2005 Route Applications
Paradise Lost, 5.9
August 13, 2005
Dinosaur Mountain, Red Devil South Face
Application date: 8/13/05
Information from the applicant: The proposed route lies at the terminus of the first switchback of the Red Devil Climber’s Trail, thirty meters downhill of “Hell Freezes Over”. This route ascends 27 meters through two bulges, a steep crack in a corner and ends at a bolted belay on a lower angle section ten meters below the Southeast Ridge of the Red Devil.
The proposed route will use ten protection bolts and a two-bolt belay, as shown in the attached photo diagram. Bolt hangers will closely match the intermittent red and green color of the rock. There is no obvious natural protection available on the route. On toprope inspection there was no loose rock. There will be quite a bit of brushing required for final route preparation. A somewhat complex but convenient toprope anchor from the East Face of the Red Devil provides access for the route’s preparation.
The proposed route meets all of the requirements of the FCC’s guidelines: it is located in the study area, it is adjacent to an existing improved trail, and it covers new and otherwise unclimbed rock. The proposed route will open up a well-protected moderate lead in the 5.9 range, of similar quality and difficulty to its neighbor to the West, Hell Freezes Over.
FHRC Overview of the application: Approved
Voting Results: Approved
OSMP Decision: Approved
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
I’m not real familiar with this exact stretch of rock, but I’d be surprised if there’s not at least some very good natural gear placements that would reduce the number of bolts required. The first bolt looks very low and perhaps it could be avoided altogether, especially if the moves are well below 5.9 and/or the landing is clean and safe. I’d vote for approving the route, especially if it is of similar quality to Hell Freezes Over, but with fewer bolts if possible.
I vote yes.
Looks good … add the bolts.
I would approve of this new route provided that the base of the climb is stabilized, or is sceduled to be stabilized and that the area above it on ‘hell freezes over’ is checked for stability. No bowling please! If assistence for stabilization of the area at the base is required, I’d be glad to help.
27 meters is equivalent to 88.6 ft. Is the climbing so sustained that a bolt is needed every 8.86 ft??? Seems awfully close together, I bet the route could safely be bolted with 7 or 8? Who’s putting the route up? A Rossiter route is often bolted differently than a Rolofson route. Is the ‘bolters’ name provided to us? It should be provided in the Flatirons, our park (supposedly), and would help some of us make an informed decision based upon other routes put up in the area. As is, I vote NO due to the excessive # of bolts. Justify the excessive # of bolts and I’d reconsider.
This looks great! Bolt it and I’ll climb it. Hope this one passes.
Although there’s little protection in the area, there *is* available protection to be found (as far as Flatiron standards go) by just moving a few feet to the side. Why put in bolts where none are needed?
I am not sure I agree that the proposed route covers unclimbed rock. I have climbed a route just behind the tree in the photo. I believe that this route is somewhat contrived. Since there seems to be no natural lines there, why not bolt another line 10 feet right or left? I don’t understand the need for a bolted belay at 27M from the start. Why not go all the way to the top and belay on natural features? I don’t think we should allow this route. It does not fit with the “trad” character of the Red Devil, known for some spooky ru- out routes on its East face.
Looks great! Nice to have another companion for the excellent climbs already up there.
if you can toprope it–why would you need to place more bolts and ruin this beautiful rock? it makes no sense….
Looks good and the area need more moderate routes at this grade.
Looks like a nice line, but probably too many protection bolts – seems like half as many (5)would suffice?
This sounds like a great addition to an existing area which already has all the requirements satisfied.
do it
Drill ‘er up. Looks good.
I believe that new bolted routes in Boulder should, above all, climb aesthetic and obvious lines. This route climbs neither. It is a pretty blank piece of rock in the Flatirons, indistinguishable from many other faces. It, and the ground below it, should remain as it is.
Went up today to climb “Hell Freezes Over” and took a look at this climb. It looks like an awesome face with little or no traditional pro and I recommend this route be approved.
Looks like a quality climb and a good job of scoping it out and route analysis. 10 bolts sounds about right.
Great to have a well bolted easy route. Bolt it.
Bolt the rock bolt it well
Sounds like a great plan – I’m all for it.
I would say if there’s anchors to top rope above then there is no need for a two bolt anchor at the top of this route. It just sounds like people want to be lazy and rap down instead of walking. However, if there is some sort of errosion issue with climbers hiking down all the time then I would be for the two bolt anchor.
It’s great to see a proposal that would bring a new route to this area, as opposed to altering the pro on an existing route, which is always controversial. Providing fixed pro, so that we can minimize the erosion etc associated with establishment of a traditional toproped route, is a good idea. I’m all for approval of this proposal.
Nice find, this line looks fun and technical! I vote yes. There are not many full length, easy to moderate, well bolted climbs in the Front Range area. Many easy climbs are run out, which scares beginner leaders away. This will be a great climb to teach climbers how to lead, and build up confidence. Thank you for spotting this one out.
I’ve been looking at this route for years. Let’s do it.
Bolts are too destructive to the natural environment. Wait for new technology even if a future generation of climbers gets to do it.
This is a fine line and I support bolting it.
I have not been to the route, but it looks as though the upper half has much potential for natural protection, whereas the fist half does not. Perhaps fewer bolts should be used. I understand that in the Flatirons “Many easy climbs are run out, which scares beginning leaders anyway,” but this seems to be part of the mystique and tradition of Flatirons climbing while also teaching alot of the necessary trad skills such as being inventive with gear and dealing psychiologically with runouts. So I say bolt it, but only with the NECESSARY bolts.
To the person stating that this line has been climbed before, can they provide more detail? It appears that the tree is at least 12 to 15 feet to the right of the proposed start. Did your route merge up higher with this proposed line?
I’ve seen this line. It looks like a fantastic addition to the area and is worthy of bolting. Although I haven’t rapped the route to see where bolts might be placed, 10 bolts seems a bit excessive. Can it be done with less? Either way, it’s the ideal line to add. I vote YES!
Why not place gear in the steep crack? Make sure a 50m rope will reach the ground. The original route plan needs some work but it should be approved.
Yes. I support the addition of a few good-quality sport routes as long as this doesn’t set a precedent to create a grid-bolted Sport Park-like crag.
As open minded as a trad climber can be, I support bolting routes that have no natural protection or natural anchor at the top to be top roped. However, with that said, I would have to agree with the previous post, if this route can be top roped with no damage to the rock then it should be top roped. In regards to the top anchor, I am in favor of it if it will save the natural protection from erosion. However, I am in favor of leaving it “natural” if that isn’t the case.
I posted the comment of having climbe a line behing the tree. It is the left not the right tree and yes they merge at the top IF the proposed bolted route were to continue to the top. As proposed they would have rap anchors to bail after 1 pitch.
