Having drilled with the new Hilti for a several days the performance is very impressive.
With a 5.2A battery I was achieving 14 holes drilled at 12mm * 90mm in hard coarse grained granite.
Hilti have just released an 8A battery..! So while a slightly heavier battery at 1.1kg, the extended run time must be significantly extended.
The availability of lower voltage power drills has brought reduced weight and other advantages for climbers needing a cordless power drill however this means nothing if the lighter drill won’t perform…reliability remains a key consideration.
During February 2016 I posted a review of Hilti’s TE 6-A36 against the new Bosch GBH 18V EC and the stats at the time favoured the Bosch, which without doubt has proved to be a lighter and more synergistic tool compared to Hilti’s product line of the time which did not have interchangeable batteries and matched the performance but at an increased weight.
Ultimately the comparable drilling performance (for reduced weight) and use of the same battery packs for the popular 18V cordless grinder were stand out advantages.
Background
Annually I install around 1,000 glue-in anchors, mainly in hard rock (granite, volcanic tuff) but also limestone and this repeated heavy use typically ‘roots out’ any non performing kit. I literally wear drills out (amongst approach shoes and harnesses) and so issues like repairs become important.
After wearing out the hammer units and battery packs for the Bosch GBH 18V EC it is now time to conclude the overall performance of this drill and review the arrival of Hilti’s 22v range.
Broken Bosch
The 18V Bosch is definitely a great drill but a number of issues have emerged over time.
Note: the performance of higher capacity battery packs is critical to the advantage of the Bosch over the Hilti 36 V drill in a weight for weight comparison versus drilling output.
The real knock out issue though…
For drilling softer rock such as limestone, the Bosch is likely to last however for the most arduous conditions the Hilti 22V now provides an alternative where previously there was no comparable product in the voltage range.
Bosch GBH 18V EC alongside the Hilti TE 2-A22
Comparison stats…Bosch left, Hilti right.
Weight (with highest capacity battery): 2,753g vs 3,069g
Run time: 108 Watt hours vs 114.4 Watt hours
So for a slight increase in weight (316g) we’re getting a slightly longer run time but increased serviceability.
Hilti provide a 2 year warranty for their battery packs which is not something I’m aware that Bosch provide.
Time will reveal how the Hilti performs but from previous experience I’d expect it to be excellent and in a lighter package now.
Khao Yoi, Thailand in conjunction with Thailand Mountain Sports Club
Mid June and 12 climbers arrived in Khao Yoi for a 2 day course mixing theory and practical workshops.
The course started at 9am on Saturday morning with a presentation focused on glue-in fixings, adhesive type and selection, stainless steel and titanium, cliff development strategies, comparison of top down versus bottom up development, case studies, standards and practical information on choosing a drill. Additional topics were covered during the morning with a break in-between.
The afternoon saw the group practice drilling different glue-in bolts and preparing holes for gluing. Discussion around adhesive type from the morning presentation carried forward into the afternoon session with a focus on the practical aspects of the bolting process. A number of test bolts were installed for the following afternoon tensile testing demonstrations.
Course participants practice drilling a range of different glue-in fixings and cleaning holes prior to gluing.
Gluing in a Titan climbing titanium bolt.
Saturday concluded with a fantastic Thai dinner, discussion of the day and plenty of beers!
Sunday morning kicked off with an interactive workshop reviewing a new routing rig and equipment required for bolting.
With the morning session concluded, it was time to revisit the crag and finish the course with 6 tensile tests performed by the attendees themselves. The tests demonstrated important aspects of using glue-in bolts and the impact of different adhesives on certain fixings.
Radial tensile testing of a Fixe 316 glue-in fixed with Hilti RE500 epoxy.
With the course over the day finished with climbing!
Come join the fun mid June in Khao Yoi, South of Bangkok, where I will be running a 2 day workshop covering bolt installation and a number of tensile pull tests to demonstrate key aspects of bolt performance. The workshop also includes a technical presentation and a number of practical activities performed by attendees.
Details can be found here:
The UIAA embarked upon a comprehensive study last year that involves chemical sampling of rock faces with the objective of identifying any impact of present chemistry on the corrosion of fixed protection. This work is performed by volunteers and supported by a technical specialist who receives the samples upon which laboratory analysis is conducted.
