I do Not Understand this NCCS Grade

[JayB]

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.

 

This sounds pretty right on to me.

 

I have a question about the French system. Does this system include separate ratings for technical difficulty and overall commitment, or do they try to compress both aspects of the climb into a single system? If so, I think that is a major shortcoming.

 

Also, does anyone seriously believe that it is even possible to devise a system to rate the difficulty of alpine routes that will be perfectly consistent across all regions and disciplines? Does anyone believe that if we were to change to this system tomorrow that we wouldn't be having this same discussion a year from now, but instead of debating whether a given climb is a IV or a V, we'd be arguing about whether or not is was really a TD+ or a TD?

 

It could well be that I am missing something, however, as I am really not familiar with the French system, and know little about it other than it uses letters instead of numbers. If anyone can explain why the French system is objectively superior to the one currently in use I'd certainly be willing to listen, but change for the sake of change is both confusing and silly.

 

[JoshK]

 

 

BWAAHAHAHA...

 

great pics forrest

[Don_Serl]

this is very long; you've been warned...

 

the NCCS overall grades were developed by leigh ortenburger and others in the early '60s, mainly based on experiences in the tetons. teton guidebooks of the time list the following considerations in determining the overall grade:

length of route, time required, average and maximum difficulty, ease of escape or retreat, effects/hazards from weather, objective dangers, and "challenge or degree of commitment".

 

ortenburger distrusts attempts to describe grades with words, which he correctly says are subject to different interpretations by different people, and says that gradings can ONLY be applied by climbing "example routes" and by comparing and correlating. in this way, consensus in the climbing community is reached, and a "grade" it established and generally accepted.

 

the problem is that the NCCS overall grades soon began to be applied to pure rock-climbs, first in the valley, and then throughout north america. eventually (with a few exceptions) they lost most of their "overall-ness", and degenerated pretty much into indications of time required.

 

the exceptions are the tetons (still) and the canadian rockies, where the NCCS roman numeral overall grades are to be interpreted as originally defined. (these are NOT the same as the rockies ice I-VI grades, by the way! ... which furthers the confusion!) otherwise, NCCS is "over" as an alpine overall grading system. thus the importation of the Alpine Grading system from europe.

 

you can find good descriptions of the AG system in "alpine select", "selkirks south" and on pps 77-79 of the 2002 canadian alpine journal. i'll use the same system in the waddington guide (and, yes, it WILL be out soon; i'm hoping for may, latest...)

 

my part in transposing the AGs from europe was small, but my scientific background led me to "analyze" about 80 routes from the alps to try to uncover the "typical" characteristics of a variety of components of each grade level in current european usage. there are very wide ranges of each component at any given grade, but a COMBINATION of "high content" of numerous components is certain to result in a high overall grade. it's kinda part analytic, part syncretic, distilled into "gut feel". as with the original NCCS grades, the only way to truly determine the grades is by DOING and comparing. climb; drink; brag; argue - perfect!

 

finally, against the advice of ortenburger, i offer the distillation of what i found from my examination of the routes from the alps.

a caution: the euros have trouble too:

1. alpine rock-climbs, especially in france, get overgraded because of high technical difficulty alone. we have attempted to "roll back" this distortion for our application here. the technical grade already tells you how difficult the climbing is; the AG should be "independent" and add something. and...

2. ice routes in europe are overgraded compared to alpine rock and to "mountaineering" routes, except perhaps at the VERY top of the scale. technique and equipment have come a vast distance over the past 20 years, and ice routes have NOT been downgraded. kevin, dave jones, and i have "gone modern" on ice gradings - hopefully, to an adequate degree.

 

so, here's my personal "take" on Alpine Grades:

 

F = “facile”, easy

An easy climbing objective presents very little technical difficulty on rock (3rd to 4th class) or snow (slopes to ~40°, easy glaciers and ridges). Route-finding is easy, descent is straightforward, and hazards are minimal. The overall psychological challenge is low, although the route may involve an altitude gain of 1000m or more.

