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.
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.