UIAA Chemical sampling conducted in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand last month.
The various corrosion mechanisms (eg pitting, crevice) that affect bolts are understood, with more detailed investigative work on Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) performed by Tomas Prosek and others in recent years however an unknown is why certain climbing regions are notably aggressive towards fixed hardware and others are relatively benign. Tonsai, in Southern Thailand, is recognised as requiring only certified titanium glue-in fixings due to SCC and most understand that to be solely the fact that it is a coastal limestone sport climbing area in the tropics. Why then does Long Dong, a sandstone sport climbing area in Taiwan also suffer from aggressive SCC? Entirely different geology, tropical yes but certainly not covered in significant quantities of jungle foliage and yet bolts have failed just as badly. The answer must be related to the particular presence of chemical precursors that promote faster rates of corrosion.
The rate at which bolts have corroded at different crags within the same region is so far supported by conclusions drawn from samples analysed to date and whilst this remains a work in progress (and not yet for public release) it is encouraging. The goal being to really define fixing specification for a given crag to a level of detail past the historical minimum of 304L.
UIAA Chemical sampling below Hourglass Crack F6a, Technical Wall, Tung Lung Chau, Hong Kong.
Late December and an arrival into familiar surroundings to develop more new routes for Chiang Mai Rock Climbing Adventures with 1,200 glue-in bolts.
Lots of premium Bolt Products glue-in bolts from Jim @ Bolt Products plus a few ladder rungs.
Only a few weeks into drilling pretty much everything in sight and CMRCA host their first Northern Thailand climbing RockFest and Thailand premier of Reel Rock #12. A strong turn out by community non climbing locals who derive income from visiting climbers, visiting climbers and the locals who climb themselves created a festive atmosphere that provided just the backdrop for acknowledging area activists and contributors from the past 15 years who have ensured Crazy Horse is one of the most carefully developed sport crags in the world. Adopting a ‘Golden Bolt’ award, CMRCA Founders Kat and Josh Morris presented awards to Kraisak Boonthip (Pi Tom) and myself for significant contributions toward establishing Crazy horse as it is today. Local longtime climber (and a developer himself) Jens Glasgow added to the Golden Bolt (24K Gold plated) with a fantastic leather drill bit pouch – no more melted Hilti drill bit containers.
With good cool weather, equipping progressed in earnest yielding fantastic new additions such as The Darkness Beckons, a wild 5 pitch new route in the Anxiety State Crisis Cave. Equipping the 80m line required multiple static lines, mid air rope to rope transfers and trickery such as threading ropes through holes with bamboo to work position after transferring ropes. The result, at F6a+ complete with a caving squeeze and wild exposure must rank in country as one of the most nutty multi pitches to do.
Looking up into the roof Aven of the Anxiety State Crisis cave and a mass of rigging. The 4th pitch traverses the lip of the roof and disappears into the darkness before emerging from a cave crawl and final 5th pitch.
Friends visited which led to harder additions to the area. Baz Durston (ex British Team Comp Climber) came out of retirement to swiftly tick a hard F7c extension to one of my F7b+ routes and narrowly missed the FA of a hard F8a on the Aircon Wall which was ultimately bagged by Alex Deschamps from Canada. The ultimate prize; a project equipped and called Bristol Fashion on the Anthill has so far repulsed all prospective attempts, the consensus being a minimum of F8b+ which would result in the hardest climb in Thailand outside of Tonsai.
In-between days of drilling and glueing, chemical sampling was completed as part of my volunteer work for the UIAA Anchor Working Group with the results populating data gaps on the current data trend. The results further reinforced the current understanding of what precursors are required to enable corrosion, not least underscoring why Chiang Mai does not suffer the Stress Corrosion Cracking issues synonymous with the South.
UIAA Chemical sampling conducted at 6 sectors, seen here underway at the Heart Wall.
Finding time to do anything other than equip new lines is difficult in a target rich environment however in March CMRCA hosted their first C.R.A.G talk of which I was the first guest speaker and gave a presentation on new route development, bolts and an update on progress made at Crazy Horse.
