I do Not Understand this NCCS Grade

[G-spotter]

Why is this grade used for alpine routes. You should switch to European alpine grades like the Canadians are now doing.

 

I think the NCCS grade in America is being abused to. Every person seems to inflate this grade a bit at a time.

 

I look at example like route done by Jens and Ben on Nooksak Tower. They gave it Grade V for a 12 pitch route at 10a. Since it is remote and loose it might be TD- but is it really V when compared to V like on Slesse or in Yosemite? I do not think so.

[forrest_m]

[layton]

Commitment grades don't mean much when compared to other areas. I believe remoteness is concidered. All I ever look at is the technical rating, how many pitches (and how hard they are), how long the approach and descent are). If you know that, then the commitment grade shouldn't matter.

 

Look at other guidebooks. Polar cirus is given a V. It's right off the road and not too serious. Libery ridge gets anywhere from a grade III to a grade V. Tripple couliors get between II and IV+.

 

I just think because of the descrepancies that it's hard for a FA team to give a good commitment grade without feeling like a chestbeater or a sandbagger.

[specialed]

V means it would take the average party two days to do the route car to car right? That is a pretty broad definition so between two routes that are rated V one might be more committing, harder, or take longer than the other. It offers a good general picure of time commitment for a route that's all. Makes sense to me.

[Dru]

Hmmmm Interesting. I note for Layton sake that the Roman Numeral grade used in Waterfall Ice has nothing to do with the NCSS I-VII grade*. other than that i don't know. according to guidebook like beckey's, i-Vi is for "time required for average party" and is to deal with Climb only, not approach. so

I= a single pitch or two of low commitment

II = a short climb of a few pitches taking only a few hours (eg. R& D route or Diedre)

III = a half day climb (eg. Outer Space)

IV = a long all day climb with possibility of bivi for slow parties (eg. NE face of Redoubt or N ridge of Clarke)

V=a day and a half to 2-day climb, many parties will bivi once on the route EG. NE Buttress of Slesse or Liberty Crack are both given V in the guidebooks I believe. Fast parties will do in a day.

VI = generally a big wall climb reserved for long routes with aid or much hard free eg The Nose of El Cap or the Diamond on Bear Mountain or North Norwegian Buttress

VII = must be outside the Lower 48 - a big wall Grade VI climb in remote surroundings taking generally a minimum of several weeks to climb on the FA. even speed climbers will be unable to do it sub 24 hours. eg. Porter Route on Asgard, Great & Secret Show on Polar Sun Spire, Middendorf/Bongard on Trango.

 

by these criteria I would have to say the route referred to sounds like a IV to me.

 

But the definition of what a IV is is blurred. I would call routes like those on the Early Winter Spires, III but have seen them listed as IV. I would call Squamish Buttress and Angels Crest III as well but have seen that if you are trying to become an aspirant guide you can call them IVs when you submit your list of ascents where you have to have done something like 10 grade IV's to qualify.

 

I guess there are a lot of reasons to call IIIs IVs and IVs Vs especuially if you are trying to become a guide, or get a new route published in Alpinist or the AAJ, or make it into the ACMG or whatever to puff up your resume.

 

* Although Jo-jo has stated that to convert a Waterfall Commitment Grade I-VII to a Rockies Alpine Commitment Grade subtract 1 or 2 roman numerals so Polar Circus, a V, WI5 waterfall, would be rated a III or IV if it were an alpine route. HOWEVER the Alpine Commitment grades used in Dougherty's Selected Alpine guide, are not purely NCSS grades either.

 

This whole discussion is the reason McLane and Serl and Jones went with Euro Alpine Grades rather than NCSS grades in the recent guidebooks.

[specialed]

by these criteria I would have to say the route referred to sounds like a IV to me.

While the route might go in a day, the grade infers the approach as well. I have not done Nooksak, but I think the standard is to bivy above Price Lake the night before. So a standard ascent would take two days.

Most routes on Early Winters are III's. Except maybe for some on the longer east face, like East Butt of South Early, which I think is a IV.

[Cpt.Caveman]

It's all grad III until you are forced to bivy G-spotter.

