Bolts on Broad Stand

[FellMonster]

I don't understand all this wittering about bolts on broad stand.....it's a bloody rock.....it doesn't have feelings. In fact if it did, it would probably be a hornball and would be glad to have men and women climbing all over it.....the bolts would the equivalent of bondage gear

Erosion like ageing is natural. End of...

[andy k]

There's an argument for saying that a rope-assisted ascent of Broad Stand (let alone bolts) is tantamount to an artificial BG round. Is that unfair?

dunno about unfair - daft maybe
explain to me why having protection is artificial ?

Yes its an easy couple of moves, but the drop is lethal.
You'll be wearing fell shoes, not ideal for climbing, you'll have been running for up to 12 hours by the time you get there, you'll be pretty tired, even a highly competent climber could experience cramp, slip and fall.
Anyone in their right mind will arrange protection.

[Hanneke]

I was going to assess it on the day... If I'd been feeling good and the conditions were good, go over Broadstand, no ropes... If not, go around it... Ultimately, in the big scheme of things, a few minutes aren't going to make a difference...

Famous last words perhaps, if, when I eventually get myself back into gear for fell running after a long lay off with a serious injury, I get round and finish in 24.02

[IainR]

There's an argument for saying that a rope-assisted ascent of Broad Stand (let alone bolts) is tantamount to an artificial BG round. Is that unfair? I'm not calling into doubt in any way previous BG successes using a rope, but couldn't some guidelines/rules be put down for the future? I'm using Lord's Rake on the 27th June (if I get that far).

I don't think the BG club would want to encourage people to solo it and take unnecesary risk. When/if I do the BG I reckon I'd go another way.

I think as long as they actually climb the route, not pulling on ropes, use ladders etc then I don't think they've used any aid, just been protected.

[elliptic]

I wouldn't be too bothered if a contender used a 3:1 assisted pulley hoist SO LONG AS there's no damage to the rock and it's de-rigged promptly afterwards...

[The Navigator]

I was going to assess it on the day... If I'd been feeling good and the conditions were good, go over Broadstand, no ropes... If not, go around it... Ultimately, in the big scheme of things, a few minutes aren't going to make a difference...

Famous last words perhaps, if, when I eventually get myself back into gear for fell running after a long lay off with a serious injury, I get round and finish in 24.02

A sound approach / philosophy Hanneke.
Hope you have a nice dry (but not too hot) day.

[FellMonster]

I wouldn't be too bothered if a contender used a 3:1 assisted pulley hoist SO LONG AS there's no damage to the rock and it's de-rigged promptly afterwards...

I would encourage people to give the rock a good kick with steel toe caps......I mean, come on...........

[MorganW]

There's an argument for saying that a rope-assisted ascent of Broad Stand (let alone bolts) is tantamount to an artificial BG round. Is that unfair? I'm not calling into doubt in any way previous BG successes using a rope, but couldn't some guidelines/rules be put down for the future? I'm using Lord's Rake on the 27th June (if I get that far).

Many of us have had rope support for the ascent/descent of Broad Stand. It's graded a Moderate rock climb, there's a potentially fatal drop off so common sense says protect it, if you go that way.

So I think that BG ethics developed over the years make any blanket rule about "no rope assistance" a non-starter, never mind the concerns arising from any suggestion that the BG Club somehow advocated or approved soloing BS.

I have prepared some revised Guidelines for the BG Club website with text about Broad Stand, which both Bob and Baggins have kindly looked at.

What would the feeling be about a BG Club rule that said that anyone who went against any BS guidance from the Club would not have their round recognised for membership?

Difficult to police I know, but new guidelines and that approach might be all that was needed to have the right impact?

Morgan

[fellgazelle]

I was going to assess it on the day... If I'd been feeling good and the conditions were good, go over Broadstand, no ropes... If not, go around it... Ultimately, in the big scheme of things, a few minutes aren't going to make a difference...

Famous last words perhaps, if, when I eventually get myself back into gear for fell running after a long lay off with a serious injury, I get round and finish in 24.02

I think Hanneke's approach is ethically the purest and the way that ought to be encouraged. It's a mountain challenge and if participants can't assess the risk involved and manage one of these two methods then they should be asking themselves if they should really be there at all.

But after saying that I've nothing against people using ropes either for protection or aid if they want to, providing the rock isn't damaged. I think the only thing the BG club should need to consider is excluding those who use bolts, pegs or chipping,etc. to overcome this section (or any part of the course).

As for 3:1 assisted hoists, do people really consider this as a viable option?
I mean for goodness sake by the time you've finished putting on harnesses, tieing on and farting about with ropes and tackle surely it would have been much faster to have gone via Lord's Rake or even Foxes Tarn?

[IanDarkpeak]

I think the only thing the BG club should need to consider is excluding those who use bolts, pegs or chipping,etc. to overcome this section (or any part of the course).

I think thats too specific.

Perhaps a better wording would be

"Any attemptee or supporter found to actively(Deliberatly) damaging the enviroment or nature of the BG route ....etc" or words to that effect.

This then encompasses all aspects of the route. Ie damaging walls/fences/vegetation not just the short bit on BS