Vamos Las Chicas

Route Name: Vamos Las Chicas

Rock Formation: The Maiden

Number of bolts to be placed:  25 lead bolts, 3 sets of 2 bolt anchors


Route Difficulty: 5.13

 

 

 Route Description:

The proposed new route follows the natural features of this impressive, overhanging face in three pitches. We think there will be 6 bolts on the first pitch, plus two bolts for the anchor. We think we will place about 10 bolts on the second pitch, plus two anchor bolts, and the third pitch will require about 9 bolts, plus two anchor bolts. We will do our best to place natural protection whenever possible rather than placing a bolt in order to respect the ethics and aesthetics of this beautiful place.

 

The name, “Vamos Las Chicas” means, “Let’s go girls” in Spanish, which fits in with the Spanish theme of the neighboring route, “Hasta La Hueco”.

 

A description of existing routes on the same face of the rock formation, including the number of routes, route names, route grade, type, and approximate distance between routes (a photocopy or diagram of the existing route(s) is also required):

On the south face of the Maiden, the routes trending from left (uphill) to right (downhill) are: 1. Gates of Galas (5.10d R/X trad); 2. A few yards east and downhill is Gates of Delirium (5.11c sport); 3. Maiden Voyage (5.12b sport), starts above the Crows Nest; 4. The subject route Vamos Las Chicas, 5. 13? Sport; 5. Kor-Dalke, starts just a bit right of Vamos Las Chicas, trad Aid (A3) or free at 5.12 R; 6. Hasta La Hueco, 3 pitches, 5.13b sport; 7. South Face, 5.9R trad, 3 pitches; 8. Belladonna, 5.11a X trad; 9. Southern Seas, 5.11b trad towrope; 10. Heart of the Sunrise, 2 pitches, 5.11a sport; 11. South Crack, 5.11b/c trad.

 

A description of the approach (include approximate distance from the designated trail system, existing “social” or undesignated trails leading to the climb and condition of the trail, and state whether there is a durable surface, such as rock.  

 

The approach starts from the South Mesa Trailhead.   Follow the Mesa Trail north to the Shadow Canyon connector, which is directly under the Maiden.  At the water trough, turn left (uphill) and follow the Shadow Canyon connector SW for a hundred yards. Turn right from the main trail at a thin path that leads to a quarry. Walk through the quarry to the north and follow an old quarry road. After maybe 200 yards, the road ends and follow the steep climbers trail uphill to the west (marked by cairns) to the base of the east ridge. From there, follow the path uphill along the south face, about 50 feet farther up the hill from the base of Hasta La Hueco.

 

Where you leave the trail for the quarry:



 

If different from the approach, a description of the descent, (include approximate distance from the designated trail system, existing “social” or undesignated trails, a description of the trail condition and whether there is a durable surface, such as rock.  Include photographs of the descent.):

Descent from the climb is to rappel 3 times back to the staging area or do the classic West Overhang rappel.  Then hike out the same trail as the approach.  

 

Looking down on the Staging area:

A description of the area at the base of the climb (include existing levels of soil compaction, existence of a durable surface such as rock, and existing soil erosion.  Include photographs of the area at the base of the climb.):

The base of the route is next to a large tree with boulders and compact soil on the ground.

Has all reconnaissance work that can be reasonably done, short of placing any hardware, been done?

The majority reconnaissance work has been done on the first two pitches, but the last pitch will require a bit more work to figure out the exact line.        

Has the route been top roped?  Is there loose rock?  Is it extremely overhanging?

We have top roped the sections of the climb that we were able to, but without having the ability to place bolts on such an overhanging face, it’s difficult to be able to climb the entire route! However, we could distinguish a line of holds and general weakness in the middle of this overhanging face that will allow a very fun and beautiful line up this wall.                              

 

Any additional notes:

none

16 replies
  1. Japhy Dhungana
    Japhy Dhungana says:

    A beautiful, aesthetic line in the Flatirons. I vote yes! Question for the FA party: is there a way for the 3rd pitch to climb steeper terrain more directly to the summit, rather than trending left alongside the Kor-Dalke? Regardless of that, I think that the line should be bolted safely. It will see a lot more attention and traffic than the Kor-Dalke, which has not been repeated since the FA as a free route. Generally speaking, the highest quality stone in the Flatirons do NOT have natural protection and don’t follow the horizontal bands.

    Reply
  2. Matt S
    Matt S says:

    It seems like it will be key to keep this a mix of bolts and gear—gear especially where it crosses the Kor-Dalke, so as not to change the character of the Kor-Dalke. I know the one bolt on the 14c arete ended up on terrain on the Kor-Dalke, and was of some concern to the party who freed the Kor-Dalke.