This led to a bolting clinic in which attendees were given an introduction to bolt installation, equipment and placing practice anchors themselves. The day concluded with actual pull testing of different glue-in bolts.
Image: Ray Kam
The clinic led onto follow up training with Ray Kam from Canada, who went home with a number of foundation skills during the course of 2 days and having bolted and sent the FA of his own new route.
A happy customer! Ray Kay having been through the process over 2 days which ended with his own new route.
Hotspotting in the parking lot, the CMRCA Crag Database is updated with his FA live.
Back to bolting and climbing continued during March with more cave climbs and additions in the F7’s.
Image: Alex Deschamps.
As the high season closes, bolting continues despite the summer heat with the following stats below:
44 Days drilling and glueing
1,410 glue-in bolts installed
Yielding over 92 new routes, some of which are multi pitch.
Enjoying the sea breeze whilst re-bolting with Titan Climbing titanium glue-in bolts in Hong Kong (Donna Kwok).
New routing is a particular habit…it can become an obsession, fraught with paranoia in equal measure but for sure, the motivation behind a single developer has long lasting consequences for the general climbing public. One aspect is that pleasing everyone is typically impossible; someone will always criticise something! For some regions the effort and funding behind equipping can go unnoticed by the broader climbing community.
In many ways we are experiencing an interesting phase in sport route development. The complexity of issues concerning corrosion are becoming better understood, improved fixings are available and the cost of installation has dropped over the past couple of decades.
The motivations for bolting largely have not however and this raises interesting and at times confrontational points of view as to how routes should be bolted. Developers often ‘fall into’ one of the common styles:
A minimal style – self funded and solely interested in an FA using the least amount of gear. Not bothered if the climb remains unrepeated or not.
Elitist – equips to suit their ability so ‘easy’ routes are often poorly or dangerously equipped for anyone else attempting the climb at their ability limit.
Equipped for the grade – F6a or F8a, what run outs? Well bolted regardless of funding and route difficulty.
Having equipped in many different countries it is always interesting to correlate climbing ethics / traditions and circumstances (is there a BIG uphill approach involved?!) with how sport routes have been bolted. I’ve long suspected that the infamous run outs of Ceuse have more to do with Patrick Erdlinger’s extent of self funds at the time and the big hill up which he had to carry a sack full of heavy metal, rather than an intentional desire to have routes which can involve big falls, the ‘Ceuse style’ as one guide describes. He was also a highly talented climber so that may have had something to do with bolt spacings on ‘lower graded’ routes too!
Also the recognition of what sport climbing entails versus traditional climbing. In other words, run outs or potentially loose rock and bad gear are all aspects that traditionally protected climbs may feature and this is very much an accepted part of what this style of climbing involves.
Sport climbing however is focused purely on abject difficulty, such that the consequences of falling should in theory be reduced to the lowest level of practical risk encountered. Obviously this cannot be achieved by poorly equipped sport routes where the consequences of a fall could be hitting ledges / the ground / or falling misaligned with subsequent rock face impact.
Since most development is conducted by self funded individuals, fixing cost is a major consideration as to how many bolts are placed and the specification of the fixings used. Where they are placed is very much an expression of the developer’s opinion on what sport climbing is supposed to offer and reflects the most basic aspect of do they view the rock as a resource for others (and thus equips as such) or a more individual experience with no particular thought given to climbers trying the climb a decade later.
For self funded climbers, it’s a discipline not to bolt when insufficient funds are available to purchase the ‘right’ specification of fixing. Equally it’s a case of offering to support such individuals financially in installing a particular specification rather than just criticising their choices. This is where a major shift is needed within the climbing public; development costs for sport climbing areas needs to be formerly supported through Bolt Funds or access fees. This ensures developers have the ‘right’ tools and that climbers can fall rest assured it won’t result in a failed fixing.
Correspondingly bolt funds must use the best fixing (material, type etc) for the area the donations are intended otherwise it becomes hard to defend otherwise when public funding is involved. For individual developers, this becomes a reflection of their longterm consideration in what legacy they wish to create and recognising that rock is a finite resource.
Clip it, stick it, what’s the drama?
