Edge of Time 

This route now sports 2 bolts and 2 pins. Just enough. Though, you would not want to fall as you approach the 2nd fixed piece due to ground fall potential. Minimal natural pro options are available. Still a great short route.

Why was this route retro bolted?? Rule #1 in climbing- you never, ever add bolts to a pre-existing route! If you don't have the sack to lead it, do it on TR, or go climb at the Sport Park! Please don't bastardize RMNP!

Actually, it wasn't retro-bolted. It was first led (around 1990) with two bolts on the first half of the route, and two pins iin horizontal cracks on the second half, with a two-bolt rap station. The hanger on the first bolt was stolen (in 1997 I believe), and the rap station needed to be replaced. Any recent bolting on this route has only restored it to its original condition (as Leo describes it in his comment).

Bernard Gillett

Actually it's a little suspicious that the "missing" hanger on the first bolt of "Edge of Time" showed up at the same time that the hanger on the first bolt of "Pocket Full of Kryptonite " disappeared.

I found this climb a little disappointing. It felt like an easy 5.7 with only 5 feet of 5.9+ or 5.10A right at the first bolt. It looks great, but I walked away feeling somewhat empty after climbing it. I planned on trying it on toprope and if it went ok, I was going to lead it; however, I didn't really feel like it was worth a 2nd ascent. Once you pass the 1st bolt, it's over.

A disappointing TR, eh? I suspect that the sharp end would have piqued your interest. The moves to the anchor are a bit strange, and you are surely going to deck when those half-driven bugaboos rip out. Hmmm, 10a at the crux? No, just old school 5.9.

Yes, the sharp end would have piqued my interest: for the 5 foot crux at the first bolt.

Thanks for clearing that up, Bernard. That makes me feel better! Cheers!

On a windy day, scrambling down to the anchors to set a damn TR on this thing actually gets your blood flowing. I agree that the upper part of the climb is much easier than the bottom but it's definitely still worth doing....almost reminiscent of Montezuma's Tower.

The gear is totally sufficient on this route, I hope nothing more is added. There are at least 4 anchor bolts on top if you ain't got the stones to lead it. If a toprope does not pique your interest try staying on the arete proper the entire time, it will keep your attention..

Is this another clever pun?

Bit seriously. Fixed pins are alway dubious, and half-driven Bugaboos even more so. I worry about gym-trained sport climbers who just assume those relics are good - it's the deck if those babies rip. And hey, there are already two bolts, the second of which is a hardware store job in the middle of the easiest ground on the route. I would rather see this one yanked and a good bolt higher.

BTW, there is a good RP out to the left up high, but you'd need double ropes to take advantage of it.

Reading back over these comments I see that "sacks" and "stones" are required to lead this. Come on guys, this is not the area test piece you think it is. It's 5.9 with positive edges. I gotta go with Ray on this one. The aesthetic line, moderate grade, and guide book cover shot are going to continue to attract beginners to this climb surounded by moderates with lots of bolts. Bernard, can you help us out with a little history? Was this a tr before it was led? Is this rock in RMNP? It seems to me a hardware upgrade should be installed before someone get's his/her head broke. A properly equipped route does not necessarily equate to a bastardization or an atrocity like the Sport Park. The rock is already scarred in four places on this pitch by bolts and pins; maybe three of those scars could be used to prevent a ground fall. Thanks for your time and consideration. -Chris Hill

..."the rock is already scarred in 4 places"..."the route will draw beginners"..."and hey there are already two bolts"... Just top rope it then!!! Do we have to bolt the climb that appears on the cover of every guide book from now on? I guess the Palisades are next. Why drill a route into submission just because it has already been abused? To put it out of its pain? The day I was up at this crag there was a group that was using a crowbar to pry as much rock as they could off of every route they climbed and were drilling on existing routes. I'm sure they will get to the Edge Of Time soon and make it lack luster for even those who would like to have their interest piqued. So if they have already gotten there, this is a mute point but those same people did their best to yard out those -always dubious fixed pins- at the top of this route, and no dice. I had to leave the crag it was so annoying and headed up to the Diamond to get over it..

Always happy to join the feeding frenzy of cyber slag....

