I think for Slit Pot direct the trouble is the flake, rather than the anchors (I could be wrong). If you don't fit through the slit, your other options are the Slit Pot bypass, or the Great Aven route, and I think it's one of these is where tat has accumulated to make a Y-hang to make the pull through possible or better (again, could be wrong, trying to piece it together from what has been said here and the photos and the documents).
Simpson Chains
- Thread starter Ian Ball
- Start date
Steve Clark
Well-known member
From the posts on UKC, I think it's probably the top half of the split pitch in Swinsto that sees most stuck ropes. As noted above, it's awkward to see the bolts from the bottom of the pitch and you can't really go walking around to free them if you're on the ledge. In our case of a stuck rope, I'd put a knot in the end of the pitch rope because I'd not done it before and I was expecting to land on a small ledge I didn't want to risk abseiling off the end. This knot was then in the waterfall and not obvious when someone else pulled it down.
Samouse1
Well-known member
Having reread the thread and new responses, I’m now back onto the fence on this. If, as said, the chains won’t affect hard rigging the cave, that is one of my concerns answered. If there is a marked safety improvement that cannot be replicated by offset pull through bolts in this location, then the chains are certainly the best option.
Having one route set up this way rather than all three would still be my preferred option, but if the will of the people is that all three are bolted then so be it!
I’d like to also say that I appreciate the hard work put in by the bolters and volunteers at the CNCC!
Having one route set up this way rather than all three would still be my preferred option, but if the will of the people is that all three are bolted then so be it!
I’d like to also say that I appreciate the hard work put in by the bolters and volunteers at the CNCC!
CNCC
Well-known member
CNCC Secretary (Jill Bolton) here! I was responsible for preparing and uploading the Swinsto document, based on an email from Matt Ewles, our PR & Communications Officer.
Unfortunately, I made an error in omitting Matt's name as the proposer, and note this has been queried on the thread. So I apologise to Matt, Ian and anyone else who was concerned.
In my defence, I was rushing to get the document circulated on Friday evening, to give everyone a chance to consider it over the weekend.
Remember, you are invited to participate in the CNCC meeting, either in Clapham or via Zoom. Whilst it's strictly a committee meeting (so only the committee get to vote) we welcome contributions from all cavers.
Unfortunately, I made an error in omitting Matt's name as the proposer, and note this has been queried on the thread. So I apologise to Matt, Ian and anyone else who was concerned.
In my defence, I was rushing to get the document circulated on Friday evening, to give everyone a chance to consider it over the weekend.
Remember, you are invited to participate in the CNCC meeting, either in Clapham or via Zoom. Whilst it's strictly a committee meeting (so only the committee get to vote) we welcome contributions from all cavers.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
This thread is an excellent demonstration of the loud minority, silent majority. The vote on this thread currently stands at 92.4% in favour. That's an *overwhelming* majority.
It's vitally important that all voices have a chance to be heard. Writing a post on this forum with a point of view is an important thing, but it should be remembered that you get one vote per person, not one vote per paragraph. It's important that people can speak freely so that they can convince other people to change their votes, but if they fail to do so we shouldn't give unfair consideration to that effort.
This thread also includes classic cases of cavers trying to reinvent the wheel. Chains and pull-throughs have already been done by climbers and canyoners far more than we ever will. The systems already exist and we should use (and potentially adapt) them, not pointlessly design things from the ground up.
As for the thing about putting chains on three routes on the same pothole, maybe I've missed it but I can't see where that came from? I'm assuming that's a miscommunication somewhere.
Personally I'd get rid of all the tat on the Slit Pot bypass and just put a plastic size gauge at the entrance to the cave. Don't fit? Go to Swinsto
PS on the very limited number of pull throughs I've done, I've just tied the ends of the rope together. Then you have an end knot but it doesn't matter if you forget to take it out. I vaguely remember there might be a reason not to do that but I can't remember what it is
It's vitally important that all voices have a chance to be heard. Writing a post on this forum with a point of view is an important thing, but it should be remembered that you get one vote per person, not one vote per paragraph. It's important that people can speak freely so that they can convince other people to change their votes, but if they fail to do so we shouldn't give unfair consideration to that effort.
