Cantclimbtom
Well-known member
Not so...
By the looks of it you could've pulled it out with a claw hammer, take a good look, and hammered it back in. It's a special inspectable installation
Bolt outside of rowten cave
- Thread starter Babyhagrid
- Start date
By the looks of it you could've pulled it out with a claw hammer, take a good look, and hammered it back in. It's a special inspectable installation
Thanks to @Babyhagrid for sharing this image. The image - and this thread - highlights a problem with independent and non-standard fixed aids. Other users simply do not know what is beneath the surface and are unable to judge the integrity of a placement from looking alone.
Sam and Ian shared images of other anchors removed that are non-standard but crucially are also different from/than each other. Combined with this image at Rowten Caves/Pot, people might reasonably guess that its a 50mm 10mm bolt/screw, but we have no evidence that this is the same as those others. It could be a 10mm long bolt. It may even not be glued in, or may be glued with resin that hasn't set. We just don't know.
The other glued in bolts at Rowten Pot (Gully Entrance) were not all 8.8 high tensile. I recall some were 4.8 and some unmarked. Again a mix and not a sign of a thoughtful, quality installation. Also non-stainless and a mix of metals; not good practice and not a sign that the installer knew their business.
All of which leaves other users guessing. They can choose to use the anchor or not. If they use it, they do so without having the most important information (not safe and not fair). If they choose not to use it, the anchor is superfluous - a waste of the shared natural resource and a visual blight (also not fair).
...
Jean Pot in my view IS similar in this regard because an independent installer has put in the public domain something that is non-standard. They have then chosen to keep secret has been done, despite a ukCaving thread showing that lots of people are interested in what is there. Also both these entrances share the common ground that others visitors didn't regard that location as needing man-made anchors. I have further knowledge of the Jean Pot anchors that shows they are very non-standard and should be regarded with a level of distrust.
But cavers generally would be well advised to regard all non-standard anchors with a healthy dose of scepticism and to rig in the accepted fashion with a tight backup or load-sharing Y.
...
I meet people (often young cavers) who do not know the difference between a spit and an expansion bolt. Don't recognise a plate hanger from a bent rod resin anchor. Or who never saw a spanner underground. Some I've met, without fault of their own, had maybe never used a spanner or a drill at all. I say this because cavers are a diverse bunch and we should be mindful that not everyone is equipped with the same background as ourselves to judge what is safe. We're not all civil, mechanical or chemical engineers. Some people don't have an encyclodaedic knowledge of the multitude of mechanical and resin anchor types produced and installed over the years by successive generations of cavers, or the knowledge of their differences to recognise them by or the experience to judge them by. Actually, thats probably that's all of us.
And that's without adding in, for example, Petzl the Petzl Long-Life, a commercially available mountaineering anchor that were installed in good faith but some of which are now known to be failing and subject to manufacturer recall. Thinking critically, you could extend this further, to previous well-meaning generations who installed and then unapproved the PECO anchors. In my view, the whole amounts to a cautionary tale against non-standard anchors, and against over anchoring in general.
As usual I've prattled on. I'm not a linguist. Hopefully some of this is useful to readers in prompting an appraisal of their attitude to fixed aids. I know there are readers of UKcaving who use threads like this as a learning resource and perhaps haven't posted above. Or who will visit this thread in the future.
---
Thankfully, we DO have a well-regarded scheme for installation of single piece stainless resin bonded anchors. Its managed, funded, agreed and installed by the community. Users have public information on what and how its installed, information to make pre-use checks, and a mechanism for reporting unsatisfactory ones. It has a great safety record and users have confidence about what they are looking at. And ultimately that the installations as a whole do what is expected.
If you're interested in helping out feel free to email the Anchor Coordinator using the contact on the CNCC website.