So I must have missed something when I climbed this route for it to elicit so much debate.

First, I don't know where the 10a thing came from...5.9 no question.

Secondly, this seems to be a route growing in popularity because of the cover shot, and its natural aesthetics. Fair enough...leave it at that, a pretty looking route. That alone should make some folks want to climb it.

I have lead this thing twice. Both times were somewhat memorable. I remember thoughtful movements with consequences in spots. I led it in '97 (thanks for history Bernard) with no first bolt, very exciting, but so were all the other routes up there that season.

Now...the business. I think those two pins up high are shiite. In this new "modern" age of climbing I would suspect someone will replace them with bolts. If this were my route that would piss me off, but it's not, I don't know whose it is, or if they would consent (good style to ask) to replacing the time bomb pins with bolts.

Any of us would be psyched to walk across this for the first ascent. It's worthy and novel. If I FA'd it I would have put a combo of bolts/pins too.

This place used to be quiet and undeveloped. Now maybe traffic is picking up, but it is everywhere. I think Mr. Gillett was kind enough to equip the area with some moderates too, not just the 11/12 stuff.

Who the hell is up there with a crowbar and retrobolting?

climb on

I was suggesting that the two pins on this route should be replaced with a bolt to produce a safer experience much in the same way a 3/8 bolt improves on a 1/4 bolt. My personal belief is that fixed hardware should be good. Although I still feel that way after reading these responses I probably wouldn't do this because it would anger some people. As for top roping it, I think I won't do that because I enjoy leading it like these other posters. My concern is for aspiring 5.9 leaders. The protection has deteriorated since the FA. Replacing the pins doesn't seem like a great idea because the rock will get beat a little and the new pro won't be optimal. So the route will remain a 5.9 boulder problem followed by a 5.7 solo. Also, I don't think every cover route should be bolted. In fact I don't think any ethic covers every situation. I certainly don't approve of removing rock from existing routes with cro-bars or wholesale adding bolts to established routes. My comments here relate only to this route. My second hand information is that the FA party approves of the hardware upgrade if anyone cares.

Please don't add any gear to this route. The hard part is well protected. Adding bolts would take away from the experience of this climb. It is "only" 5.9 and I enjoyed the feeling of running it out on the 5.7 parts.

Regarding Chris (Crusty) Hill's questions: The route was TR'd in 1987 by my brother Robert and I, though we found a piton above Andrology (in a horizontal crack one foot below the top), and some years later I noticed old (1960s?) bolt sleeves on top, so I suspect it was done pre-1987. Mike Caldwell put in the bolts and pins and led it (1989?). The name comes from the 1987 ascent. No, these rocks are not in RMNP.

J. Thompson's rule that bolts should never be added to existing climbs is a nice ideal to uphold, though it ignores historical facts. Some examples: The Third Flatiron was soloed countless times at the turn of the century before a bunch of six-inch jeep anchors were installed. Layton Kor added a bolt to The Bulge in 1957, (yes, it was his route, but he did it so that [others] could enjoy the route with some semblance of safety), and belay bolts were added later. Dave Rearick added a bolt to the start of T2 in 1962. Pat Ament added a bolt to Country Club Crack in 1967 to protect the initial crux (see Jim Erickson's guidebook), a long bolt war has left several scars there, and currently one finds two new bolts at the crux. A bolt was added to Athlete's Feat at some point before Erickson's guide was published (1980). The Nose on El Cap has two or three fat new bolts at every belay these days, and I doubt all of these were just gear updates. Same with Salathe Wall. Bolts have been added to the crux hooking pitch on Hallucinogen Wall since its first ascent. I added three bolts to Fair Weather Friends on the Book because I didn't want to fall onto A3 pins, and I hacked the old name into obscurity when I decided to call the free version El Camino Real. Belay bolts were added to Fat City some years back (used to be one pin and an old quarter-incher, though you could always get bomber gear there). Roger Briggs installed a bolted rappel route on the Diamond (he volunteered for the job, really), and he added a few bolts to The Joker. Jim Erickson added a bolt to The Wisdom. Craig Luebben added a bolt to G.I. Joe on Combat Rock (it was his route) and to No More War (G.I. Joe used to have three bolts, and No More War only one). There's been a lot of retro-bolting going on in Boulder Canyon.

