UIAA: 304 bolts are a part of a horror movie

裂缝

UIAA has published a dramatic report with the conclusion that 304 stainless steel bolts are a part of a "horror movie" and they should not be used outdoors. This means that all stainless steel 304 bolts should be removed by Titanium or 316 steel bolts and that 99% of all (1 million???) bolts placed at all crags in the world are at risk.

Most critical factors are: “moderate” relative humidity location, areas NOT washed by rain, high temperatures. Limestone/dolomite is generally worse than sandstone or granite (karst rock is the worst case). UIAA says that within months some bolts will only hold few tens of kilograms.

Here are some answers from UIAA, when asked for clarifications of their dramatic but unclear recommendations that Titanium must be used and why the normal stainless steel quality 304 should be avoided also at inland vertical granite crags etc.

"Tests shall start soon to clarify exactly which stainless steels material
will be suitable (and not only titanium) and the standard should be
updated next year.

The UIAA Safety Commission does not find 304 steel bolts/anchors appropriate for outdoor use because 304 anchors are not expected to last 50 years in the outdoor environment."

The UIAA report has been questioned by Eman Pellizzari.

UIAA文件:
UIAA-WARNING-ABOUT-CLIMBING-ANCHORS-FAILURES.pdf (532.31 KB, 下载次数: 298)

2015-12-17 18:38 上传

点击文件名下载附件

裂缝

8a did ask Emanuele Pellizzari, equipper and bolting gear seller and producer, to give some comments in regards to the UIAA statement saying that 304 bolts are part of a horror movie. It should be stated that 8a mainly agrees with the conclusion from Eman.

"Most climbers that read the UIAA press release did not understand, or wanted to understand, what it’s written in it. Most concentrate mainly on the kind of material to be used (or not used). That is the less interesting, and less important, part of it. The release only comes in two languages and a bigger effort to have it translated should have be addressed.

First: UIAA places the lifespan of a bolt in +50 years. This is longer than any equipper thought or expected. This is significantly longer than any supplier with a salt of grain, will guarantee. This can be considered three or more generations of climbers: I think it’s unrealistic. I am not saying it’s bad, I am saying it’s unrealistic.

Second: UIAA acknowledges that no bolter/equipper or individual climber can or will pay for the upgrade in materials they suggest. It also acknowledges that most of those materials (they use the words “cost and availability”), cannot realistically be found/bought. Even many touristic boards wouldn’t pay for the “upgrade”, or they may realize it is not worth to invest in our activity since the return to investment is much lower now.

Third, and this is the point the climbing community did not understand the most, is when UIAA writes: “…the bulk of the climbing population needs to start paying for anchors, whereas in the past most had a “free ride”. Who pays, how they pay, when they pay, how much they pay, etc…this was not mentioned. If all bolts that have been drilled would be replaced according to the release, the cost we talk about amounts in a big sequence of digits… dozens millions Euro.

Finally, UIAA basically discourage any new routing development unless 4 or more times more cost of equipment is used. It discourages any rebolting initiative without proper gear. With such an “official” release, it places 99.99% of bolts now in situ, on the “future unsafe side”. Any landowner that reads this, or any major of a town that understands it, might think the sport it’s unsafe and lock down any outdoor climbing activity. I hope it wouldn’t happen. A sport without development is a dying sport. I feel the sport is safe as long as its community reminds that climbing was, is and will be, a dangerous activity.

My two cents is that the release had good intentions, but it’s such a step forward that the community is not willing to accept it. The industry might accept it since it poses a 4 times increase of turnover in bolting equipment. Were people using the suggested gear when it will be available (if it will be ever be), I have no clue. My lifespan as equipper will not be +50 years. As an equipper/bolter I said in 2012 that I was not paying more than stainless A4/316 to equip routes. I keep this opinion. If other climbers will pay for rebolting with what UIAA considers proper gear, it’s fine for me.

裂缝

阳朔属于重灾区. 不少bolt的位置在渗水. 前天看到狮龙山11c顶链4mm的梅陇锁断裂了. 虽然4mm很细, 可那是钢, 也就是用来下降而已.

全面升级是不现实的, 及时更换. 风险在于有些bolt锈在里面, 从外观上看不出来.

w2

回复 3# 裂缝
4mm的梅陇当顶链的锁使？阳朔的安全底线有望显著提升一下。

mh

一楼 说的
Most critical factors are: “moderate” relative humidity location, areas NOT washed by rain, high temperatures. Limestone/dolomite is generally worse than sandstone or granite (karst rock is the worst case)

最危险因素 ：“温和”的相对湿度，被雨淋不到的地方，高温。石灰岩/白云岩一般说比砂岩和花岗岩问题更大（喀斯特岩石最差。

裂缝

回复 4# w2

很久以前的. 基本都已更换, 估计还有少量残余

woodhead

刚来阳朔，发现阳朔的顶链使用的是小钢环，和帝都的高大威猛钢环相比是太单薄了。观察了一下本地帮派，这个钢环一般不会被用来做top rope，但是收装备的时候是会被用来做单绳下降的。

临安也是用的类似小环，路书写着（我不是很确认）：不许用这个小环爬顶绳，下降要用双绳。

不过既然本地帮派都用这个单绳降，我也就偷懒照此办理了。