 

PD = “peu difficile”, not very difficult (literally: “a little difficult”)

Rock climbing on a not very difficult route will be in the range of 4th class through easy 5th class (to about 5.3). Snow slopes can be at about 45°, and exposed ridges can be involved, but there will be little or no ice. Approach, route-finding, and descent are not challenging. Hazards are usually limited. The degree of challenge is moderate.

 

AD = “assez difficile”, quite difficult (literally: “difficult enough”)

Rock climbing on a quite difficult climb lies in the low-5th class range (5.0-5.4); or the route may be short (a few pitches) and up to 5.5, 5.6, or 5.7. Steep snow and ice (45° to 50°) may be present. Broken glaciers, knife-edge ridges, and easy mixed climbing may be involved. Route finding, escape, and descent can be problematic, especially in bad weather, although - significantly - an AD route is often the descent of choice. Rockfall, seracs, avalanches, cornices, and/or crevasses may present hazards. AD routes are a significant challenge.

 

D = “difficile”, difficult

A difficult climb is usually over 400m in height with rock to middle 5th class (5.4 to 5.7). Alternatively, the route may be short and technically hard for the grade (5.9 to 5.11-). Very steep snow and ice (to about 55°) with short steeper bulges, corniced ridges, complicated icefalls, and/or moderate mixed climbing may be involved. The climbing is usually sustained, and the terrain may not be solid. Route finding can be challenging, escape may not be possible, and the descent (unlike that of easier grades) is generally not made by descending the same route (except by rappel). Hazards may be high. The climb may be remote. Climbs of this level of difficulty present high degrees of psychological challange.

 

TD = “tres difficile”, very difficult

Very difficult routes are generally over 500m in height and technically hard; lengths are more typically over 1000m. Rock difficulty ranges up to 5.8 to 5.9. Alternatively, the difficulties may be as high as 5.11+ for short routes or very limited sections of longer routes. There may be a bit of easy aid ( A1 or A2). The route may involve bad, steep, exposed snow and/or very steep alpine ice (to about 65°) with short sections of WI3 or WI4 (75° to 90°). There may be nasty icefalls, double-corniced ridges, and difficult mixed climbing. The climbing is usually sustained. The terrain may be loose, but is often very solid, particularly on technically difficult rock routes. Route finding can be very difficult, and escape (as opposed to retreat) is usually not possible. The descent may not be difficult, but it is invariably “over the top” or by rappel back down the route. Hazards may be high. The climb is often very remote. The degree of psychological engagement is very high.

 

ED = “extreme difficile”, extremely difficult

Extremely difficult climbs are often very long (1000m to 2000m) and very technically difficult, but can be shorter and extremely difficult and/or dangerous and/or committing. There is usually a combination of high degrees of several engagement factors involved in an ED rating. Rock climbing will be sustained at a minimum of 5.7 to 5.8, and will often be much more difficult. There may be difficult aid. Snow and ice will be very steep (over 60°), and may be thin and/or include waterfall pitches of WI3 or WI4 (75° to 90°). Icefalls, seracs, and ridges can be vicious. There may be extremely difficult alpine mixed climbing. The terrain may be loose, but is often very solid and very hard. Route finding can be very difficult, and escape is almost never possible. The descent is often long, complicated, and technical. Hazards may be extreme. The climb is often very remote. Total committment is required.

 

i'd appreciate feedback on whether these definitions make sense.

 

thanks for taking the time to read...

cheers, don

[Dru]

TD = “tres difficile”, very difficult

Very difficult routes are generally over 500m in height and technically hard; lengths are more typically over 1000m. Rock difficulty ranges up to 5.8 to 5.9. Alternatively, the difficulties may be as high as 5.11+ for short routes or very limited sections of longer routes. There may be a bit of easy aid ( A1 or A2). The route may involve bad, steep, exposed snow and/or very steep alpine ice (to about 65°) with short sections of WI3 or WI4 (75° to 90°). There may be nasty icefalls, double-corniced ridges, and difficult mixed climbing. The climbing is usually sustained. The terrain may be loose, but is often very solid, particularly on technically difficult rock routes. Route finding can be very difficult, and escape (as opposed to retreat) is usually not possible. The descent may not be difficult, but it is invariably “over the top” or by rappel back down the route. Hazards may be high. The climb is often very remote. The degree of psychological engagement is very high.