This thread also includes classic cases of cavers trying to reinvent the wheel. Chains and pull-throughs have already been done by climbers and canyoners far more than we ever will. The systems already exist and we should use (and potentially adapt) them, not pointlessly design things from the ground up.
As for the thing about putting chains on three routes on the same pothole, maybe I've missed it but I can't see where that came from? I'm assuming that's a miscommunication somewhere.
Personally I'd get rid of all the tat on the Slit Pot bypass and just put a plastic size gauge at the entrance to the cave. Don't fit? Go to Swinsto
PS on the very limited number of pull throughs I've done, I've just tied the ends of the rope together. Then you have an end knot but it doesn't matter if you forget to take it out. I vaguely remember there might be a reason not to do that but I can't remember what it is
PeteHall
Moderator
Personally I'd get rid of all the tat on the Slit Pot bypass and just put a plastic size gauge at the entrance to the cave. Don't fit? Go to Swinsto
Babyhagrid
Well-known member
Maybe it just needs some accessibility and inclusivity capping?Personally I'd get rid of all the tat on the Slit Pot bypass and just put a plastic size gauge at the entrance to the cave. Don't fit? Go to Swinsto
Simpson?Don't fit? Go to Swinsto
You're right, but I'm happy to continue to be loud. I don't get a vote at the CNCC meetings because I'm not on the committee, and our club rep does not bring matters for discussion to the club, so I don't feel represented through that route. I will try to go to the meeting anyway, to gain as much understanding as I can.
In my opinion it's important for this proposal and decision to be as transparent as possible, and for statements to be backed up with evidence, and valid concerns to be properly addressed.
langcliffe
Well-known member
I'm boringly neutral about putting in chains. I don't think they're needed, nor do I think that they will compensate for the use of poor practices, but I also don't think they will do any harm, and will provide good experience for those who encounter them in France where they are commonly used.
DaveyDubz
New member
Going all the way back to the start of the thread, and the photos of the areas currently, I'd much rather see a reassuring chain and abseil ring than a load of tat rope hogging the bolts. Providing it doesn't interfere with those fixing rigging for exchange/in-out trips then it can only be an improvement.
Simpsons and Swinsto are both sport caves and modified already with bolts/blasting a few more bits of metal won't substantially change the nature of the cave (in my opinion).
The two anchor setup is good where it works, but for situations where it doesn't (which at least one of the above looks like) then I can understand the need for a chain.
I don't think any of these points are unique to me, and I agree with andrewmcleod's point above, everyone has a voice not just those who shout the loudest.
I enjoy rigging in Yorkshire as the bolting quality is usually pretty good and considerate, especially compared to other regions/caves I frequent (looking at you OFD2).
Apologies, I definitely wasn't meaning to suggest that other people shouldn't have a voice, and I'm genuinely sorry if I came across that way. I don't think that at all, and I'm not intending to dominate the conversation or even really to persuade people who aren't fussed one way or the other. I would just like to see evidence for all the claims that are being made, and to have some queries or questions answered. I've read everything people have posted and I've thought about those posts, and if I've been dismissive I apologise again for that.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Just repeating Ian's original justification post as it's half way down the front page (there are links to the photos at bottom, or can see more easily on original):
Steve Clark
Well-known member
These photos have just appeared on my Facebook feed. A post by DMM. Pretty convincing before / after shots of the tat tidy up at the top of the Old Man of Hoy. Titanium gear for the marine environment with what appears to be a cut plate ring rather than welded. More of an extreme tat mess, but it’s had to argue against this as a sustainable solution. I think I’m pro chains now, especially if it can be made this neat. There may be practical limits on bolt spacing in limestone. (Photos by Ray Wood I think)
