Kalymnos - Safety First!

Based on the tragic accident on Kalymnos last month, and the fact that we know of two other bolts that snapped 1.5 years ago, all of which appeared ok on the outside, we have sought expertise from David Reeve. He is a technical advisor to the UIAA, which has funded a large part of his research, and his findings have been presented in his Crag Chemistry. The bolt in the picture is from one of the two snapped bolts on Facatelendos (6b+) in Ourania in 2024.

We have presented his thoughts in previous articles over the years and here is his latest Vertical-Life article from last year. Titanium vs 316 and 304 bolts

As we have seen that many ascents have been logged the last week on routes bolted in 2004, we wanted to present this short article as quick as possible. Reeve thinks we should be much more restrictive when it comes to how old bolts we could trust.

”Age means nothing without knowing the environment. Once it is known we are dealing with a sulphate cliff, I would distrust any stainless steel older than 2 years [on a sulphate cliff].”

”There is no doubt that if you avoid climbing pre-2005 routes you'll be safe. After all if you don't climb, you can't fall. However, beware flipping that argument around to conclude climbing post-2005 climbs will be safe. This is fallacious because the greatest determinant of risk is whether you have bumbled upon a bad crag or not. ”

The 2004 bolt that broke in Ourania was sent to Reeve in 2024 and also some rock samples where he found out that two out of six crags contained high level sulphate: Iannis and Secret Garden. The broken hardware from the recent accident have also been sent to the Australian and as well as samples from more sectors. We will follow up as more details are revealed.

Here is a statement published at Kalymnos Climbing Facebook page.

”Reading between the lines, my guess is that the intention of the pre-2005 restriction is that there is a theory that divides Kalymnos bolts into those of a) good metal and those of b) bad metal. The good metal bolts are thought to have replaced bad metal bolts after 2005. This certainly makes more sense than the alternative postulate that bolts on Kalymnos suddenly go bad after 20 years.

I'm assuming that we are looking at the "304 (A2) bad: 316 (A4) good" argument here. You are not going to tell them apart at the crag, so lets use date of installation as a guide. Those who read my cragchemistryDOTcom blog will know that I have spent years working on this distinction. The matter is super-complicated and I'll leave it for now as - yes 316 does seem superior but don't count on that always being the case. The mental shift I'm advocating for is to park all such good metal, bad metal talk and instead embrace the good crag, bad crag distinction. On Kalymnos we know for sure we have 3 bad crags, and have solid reasons to suspect they may be more.

If they are bad, it is futile to repeat all the hard lessons of Tonsai or Cayman Brac and we should move to the known solution of titanium bolting. This distinction between good and bad crags has nothing to do with the vibe. It is scientifically based and if you want to learn how the distinction is made, then take a look at my post on Ourania here.

So coming back to where I came in. There is no doubt that if you avoid climbing pre-2005 routes you'll be safe. After all if you don't climb, you can't fall. However, beware flipping that argument around to conclude climbing post-2005 climbs will be safe. This is fallacious because the greatest determinant of risk is whether you have bumbled upon a bad crag or not.”