Most of these are famous climbs, not just a list of obscure heaps, and I'm sure other people could come up with as many routes as I did in five minutes of reflection. The climbers involved aren't a bunch of renegade Bosch-masters either: Kor, Rearick, Ament, Erickson, Briggs - these guys are modern day heroes. I'm not advocating wholesale retro-bolting - like I said, Thompson's rule is a good ideal to consider. And I think it's this ideal that keeps people from adding bolts to Perilous Journey, or Jules Verne, or the Hollow Flake on the Salathe Wall. These are all pitches where head control is the name of the game, and where a ground-up ethic was employed. But we've been adding bolts to existing climbs since McGuckins started selling them - to increase the safety margin, to replace old gear (think Le Toit on Redgarden), to fix up a poor bolt job by the FA team, or for convenience (rappel and belay bolts).

Edge of Time is a fun climb to enjoy on a Sunday afternoon. I doubt Mike (Caldwell) was trying to put up a route that stressed the mind control aspect of our sport when he led it. If that were the case, he just would have soloed it (he used to solo stuff like this all the time). He put the fixed gear in where he felt it was needed (at a time when bolts were only marginally accepted in Estes Park), and he had the benefit of relying on new pitons.

J. Thompson, I apologize for refuting your statement so thoroughly (I did a pretty nice job of it though, eh?). However, if we are going to discuss whether it is appropriate to add some bolts to Edge of Time, it should at least be done with factual information (and perhaps without reference to sacks or stones). I know of no rule that states we can't add bolts to existing climbs, and Edge of Time most definitely does not fall into the Heavenly Journey/Perilous Journey/Jules Verne category.

Next time I think I'll take a cover shot of a crack climb...

I don't think that any points have been refuted here at all. The point was that bolts should not be added to existing climbs and that the community by and large does not support that. Providing historical exceptions does not refute this point.

By way of example, I can say that murder, rape and theft are all by and large not acceptable. Showing many thousands of transgressions per year in no way refutes that point.

This probably isn't that relevant to the above discussion, but above A.C. says, "The Nose on El Cap has two or three fat new bolts at every belay these days, and I doubt all of these were just gear updates. " This is NOT true. Many of the belays have new bolts. Sometimes one, sometimes two, rarely three. Some belays still have no new bolts. The same situation exists on the Salathe, despite all the free climbing going on there. In particular, the belay beneath the Salathe roof is quite frightening with just a bong, and three ancient, horrible looking bolts. You can back this up with cams in a very flaring crack.

Like I said, not that relevant, but maybe interesting. Also nice to deal with the facts when debating issues.

Bill

So Tony- are you then arguing that the retro-bolting on Country Club Crack, Athlete's Feet, and the Wisdom are "murderous transgressions". Though certainly bolts shouldn't be added to the cruxes of Jules Verne, XM, Rincon, etc... adding bolts to existing routes is acceptable to the climbing community with the first ascensionists permission or, in the case of Eldo, the Fixed Hardware Committee (who would certainly never approve an application for bolts at the cruxes of JV and XM). I'm sure you've done CCC and Athlete's Feet and have gladly clipped those bolts, whose addition it seems is likened to rape or murder. Isn't clipping those bolts an affirmation of the act... by your analogy then, is it looking the other way at violent crime, saying "she deserved it."... I think the analogy is weak at best.

I know nothing about this route except that its on the cover of the Estes guide. However, under certain circumstances, retro-bolting IS acceptable to a large portion, if not the majority, of the climbing community.

There are exceptions when a FA-ist adds bolts. I may not have been clear, but "replaced" bolts and those added by FA parties don't disturb me. That's what I get for being terse, I guess.

I figured somebody who wanted to argue with me would try to attack the analogy, which is absolutely bomb-proof, in my book. I NEVER said that retro-bolting was like rape or murder, I SAID that showing a transsgression to any ethic does not disprove its overall acceptance. Changing what I said does nothing towards invalidating it. I guess the problem with using an analogy is that someone can distract the point to attack my opinion. Hopefully this was just a hot botton and you are not deliberately twitsing the content and context of my post. So let me try the analogy again:

Theft and Vandalism are both [commonly] accepted as crimes. Showing thousands of transgressions will not change the fact that the public at large does not approve.