    Reply
  3. David Light
    David Light says:

    The party who free climbed the Kor-Dalke are very concerned about your plans to install a sport climb which crosses KD in three different places. I don’t understand how you can possibly achieve your goal without affecting KD.
    KD is a traditional climb, it follows a natural line of weakness through the South Face. The addition of bolts on or near this climb would diminish the adventure considerably.
    Please to withdraw your application immediately.
    Thanks David

    Reply
  4. Greg Miller
    Greg Miller says:

    Japhy says ” It will see a lot more attention and traffic than the Kor-Dalke, which has not been repeated since the FA as a free route.” Soo you think it’s okay to add bolts to an existing route? Give me a break. Please DO NOT add bolts to the Kor-Dalke.
    I want to give some history on the FFA of this route due to some recent bolts being added to P1 and P3 without the FA’s permission, but obviously approved by the Flatirons Council. David Light approached me about this aid route, lost to time, while we both worked at Neptune’s in 2009. We ventured up there on a warm spring day and went ground up, truly into the unknown, hoping to find a pin or bolt along the way. David did an excellent job negotiating the strata on pitch 2 getting us to the Crow’s Nest. We didn’t find anything until the 4th pitch, at the end of a long fingery traverse, where I encountered some old hardware. Figuring out the crux by toproping off a high piece, I pulled onto a small ledge but could not find a place for gear. I traversed up and left on the strata only to realize I didn’t have enough gear and started downclimbing only to see the rope piling up on a ledge…. David was out of ear shot. I got back to the stance, situated, and communicated with David. At the time, I had no choice but to go straight up, hence the 5.9 variation of unprotected pebble pinching. Belaying David from the East face he cleaned out a crack for a belay at my stance for p4. Hot and tired we decided to come back the following week or so for the FFA. That day was much different, overcast and cool, our friend Erik Johnson along for pictures, and a solid idea of where the route goes. We swapped leads again, no falls or takes, and David led us up the 5th pitch following the left-angling strata to the summit. I am not one to post a “we did it first” sort of thing, but I am bummed there is a proposal for a new modern sport climb to cut through the left side of this route. The KD was done first, and I don’t care if “ no one wants a new sport route that involves a silly amount of danger or relies on very poor pro where the new line crosses the KD” as stated by a local climber…. It would be great to see this route repeated, who knows maybe it’s only 5.11, but I’m disheartened by the fact that bolts have been added to pitches “assuming” we did not climb them (I think they were approved and added for convenience for the more popular routes).

    Reply
  5. Fehim Hasecic
    Fehim Hasecic says:

    Go for it! I’ll never climb this but it’s awesome to see people still put the effort, time and money to put down some great lines.

    Reply
  6. Chase Smith
    Chase Smith says:

    It is not, nor has it ever been, okay to put in a new route at the expense of a previously established climb. There is a lot of rock out there. Find another place to go new-routing. If you have to, leave your “FA” as a top-rope only route so that it does not impact the previously established climb. That this is even being proposed shows a massive amount of entitlement.

    Reply
  7. David Light
    David Light says:

    I have something else that I would like to share with you. I think that you’re gonna get a kick out of it.

    “A climb is a work of art. To bring a climb down to one’s level by placing bolts shows a lamentable lack of respect for, and degrades the accomplishments of, it’s creator’s. As for the route done in elegant fashion, let it remain as a pinnacle of achievement to which we may aspire. Better we raise our skill than lower the climb.”
    – Royal Robbins 1962

    Reply
    • George Bracksieck
      George Bracksieck says:

      I vote NO because it would retrobolt an existing trad route, the Kor/Dalke. And the first-free asenscionists are AGAINST adding bolts to their route.

      Reply
    • Connor Dobson
      Connor Dobson says:

      This quote applies to easy trad and aid climbing done before sport climbing or really any hard climbing was ever done. Ethics change over time, this isn’t some remote mountain that someone is trying to turn into a sport climb and it only criss crosses an existing line.

      Reply
  8. Connor Dobson
    Connor Dobson says:

    A lot of posturing and bringing up old quotes from the 60s in this thread.

    One can still climb a route with bolts beside it on gear. Especially if the bolts are out of reach. Seems silly to lock up an entire face of rock because one party has climbed it in a zig zagging pattern.

    To the FA party, you got to climb it with your vision, now it is time for others to enjoy the rock.

    Reply
    • Kevin Worrall
      Kevin Worrall says:

      The proposed route crowds, crisscrosses and alters an historic and natural line. This disrespects history on an iconic Boulder area formation. There appears to be an independent possibility to the right of the proposed route, left of Hasta La Hueco, a better possibility for approval in my opinion

      Reply
    • David Light
      David Light says:

      If others were able to enjoy the rock without permanently altering it with the addition of bolts, I could support that.

      Reply
  9. Adam Block
    Adam Block says:

    Looks great and proud. No reason to let this panel go unclimbed by future generations. I don’t mind a little plugging widgets or some sick “runout 5.9 pebble pinching”.
    All input from non locals who can’t crank either route in their wildest dreams should be ignored.

    Reply
  10. Brian Stevens
    Brian Stevens says:

    I vote “no”. As much as I generally dislike the “we did the route first” attitude, I think this route will cause too much conflict and disagreements and may affect further new routing and bolting in the future. If the route can be done mixed, as Matt suggests higher in the thread, I think that could be a great compromise and possibly make it more interesting.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *