I love a thread tbh, absolutely bomber, nice thing to aim for, probably do the least damage to the rock out of any bit of gear… what’s not to love!
 
I’d agree with you mostly, Steve, I think particularly fiddly threads are fair game to be in-situ but ones you can thread yourself should be left out.

Remember someone replacing some and adding quite a few threads to Huntsman’s the new ones were in threads that I had placed on lead with slings previously.

I love a thread tbh, absolutely bomber, nice thing to aim for, probably do the least damage to the rock out of any bit of gear… what’s not to love!
I'm with Dunc on this one.
I think I'm against new pegs being placed or pegs being replaced on routes, but threads I think are generally a good thing and worth being in situ. They don't damage the rock as much and are easier/cheaper to replace when required.
It's tenuous to say a peg uses a natural feature, because generally they require a good smash in with a hammer in order to be worthwhile. Many threads would be impossible or at least very tricky to place on lead, but they make use of a really good natural protection option.
 
Yeah, I'm of the view that their fine, who doesn't love a good thread.

The type that I think steve is referring too are probably too fiddly to place on lead.

Bit different to stuck wires, which are usually not deliberatly pre placed, usually just the result of a seconds incompitence to remove, or the result of being fallen on and really jammed in. They rust really quickly and thus cannot be trusted, even a matter of weeks or months after being placed and are frigging difficult to get out. Try getting a stuck rock one out of a bomber placement when the wires have rusted and snapped to a short stub.

My journey across the wall of Postiron was ruined and utterly terrifying as virtually every bomber nut placement had a stuck, or two stuck, rusty wires in it. Didn't have the skills/stamina at the time to hang around and attempt to remove them (not sure it would have been possible without a ab rope, or sitting on other gear) so I just had to clip and keep moveing. I was convinced they'd all snap and I'd go the full lenght if I came off. Had they all just been bomber of slots, I'd have just placed a couple and quested on a bit more relaxed with a bit more confidence. Memorable though in the end. Closest I've come to shedding genuine tears on a route.
 
I'd agree with Ali. Of all the fixed kit threads seem the least obtrusive, but they do require some maintenance and doing a route without them seems an improvement in style. Surely minimising fixed kit is something to aspire to as a trad climber?

I think it's interesting to consider a few examples to see what they'd be like with and without threads:

Just Klingon, Mother Careys - surely doable without fixed threads but it'd be a proper pumper. A good E5 with threads or a good E6 without?

Ghost Train, Stennis Ford - Could you place pre-run out thread on the lead? I assume placing the thread at the end of the run out would be very spicy on lead? Maybe you'd skip it entirely? Surely a pretty sketchy E7 with no threads in place vs. a popular E6 with normal threads in.

From a Distance, Stennis Ford - Softy E7 with threads or a mid/hard E7 without? I imagine it'd feel very run out without the threads but I think it'd still be safe-ish.
 
I guess I just don't see why in-situ/pre placed threads are treated so differently.

Pre placed pegs - Damage the rock and rot over time. Generally considered not ok these days?

Pre placed wires / cams - Don't really damage the rock and considered poor form not to remove after leading. But also generally considered poor form to pre-place from ethical point of view.

Pre placed threads - Don't really damage the rock but considered ok to be left in situ after leading? Seem to be considered ok from ethical point of view?

What's the logic? The only defense seems to be that threads can be too hard/impossible to place on lead. But that would apply to loads of other potential contrived gear setups you might be able to rig up from an ab rope. Or even just a wire slot that's blind or at the limit of your reach so it's incredibly hard to place on lead but easy to clip if it's pre placed.
 
There's probably no logic to Threads ok / pegs not, just, to me, they are. And unlike a preplaced nut, are generally left in place.

I don't know if you are necessarily referring to projecting, Ali, but when i think about them it is on an onsight, being lured on by something the colour of used toilet roll springing from a weird hole. A bit like being lured on by seeing chalk on your route. Def less pure, but I likes and it can swing a route my way.
 
Also, pegs and stuck wires - all but invisible from the ground
in situ threads - ugly garish tat rotting on the crag.

Extended in situ threads are the epitome of bringing a route down to your level and should 1000% be chopped in all cases
 
I think the difference lies in that:
  1. threads do not permanently change or damage a route / rock face, unlike pegs
  2. threads (cord ones at least!) -generally- have much greater longevity than most in-situ wires, cams, pegs
  3. most threads (cord ones at least!) are easy to remove (and replace) unlike rotten in-situ wires, cams, pegs. So if someone wants to do a route without a thread they can (have it) remove(d) it; and if a subsequent person wants the thread back they can put it back in. No sweat, no damage done.
I agree long threads are offensive and are -essentially- cheating. And if a thread is not particularly hard to place on lead, best not to leave it in-situ.

I think in-situ tape/sling threads in sunny locations are a problem. But less than pegs.

Finally, we all need to remember that rock-climbing is an entirely pointless and arbitrary endeavour at the best of times.
 
yeah I wasn't meaning to defend pegs or in situ nuts, just to highlight a downside of threads that hadn't been mentioned
 
the difference between the route [Ghost Train] being E6 or E7.

I missed this previously. To clarify, Ghost Train gained a thread that hung down about 1m in 2012. I think it was subsequently replaced with a slightly longer thread (you can see how things progress…). The previous thread (itself only placed in 2010) was nowhere near that long, requiring an extra move before clipping it.

The difference this made was between a spicy E6 (but a long way from E7, at least with a good belayer) to a very, very soft E6: neutering the route. It would have been better if those wishing the more mellow experience had just left a long quickdraw for their attempt.

Really, giving the arbitrariness of rock-climbing, all we have are precedents. I think we should try to improve on these rather than go backwards.

In short, if people are replacing threads, I don’t think they should be altering the length to make the clipping position easier.

[==below bit added in edit==]
But Ghost Train is a bad example because it was originally a Gary route and he wasn’t shy of creating the odd thread/peg/bolt/hold… I see the first -non drilled gear- ascentionist of Ghost Train writes on UKC, that they didn’t have any threads in-situ.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top