 

 

How did the Good Bad & Ugly, a 5 pitch route in Garibaldi with one pitch of 11a, get in at TD- then? Hmmmm something else for Kevin to fix in the 2nd edition.

[Dru]

I have a question about the French system. Does this system include separate ratings for technical difficulty and overall commitment, or do they try to compress both aspects of the climb into a single system? If so, I think that is a major shortcoming.

 

Also, does anyone seriously believe that it is even possible to devise a system to rate the difficulty of alpine routes that will be perfectly consistent across all regions and disciplines? Does anyone believe that if we were to change to this system tomorrow that we wouldn't be having this same discussion a year from now, but instead of debating whether a given climb is a IV or a V, we'd be arguing about whether or not is was really a TD+ or a TD?

 

It could well be that I am missing something, however, as I am really not familiar with the French system, and know little about it other than it uses letters instead of numbers. If anyone can explain why the French system is objectively superior to the one currently in use I'd certainly be willing to listen, but change for the sake of change is both confusing and silly.

 

Jay instead of 6 Grades for all N American climbs outside of Baffin, the Euro System gives ~17 when the letters are used with the +/-: F, PD thru TD each potentially minus, plus or unmodified, and ED1-4. The system is most useful at the upper grades. If you do a VI like on W face of N Howser you might think you are ready for the N Face of N Twin also at VI. But if you know that the W Face Howser route is ED1, and the Twin route is ED4, you might realize you want to go do an ED2 next...

 

or, Lib Ridge is commonly given a IV, its been called D- as an alpine rouute. But take another IV like East Buttress SEWS; probably more like D+/TD- I would guess. So the Euro grade helps to distinguish this.

[mattp]

I don't really understand the qualitative difference here. Having read Don's description of the AG system, it sounds to me as if it is simply another variation of the NCCS attempt to grade routes according to "length of route, time required, average and maximum difficulty, ease of escape or retreat, effects/hazards from weather, objective dangers, and "challenge or degree of commitment". I have never been overly confused by the application of the NCCS grades to pure rock climbs, because it has always been obvious to me that a climb of Liberty Ridge is a much more serious (read dangerous and committing) endeavor than a climb of the Grand Wall despite what their relative NCCS grades or technical difficulty ratings might indicate. When I evaluate a climb, I look at the given ratings but also at the verbal description, the range or formation where it is found, and a topo map. I also usually make it a habit of trying a fairly moderate route for my first climb in a new area, and thus I am unlikely to equate the overall difficulty of a grade VI 5.10 rock climb in the Bugaboos with a route rated the same on North Twin. To me, the potential indication of 17 different levels of difficulty seems likely to be just as much a source of debate and confusion as increased information.

 

I appreciate that Don may be clarifying things by falling back upon a more "pure" grading system that hasn't been "polluted" by being applied to pure rock climbs, but I don't see AG ratings as inherently better than the NCCS and YDS combination that I already understand.

[Dru]

AG replaces NCSS but the YDS and other technical info is still included.

[JoshK]

AG replaces NCSS but the YDS and other technical info is still included.

 

So, basically, from what I can tell...it all boils down to change for the sake of change. It's still subjective, and prone to the same drawbacks I-VI is.

[Dru]

i resisted it at first but i like it more now. on the other hand the way the i-vi works in the cdn rockies works there too. fwiw a iv in the rockies would be a V in the cascades.

[Don_Serl]

more re: AG's:

 

Jay B:

1. as well as the AG, the technical grade for rock (free and aid) and ice is still provided, just as in the NCCS system. original NCCS used the "F" technical grades (F5, etc), but they've been supplanted by YDS (5.10a, etc).