Perhaps that will sit better with you. I do liken retro-bolting to retro-holding (chipping) which is vandalism, at least.

Joe, I respect your opinion and that it is different than mine. I am glad you've signed your name so that I know and understand who I am discussing this with as well, but you've failed on a few cruxes here. For example you said- "I'm sure you've done CCC and Athlete's Feet and have gladly clipped those bolts, whose addition it seems is likened to rape or murder. Isn't clipping those bolts an affirmation of the act... by your analogy then, is it looking the other way at violent crime, saying "she deserved it."... I think the analogy is weak at best. "

As previously pointed out, you are either misunderstanding or distorting my analogy to start with. You should also be more careful with what you are so sure of. For example, I did "not" clip the bolt on Athlete's [Feat].

Tony- I guess I'm not aware of where bolts are added on Athlete's Feet (presumably one of the bolts replaces old pins)... and reading your last post I'm not even sure our opinions differ on this issue. In any case, the analogy you used was a bit strong and is certainly going to be a hot button issue with some. To me an analogy that strong evokes the bolt-wars where self-righteous individuals, without a sense of perspective, think that their actions are making some sort of profound moral statement. As for this route, if the pins in question are in fact that manky, I don't think that replacing them with bolts is unreasonable.

....Tony Bubb - I was thinking along these lines when I said I've refuted J Thompson's rule...Rule: f(n) = n_2 - n + 41 is prime, where n is a positive integer. This rule generates primes for all n _ 41, but fails at n = 41. All it takes is one counter-example to disprove such a rule. I gave several counter-examples to Thompson's rule, and thus showed it isn't true. Based on other posts you've submitted to this site, it appears you enjoy finding logical fallacies in people's statements. That's cool - I like doing that as well; it's a nice intellectual exercise. So, mea culpa, my logic sucks. I dub you captain of the debate team, and you win. I think you end up derailing the discussion at hand, though. I want to talk about whether it's OK to add bolts to Edge of Time, not whether you can poke holes in the structure of my comments.

Bill Wright - you win, too. I shouldn't have written EVERY belay on the Nose and Salathe has new bolts. I think the original bolt count on Salathe was 13. I've done only the first 12 pitches on that route, and there were more than 13 bolts up to that point. I've been to the top on the Nose, and recall a lot of belay bolts (more than Harding installed, I'm thinkning). I guess I need to learn to make my statements water-tight so that I can stand up to the cross examinations that are so prevalent in these discussions.

J. Thompson - I'm sure you are a fine fellow. I was trying to inject a bit of humor when I wrote, "I did a pretty nice job of it though, eh?" an olive branch offering of sorts so that you wouldn't think I was an ass for disagreeing with your rule. I think it may have come across as an over-bloated ego - once again, my apologies. I actually buy into your rule most of the time.

Back to the point: I'd like to see the old pins on Edge of Time replaced with bolts. I did the first documented ascent on a top rope, so can I add the bolts without breaking any "rule"?

Bernard- If I was just picking on you I'd mention that you'd already said: "...and some years later I noticed old (1960s?) bolt sleeves on top, so I suspect it was done pre-1987." So I don't know if you did do the FA or not. First Documented, OK, but first seems questionable.

And then: "All it takes is one counter-example to disprove such a rule." Someone breaking the rule does not eliminate the rule, thereby causing no rules, by default, as each one is eliminated as it is broken. This is behaviour, not science. And it is not intended to be a distraction of the point- it is a total discussion of the subject matter.

I do "poke holes" in other people's statements when the core of the statement is related to the point at hand. Is suspect if you reread my postings you'll get where I am going with that.

That's aside the point you asked about though... as for the question at hand: I'd say it is reasonable to replace but not add hardware. Others opinions will of course differ. I'm not personally invested in this climb, as I could just as well go on-sight free-solo it as well.