[Dru]

While the route might go in a day, the grade infers the approach as well.

 

All the definitions of the system I have seen, SPECIFICALLY STATE that the Grade DOES NOT INCLUDE APPROACH BUT ONLY TIME SPENT ON THE ROUTE so a 12 pitch 10a that is found 2 days travel into the backcountry, should recieve the same grade as a 12 pitch 10a that is found 5 minutes hike from the road. otherwise any climb with more than a 2 day approach (like in the middle of the Pickets) would automatically be a VI even if it is a 1 pitch wonder like standard route on Challenger.

[JoshK]

While I've seen the hard "rule" being written like Dru describes it, I think people also blur this quite a bit. For example, I've commonly seen stuff like "well, this would normally be a grade III route, but the horrible bushwack and opportunity for being caught in bad weather make it a IV or V" So I guess that brings in the question of if it's a commitment grade for the actual climb proper or just a commitment grade for avoiding an epic or getting caught out. If it's the latter, then I would definitely argue that something 3 days into the back country is a hellavu lot more commiting than something 3 minutes off the road.

[specialed]

Hmm... perhaps you are corrent Mr. Brayshaw, but I think it is difficult to grade remote alpine climbs with the same system as used for pure rock climbs just a couple of minutes or hours from the road. That essentially makes the grading system irrelevent for remote alpine endevours. But maybe that's the point G-Spotter was making in the first place.

[jordop]

I still like the roman numeral NCCS grading as it clearly defines for me what can be accomplished in a day and encapsulates time much more succinctly than does the "new" French system. The D+/TD- zone seems problematic as it could include a six pitch 10b pure rock route on Grainger or a slightly mixed, more alpine route on Joffre or Slesse. Retreat for me is more easily had on "hard rock" features and thus the idea of "commitment" is still ellusive.

 

Also interesting to note Squamish guides haven't included NCSS grades since Smaill's guide, even thought Sean Easton applied a VI grade in the CAJ for Skullfuck and others continue to refer to Angels Crest as IV, etc., etc. Thus we are to take it that even though approach should not be taken into account and roadside and backcountry routes of similar scope should recieve the same rating, the "alpine" nature seems to be a prerequisite at least in the PNW (still used in Yosem obviously).

 

An imperfect but nevertheless implicitly understood system

 

 

[Cpt.Caveman]

But maybe that's the point G-Spotter was making in the first place.

 

G-spotter = Sprayshaw

[Dru]

But maybe that's the point G-Spotter was making in the first place.

 

G-spotter = Sprayshaw

 

My English is better than that!

[jordop]

But maybe that's the point G-Spotter was making in the first place.

 

G-spotter = Sprayshaw

 

 

 

I like the affected Euro dropping of the indefinite artcile "an", which is more Russo than "Andorran"

[Dru]

But maybe that's the point G-Spotter was making in the first place.

 

G-spotter = Sprayshaw

 

 

 

I like the affected Euro dropping of the indefinite artcile "an", which is more Russo than "Andorran"

 

I would guess G-spotter=PolishBob but he hasnt called anyone a cock chugger or posted any child abuse jokes yet.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Well I have to admit that I am actually the famed G-spotter

[eric8]

I like how Nelson gives the route a grade as well as the approach. This way you can tell if its a possible car to car or if bivi will be required.

[jordop]

Yeah, like the Grade I heli approach for Slesse which might shave you an hour or two. Better bring beer for everybody else

[Dru]

I still like the roman numeral NCCS grading as it clearly defines for me what can be accomplished in a day and encapsulates time much more succinctly than does the "new" French system. The D+/TD- zone seems problematic as it could include a six pitch 10b pure rock route on Grainger or a slightly mixed, more alpine route on Joffre or Slesse. Retreat for me is more easily had on "hard rock" features and thus the idea of "commitment" is still ellusive.