Ian
as Anchor Coordinator 2025-26
Sam and Ian shared images of other anchors removed that are non-standard but crucially are also different from/than each other. Combined with this image at Rowten Caves/Pot, people might reasonably guess that its a 50mm 10mm bolt/screw, but we have no evidence that this is the same as those others. It could be a 10mm long bolt. It may even not be glued in, or may be glued with resin that hasn't set. We just don't know.
The other glued in bolts at Rowten Pot (Gully Entrance) were not all 8.8 high tensile. I recall some were 4.8 and some unmarked. Again a mix and not a sign of a thoughtful, quality installation. Also non-stainless and a mix of metals; not good practice and not a sign that the installer knew their business.
All of which leaves other users guessing. They can choose to use the anchor or not. If they use it, they do so without having the most important information (not safe and not fair). If they choose not to use it, the anchor is superfluous - a waste of the shared natural resource and a visual blight (also not fair).
...
Jean Pot in my view IS similar in this regard because an independent installer has put in the public domain something that is non-standard. They have then chosen to keep secret has been done, despite a ukCaving thread showing that lots of people are interested in what is there. Also both these entrances share the common ground that others visitors didn't regard that location as needing man-made anchors. I have further knowledge of the Jean Pot anchors that shows they are very non-standard and should be regarded with a level of distrust.
But cavers generally would be well advised to regard all non-standard anchors with a healthy dose of scepticism and to rig in the accepted fashion with a tight backup or load-sharing Y.
...
I meet people (often young cavers) who do not know the difference between a spit and an expansion bolt. Don't recognise a plate hanger from a bent rod resin anchor. Or who never saw a spanner underground. Some I've met, without fault of their own, had maybe never used a spanner or a drill at all. I say this because cavers are a diverse bunch and we should be mindful that not everyone is equipped with the same background as ourselves to judge what is safe. We're not all civil, mechanical or chemical engineers. Some people don't have an encyclodaedic knowledge of the multitude of mechanical and resin anchor types produced and installed over the years by successive generations of cavers, or the knowledge of their differences to recognise them by or the experience to judge them by. Actually, thats probably that's all of us.
And that's without adding in, for example, Petzl the Petzl Long-Life, a commercially available mountaineering anchor that were installed in good faith but some of which are now known to be failing and subject to manufacturer recall. Thinking critically, you could extend this further, to previous well-meaning generations who installed and then unapproved the PECO anchors. In my view, the whole amounts to a cautionary tale against non-standard anchors, and against over anchoring in general.
As usual I've prattled on. I'm not a linguist. Hopefully some of this is useful to readers in prompting an appraisal of their attitude to fixed aids. I know there are readers of UKcaving who use threads like this as a learning resource and perhaps haven't posted above. Or who will visit this thread in the future.
---
Thankfully, we DO have a well-regarded scheme for installation of single piece stainless resin bonded anchors. Its managed, funded, agreed and installed by the community. Users have public information on what and how its installed, information to make pre-use checks, and a mechanism for reporting unsatisfactory ones. It has a great safety record and users have confidence about what they are looking at. And ultimately that the installations as a whole do what is expected.
If you're interested in helping out feel free to email the Anchor Coordinator using the contact on the CNCC website.
Ian
as Anchor Coordinator 2025-26
Adding unofficial bolts to prevent someone adding unofficial bolts may not be the best course of action. In effect you would be validating the first independent installers action, by repeating it.
Might not be a sound rock placement. You can't tell from a photo (especially a zoomed in photo) the nature of the rock. From what we know of the installation we should not blindly assume the installer was a competent judge of rock placement. Or even that they tested it at all.
I'm a fan of re-using holes, but drilling ever larger holes at bolt placements comes with its downsides. The rock cannot be put back.
Petzl Coeur (assuming you mean a multipart mechanical anchor with a plate hanger) may be very difficult to remove in future.
Other users didn't judge it to be necessary.
Lots of reasons to not put it back. Maybe we should just remove it and manage without.
And leave the hole to remain visible as a lasting reminder of human hubris and the collective destruction cavers exert on the resource we are temporary custodian of.