I guess the point was a question of replacing pins with a bolt. Well, then the question is: Will it change the climb from its original state? Taking out an old A4 Rurp and putting in a bolt is "against the rules" in my book. Replacing an old broken/rusted/bent/fatigued Lost Arrow or Angle that was inches deep doesn't seem so bad. So if the gear was good in the first place, why not? You are restoring it not changing it. I am far from the opinion that we should let all protection on all climbs rot.

Will the pins replace easily? Will bolts impact the rock less? WIll they last longer? Will they change the nature fo the climb from when it was first lead? What does the FA party say. (I sincerely doubt that Mike would care- Yes, I do know him.) I'd say you have as much right as he does, however. Obviously you have consensus if he agrees.

Bernard, I didn't mean to be poking holes in anyone's arguments with my El Cap information. Like I said, it was relevant to the discussion. I know the point you were making and you made it. El Cap is just a hot topic for me since I have recently been up it and knew the state. The belay on the Salathe in particular has scared me and hence a hot topic for me and not relevant to the discussion. I probably shouldn't have.

Anyway, I wanted to be clear that my intent wasn't to nit-pick, but to clear up the info on this very popular and highly sought after route. I remember when I tried the Leaning Tower after hearing "all the bolts have been replaced." NOT! I also heard before I climbed the Nose the first time that the "Death Block" had fallen. NOT! (the Death Block is indeed now gone on the Nose). So, I just didn't want people to think the the Nose in completely done.

Bill

When I climbed this my impression was that the pins, being in good horizontal placements, were fine the way they were. So I don't understand where all the anxiety about them is coming from. I also recall that the holds there are probably the largest on the route and the rock is good. I'm quite sure there are more deserving replacement projects around....and for the record - a 3/8th" bolt has a life-expectancy of about 15 years if it's weighted frequently but a 1/2" bolt's life is 100 years. Anchors and popular bolts-to-hang-on should probably be 1/2".

http://www.climbingboulder.com/rock/db/eldorado_canyon/wind_>>>>>

HOLY SHIT!!!! Did I start this mess? Bernard- hey no worry's from me about refuting anything! I see and agree with your point. I was just trying to make a simple statement about a small route and add a little humor with the "stones" comment. I would also agree that any fixed gear (bolts and pins) might as well be good, this is especially important concerning anchors. My statement about "never ever" adding bolts is, as [Bernard] stated, a great ideal. However as history and other concerns dictate this is obviously not always the right answer. I guess the moral of the whole thing is we should all THINK about what we are doing BEFORE we do it! We can all rant and rave but in the end it's the rocks, environment, and our access that will suffer. Sorry if I hit a nerve, people!

Josh, I share your regret that I've contributed to this rant festival. I think sometimes our comments don't read the way we think they do. Rock-on on hard-rock!

This is a very good climb that is short and not too hard, a little difficult towards the bottom. If you aren't sure of your 5.9 abilities you can top rope it. The approach is short and steep but it's worth it there are plenty of climbs up there for all abilities.

Up there on 7/31/04. Looks like a few bolts have been added. Now there are a total of 4 bolts and one piton (which looked solid). The bolts on the way up are good. Most of the 5 bolts on top are good, with a couple being suspect. Bottom part (getting past the first bolt for a few feet) is not 5.9, but it might be "Estes 5.9." A lot of stuff in this area seems very sandbagged, probably due to the inflated heads of the FA and the locals. Go figure.

Nick S.

This route is just plain fun. The crux is definitely getting past the first bolt and IMHO fairly stiff for 5.9. then the climbing eases up but still remains interesting, with some more thoughtful moves required at the top. Cool summit with great views.

I finally went and did this climb. It's a nice route, but gets stars more for the wow factor of looking at how cool it is more than for the climb itself. If this were just an arete on the edge of a dihedral, I don't think people would rate it classic. But as it is and as it stands, it gets extra points for the 'cool factor.'

As for the grade- I did it in hiking shoes. The moves above the first bolt were a little tough, but I went out to the arete, pinched it hard, and climbed it hand over hand like an overhang while pinching the arete between my feet. If nothing else, it made the route even cooler to climb. Up high I had a lot of no-hands rests with my left foot on slopers and my right heel locked out around the arete. I guess I can't say honestly a 5.8 climber would think of that and do it, but the moves were not very hard.