 

Also interesting to note Squamish guides haven't included NCSS grades since Smaill's guide, even thought Sean Easton applied a VI grade in the CAJ for Skullfuck and others continue to refer to Angels Crest as IV, etc., etc. Thus we are to take it that even though approach should not be taken into account and roadside and backcountry routes of similar scope should recieve the same rating, the "alpine" nature seems to be a prerequisite at least in the PNW (still used in Yosem obviously).

 

An imperfect but nevertheless implicitly understood system

 

 

Actually Easton called Skullfuck a V but said it could be linked with the then unclimbed seam above to be a VI as he thought the seam would be a pitch of a5. of course, maddaloni or someone soloed the seam and rated it a3+.... the only true vi at squamish is bald egos, although both fred beckey and steve sutton called zodiac wall a vi, it would likely be v today..but no one has done it since them so who knows????

[CascadeClimber]

I look at example like route done by Jens and Ben on Nooksak Tower. They gave it Grade V for a 12 pitch route at 10a. Since it is remote and loose it might be TD- but is it really V when compared to V like on Slesse or in Yosemite? I do not think so.

 

Rather than pontificating from the comfort of your desk chair, I suggest that you zip in there and cruise the second ascent, then report back.

 

Happy climbing.

[erik]

I look at example like route done by Jens and Ben on Nooksak Tower. They gave it Grade V for a 12 pitch route at 10a. Since it is remote and loose it might be TD- but is it really V when compared to V like on Slesse or in Yosemite? I do not think so.

 

Rather than pontificating from the comfort of your desk chair, I suggest that you zip in there and cruise the second ascent, then report back.

 

Happy climbing.

 

HEH

 

SPECIAL, HE IS CALLIN YOU OUT!!! TIME TO (NOOK)SACK UP!!

 

 

[specialed]

Lick my nooksack

[G-spotter]

thank you all for comments you have given. cascade climber i will climb that route this year if you say so but surely we can speculate about grading before then? compared with say the Navigation Wall on Sleese, 22 pitches at 5-10d, to say a 12 pitch 10-a is also V sounds surprising to me which is why i mentioned it. liberty crack at V also sounds suspicious, but perhaps the aid slows down many? if you only aid the roof pitch, this surely must be a IV. perhaps harder if placements is not in situ.

 

i have seen these mclane guides and do not agree with all grades he has given too. these routes on tantalus look harder and more remote than on joffre but joffre is given more high a grade in many cases. also this ice face in garibaldi park is given hardest ice route at td, is it really comparable to a td such as shroud on grands jorasses? looks like easier and mostly snow climbing to me.

[forrest_m]

[Jens]

I look at example like route done by Jens and Ben on Nooksak Tower. They gave it Grade V for a 12 pitch route at 10a. Since it is remote and loose it might be TD- but is it really V when compared to V like on Slesse or in Yosemite? I do not think so.

 

It is nice to get dialogue on this issue. Yes I agree with you whole-heartedly that we should all instead perhaps switch to the European grading for alpine routes. As for the Nooksack route, The statement that you make I disagree with. I don't want to get into a pissing match or anything but I have spent some time in Yosemite and I have found that the grade V's down their take less time than our nooksack route. The route involved lots of ice climbing and monkey buisness just to get to the Start of the rock. Also, I enjoy the discussion but go try some of my crag climbs if you think I grade really soft. I've established 5.12 crack routes and have climbed other grade IV's and V's in less than five hours with much soloing. The Nooksack adventure was a 3 day trip with 17 or so hours on the "climbing"-not approaches. I do think you have some legit points though about alpine grades. But also, go check out the route and tell me your opinion.

----------------------

Also, does anybody have a opinion about the following: Some of our grade iv's and v are a lot more commiting than other areas. For instance: A number of years ago I climbed the Givler? route on the NE face of Johannesburg. The climb was on a sunny day and was mellow. But it was also a really odd climb. Almost not even a single rurp crack existed on the WHOLE thing. (Funky North Cascades metamorphics) I thought to myself it started to rain or somebody got hurt and you had to bail you'd be screwed or dead. Very few other places are like this. -Especailly Yosemite or much of the Alps. Good cracks, people, bolts, choppers, fixed lines hut, or cracks at all for that matter.

 

Edited February 6, 2003 by Jens