Many moons ago the fixing options available to developers bolting routes were limited yet this was a time of morphing away from the genesis of pure trad’ to some fixed gear and later full blown sport routes.
Typically caving bolts were the only fixing available for climbers to use however we climb in different times now and so developers should and can use plenty of rated (EN959 / UIAA 123) fixings.
There is value in climbers learning to recognise rated hardware just as they would not use traditional equipment not rated for rock anchor purposes.
The inherent issue with sport climbing is the total reliance on assumed fixings that will hold in the event of falls.
This can be a dangerous assumption.
Fixe PLX and Petzl HCR – Worth the hype?
For a number of years, decades even, the choice of material for fixed rock anchors (bolts) was pretty much limited to stainless steel grades 304 or 316.
With the development of climbing areas within highly corrosive environments, so to has been the development in both anchor technology and climber knowledge concerning corrosion and its various mechanisms as they apply to rock climbing anchors.
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) and the alarming rapidity with which anchors are rendered dangerous has gripped the community on a global scale and driven the development of titanium resin bonded anchors as a direct result. The investigation of SCC in Southern Thailand has had an impact within the materials engineering world by raising awareness that SCC can occur outside of the conditions traditionally believed to be the required norms.
The well known efforts of the Thaitanium Project (http://thaitaniumproject.com) and Titan Climbing (http://titanclimbing.com) have led to a full range of titanium products that compliment the high quality stainless steel products from Bolt Products (http://bolt-products.com).
Climbers equipping new routes have the choice of an excellent range of stainless steel products for normal use and equally titanium where SCC / harsh corrosion is affecting hardware. With Fixe introducing their PLX range and Petzl with an ‘HCR’ product line, what are the benefits and are those products anything better?
Fixe PLX
Petzl ‘HCR’
UIAA studies underway intend to determine a range of materials as matched to a set of environmental conditions since simply stating something is corrosion resistant is meaningless without equally specifying the corrosion it is supposed to resist. The use of the term HCR is misleading in that regard.
Duplex steel has high resistance to SCC and high quality steels in the 6% Molybdenum range resist SCC so where does that leave climbers trying to ascertain the relevance of these new products against what already exists on the market? Two considerations foremost in mind is the cost of the fixing and known performance in real world climbing applications. Looking at pricing online with no discounts applied:
Pricing
316 grade stainless steel is a cost effective option in areas not affected by SCC.
Fixe’s PLX hardware is roughly around the same price band of Titan Climbing’s titanium hardware but the Petzl ‘HCR’ is quoted at an astronomical US$ 36 (pack of 20 list price).
Performance
316 and Titanium already has proven use in a variety of regions with varying degrees of corrosion. Where SCC is occurring, a titanium bolt glued in with pure epoxy is currently considered the best form of fixed protection.
Fixe have just initiated a batch recall for their PLX bolts in response to severe corrosion affecting hangers. The reasons for this are not currently in the public domain but this does highlight the issue facing developers when new products are launched to either build in company liability where the product line was only 316 based or perhaps to counter titanium based products. Without a ‘track record’ developers take the risk in installing hardware only to find it won’t last some 5, 10 years or longer, later.
Technical materials knowledge within the oil and gas industry says 6% Moly’ steels will resists SCC however the UIAA is yet to issue a guideline to climbers to this effect. The fundamental issue facing the use of Petzl’s ‘HCR’ range however is cost and it is simply too expensive unless the unit price is reduced to become competitive with titanium glue-ins. The drawbacks associated with using bolt ins however are not eliminated.
Ultimately when the track record of certified titanium glue-in bolts is considered, the advantages this type of fixing offers, and the pricing for a known SCC resistant material, why switch to duplex 2304.
A successful visit to the Nam Pha Pa Yai camp a couple of hours North of Bangkok to bolt new routes and enjoy the riverside climbing featuring unique zipline access.
As always, lots of hardware…but a balanced load
The zip line access across the river.
Great quality rock and plenty of new lines to equip. Gluing in Bolt Products 8mm * 80mm marine grade stainless steel bolts with Hilti RE500 pure epoxy adhesive.
Glue-in bolts are great for traverse anchors; no loose hangers or need for linking hardware either, just tie direct!
francishaden.com 