Fun route, DEFINITELY not harder than 5.9. And is protected just fine...

Had to see what this one was all about. Definitely, a classic, but the climbing was more of a three star quality. It probably earns another star for the WOW combined with the thrill of leading this thing. I used a .5 Friend in a horizontal slot between the first and second bolt. Definitely felt at least 10a here, perhaps because of the traffic it's seen over the years. Lots of shoe rubber. Easy climbing between the second and third bolt then a committing move for someone 5'8" (somewhat runout) to reach the good hold beside the piton. That move increased the star value for me, but on TR it would not have. The value of this climb seems to be affected by the equipment, or lack thereof.

I am pretty solid 5.8 sport climber and ran up this on TR at the end of the day. I would say that the crux is clipping into the second bolt (decking potential exists esp with crimpy and thin rock). Next time on lead I'm bringing 0.5 Friend for the horizontal crack -to take out the fear factor. After clipping the second bolt had no problems. Classic climb with the views of Longs.

I agree with Steve Wood's comment about the committing move for someone 5'8" or shorter.

I did the "crux" part of the route around the first bolt and then cruised past the next two bolts to the "ledge" (large foot hold, big hands, comfortable position) below the pin. I'm 5'8" and I could not clip the pin from that ledge nor could I reach the big hold just next to the pin. I made the mistake of going left and peeled... I went all the way down, stopping about 5 feet off the ground (at the point I fell I was about 12' above the last bolt). I hit my head pretty hard on the pine tree near the bottom and got scratched up...

That being said, the two people with me were both over 6 feet and could reach the pin without a problem from the ledge which makes the move not at all scary. They also could reach the huge hand hold, which probably makes the move no harder than 5.7 (maybe even 5.6).

I did it a second time and the move wasn't too bad going right and then I could reach the lip and clip the pin. That being said, I would caution those under 5'8" that it is a bad, unpleasant fall with the tree there. I think if I had a small stick or something to tape to the biner, it would have been fine. I only needed to extend my reach by about an inch. Had someone led it before me and if there were already a draw in the pin, it would have been no problem.

Personally, if I were bolting it, I would have moved the third bolt higher or added another bolt between it and the pin. I don't really care about the bolting discussion... It is how it is and I will definitely climb it again. I would just say, if you are 5'8" or shorter, be careful around the pin because the fall is bad.

The first bolt on this route has been removed. Based on the comments and photos submitted it must have happened this late this summer 2008 after Jullius climbed it or maybe after Allen Simmons climbed it for his July 30 photo submission. (Not pointing any blame here. Just noticing the comments on the bolt and the fact that it can be seen if you look very closely at Allen's photo.)

I am new to climbing, so will not comment on the bolt ethics other than to say I appreciate those who have done this hard work so that the likes of me can enjoy so many moderate climbs in Colorado. I can see no good reason for removing this bolt as it took away from our leader's enjoyment of this otherwise very nice climb.

I was just on this last Saturday. The first bolt is indeed back in place. Wow, be ready for getting to the second bolt if you are on lead. Solid 5.9 with "landing on your belayer" potential!

It looks to me like whoever chopped the first bolt ended up adding a pretty useful hold right in the crux. The new bolt is not in the old hole. It is really unfortunate that such a stellar route now feel like it has a manufactured hold on it. Would it be cool for me to fill that old hole with epoxy? I don't want to step on any toes, but it is really a shame.

Was up there yesterday. The bolt has indeed moved, but I did not see a hole where the older bolt had been. The beginning is still as delicate as before. Or maybe I simply missed the new hole. There was a camp up there climbing, as there often is, and one of the counselors relayed that the previous bolt had indeed pulled out. Apparently someone pulled on the bolt, to prevent a fall, and it came out. Not overly surprising given the quality of rock in spots, and the number of times this bolt most likely has been hung on.

Have to agree, the old bolt hole now serves as a manufactured hold, as evidenced by the chalk in and around it. I used it, and found it helpful in moving up a bit. I agree that it should be filled in!

Purple TCU works for extra protection between bolts one and two.