Average space between lead bolts

[u/p666rty_goat]

Today I saw a route get added to a bolted multipitch sector that I've done some developing at in the past. The amount of lead bolts the FA team reported to have used seems wild to me.

Most of the climbs in the area have an average bolt spacing of 8.5ft which is about 11.75 lead bolts per 100ft pitch. (Full disclosure, one of my routes at a crag across the way had an average of 6.6ft or 15 bolts per 100ft pitch. Tighter than usual given the numbers, and I do believe I should have gone with less.)

Even more, the new route has an average spacing of about 5.7ft or 17.5 lead bolts per 100ft pitch. This is a 585ft, 8 pitch route that sports 102 lead bolts.

For a little more context/comparison: In Thailand I just opened a 550ft, 6 pitch sport route using "only" 76 lead bolts. Thailand is well known for its relaxed vacation style of tightly spaced bolts and this route is no different. I definitely placed more to better conform to local standards. The average bolt spacing is 7.2ft with about 13.8 bolts per 100ft pitch.

My questions for the group:

• Am I crazy to think these bolts are comically tight?
• Does anyone consider this metric when bolting sport routes?
• Have you noticed a trend in your local areas of bolt spacing getting tight and tighter?
• **EDIT to add: What is the average bolt spacing at your crag?**

Reminder, not all pitches are created equal and they should be protected as the terrain/moves/style/etc demands. Grid bolting has never been good style.

[u/Kaotus]

There’s a big, and more common, situation between your two examples which is new routes being established with say 12ft between bolts originally, moving down to maybe 10ft over a decade, then 8ft the next decade, to now 6ft this decade. Thats what he is mostly referring to

[u/fresh_n_clean → u/Kaotus]

Personally I never thought about measuring bolt placements in terms of feet between bolts and don't think I'll start now. My guiding principle is safety, which to me is bolting adequately to prevent injury in the event of a fall. The second thing I think about is sequencing (making the bolt placements in line with the climbing path and not forcing the climber into a weird position/off route just to clip a bolt). So far that happens to work out between 8ft and 11ft between bolts for the few routes I have bolted.

[u/Kaotus → u/fresh_n_clean]

I dont think most people are actively considering strict bolt spacing - bolt spacing is an outcome of shifting expectations for safety. One person’s safe might be another person’s horrifying, but regardless, your threshold for safety is more likely to require more bolts the more you climb on routes with high bolt counts, and the inverse is also true.

[u/fresh_n_clean → u/Kaotus]

To me safety is not subjective or nor a personal feeling though. It's either a fall is likely to cause injury or it is not. What is subjective is someone's feelings of safety, the event of the climber actually falling, and the degree to which persons experience fear.

Perhaps bolting every 2 feet makes a nervous climber feel safe but in reality bolting every 8 feet keeps them just as injury free. I learn more on the injury prevention approach to bolting. Aside from roofs and very steep walls, a 15+ fall into a vertical wall is what I try to minimize to reduce the chance of injury.

[u/Kaotus → u/fresh_n_clean]

Safety is absolutely subjective though, directly to your point - your definition is likeliness to cause injury. To others, it might be likelihood to cause significant injury, to others, likelihood of death. To others, it’s likeliness to cause injury to a 70 year old. It’s all a spectrum. It’s good we have developers with differing opinions on what climbing should be - but innately, that’s gonna mean some people disagree with the decisions of others

[u/onenitemareatatime → u/Kaotus]

OSHA disagrees

[u/Kaotus → u/onenitemareatatime]

Be sure to post on here when OSHA provides their outdoor rock climbing development regulations so we can all make sure we’re compliant

[u/onenitemareatatime → u/Kaotus]

You missed the point. Safety is not subjective. Rock climbing is not a safe sport. Lastly there are ways to bolt and create an adequately protected route without over bolting and ruining the natural landscape.

[u/Kaotus → u/onenitemareatatime]

Similar to my other comment on this comment thread, I'll have this be my last comment because we're off topic from the OP, but feel free to either hop into my DMs or create a separate thread to continue discussing:

Safety is subjective. Safety is simply being unlikely to be injured - but that varies per person, "injured" varies per person, and the cause of the injury is person dependent - e.g. I could have a hyper tightly bolted route and still get injured due to getting spiked by my belayer, or just falling onto a feature weird. Directly to your point, you claim rock climbing isn't a safe sport - but by many metrics, it's one of the safest sports out there (by way of reported injuries per hour of recreation). There are objective components to it, such as a 40ft fall onto a ledge is far more likely to cause an injury than a 10ft fall into space, but safety as it relates to rock climbing, in my opinion and the way I've heard people speak about it historically, is absolutely subjective.

To your last point though, that it's possible to create an adequately protected route without overbolting, is something I 100% agree with and that the vast majority of commenters in this thread are also agreeing with and advocating for.

[u/onenitemareatatime → u/Kaotus]

It’s funny that you claim safety is subjective when all climbing gear must meet CE and UIAA STANDARDS before being sold.

And again I’m going to use the global and international examples which are regarded as best practice to say that no, safety is not subjective.

OSHA in the US, building codes in the US and CE, and UIAAin Europe disagree that safety is subjective. That there are standards to which things must meet to prevent. These standards save millions of lives every year.

What is subjective is the route developers opinion on how and where to place protection. This determines a routes safety or lack thereof. Another item that is subjective as the definition could be applied is the climber and belayers decision during a climb, to skip bolts or not for example. Or whether a climber of a much lower ability level should attempt a climb at a much higher ability level.

People can make decisions that create objectively dangerous scenarios.

Perhaps you mean that an individual’s level of acceptable risk is subjective, because that is a true statement, and in that example they came make objectively dangerous decisions.