2. an absolutely essential element of ANY grading system is debate (or, endless argument, as some would have it). the point of all grading systems is to communicate information about difficulty, challenge, commitment, risk, and so on amongst the climbing community. it takes a while to reach consensus, but - to me - this is to be embraced, not viewed as a source of frustration.

you can't "define" what 5.10a is; you can only climb 5.9s and 5.10s and "learn" what 5.10a entails. and once you've "learned" that, you have an internal "benchmark" that allows you to climb another route and to say to yourself, "that's a 10a", or perhaps, "fuck, what a sandbag, that's WAYYY harder than 10a!"

similarly with overall grades.

 

Dru:

you point out that a 5 pitch route out in backcountry garibaldi park probably shouldn't be TD-; fully agreed. but you can only make that judgement once you've climbed a few TD's, and have a "feel" for what TD entails. i find that the written descriptions of the "boundaries" of the grades which i distilled from european usage help (they do for me, anyway), but they are no substitute for route-to-route comparisons. and benchmarking...

 

for instance:

*** the "benchmark" AD alpine ice face is the northeast face of the courtes: 800m of 45d snow/neve, with easy access, minimal hazard, and an easy off.

*** the "benchmark" AD alpine ice couloir is the whymper couloir on the verte: 550m 45d snow/ice with a 100m section of 55d; moderate glacial approach; descent via route; serious stonefall hazard unless you get up and down early.

*** an "example" D alpine ice face is the north face of the obergabelhorn: 500m of snow/ice to 55d; longish but moderate glacial approach; relatively minor stonefall hazard; longish descent ridge, with some low 5th class downclimbing.

*** the "benchmark" TD alpine ice face is the swiss route on the north face of the courtes: 800m of ice at 50d-55d, with a pitch of WI3 high up; easy approach and reasonable descent; significant stonefall hazard.

*** the "benchmark" ED1 alpine ice face is the corneau-davaille on the north face of the droites: 1000m, ice to over 70d, some mixed to about 5.7, perhaps a few moves of A1; easy approach and descent, but serious stonefall hazard. barry blanchard in the latest "gripped" describes how john lauchlan made it seem do-able by describing it as climbing the north face of athabaska, then climbing takakkaw falls, then climbing cascade. brilliant!

 

given these "standards" (and a few more to further illuminate the boundaries of each grade), it's not too hard for me to agree with the central couloir on joffre at D- (in the "D" range, but a little "light"). it's 350m of ice to 50d-55d, with minor moderate mixed to finish, not-too-difficult approach, a low-5th descent if you do a couple rappels, and not too hazardous.

 

and so on...

 

Josh K:

i don't view this as change for change sake. there is serious confusion about what the NCCS grades "mean". maybe there's even conflict: is "IV" just a long day, or a pretty stout route, probably with mid 5th to maybe 5.10 rock, possibly some steepish ice, some hazard, a bit of difficulty in routefinding, maybe a bit of complication to get on and off, etc? if we call that TD, at least we know that it's ONE thing that's being described.

 

 

the Alpine Grades have some advantages, and maybe they will catch on. or maybe not. they ARE going to be "in circulation" for the next decade, what with selkirks south and north, the SWBC alpine select, and waddington guides using them. time will tell...

 

cheers,

[texplorer]

I never knew so much thought was ever put into rating systems. I suppose climbers spending hours awaiting abatement of inclement weather need something to wisp away the hours. The crux of development of a comprehensive rating system seems to be including these factors in a short easy to understand number or letter grade:

*difficulty and quality of rock, ice, mixed climbing and snow

*length of each of the segments of a climb

*hazards on route ex. crevasses, avalanche, cornices, altitude, wildlife (cougars), and rock and icefall

*approach/ return including ease of descent

*commitment factor and remoteness

 

My favorite guidebook uses the BBB system (Brayshaw/Bourban/Beckey) rating system. It seems to come the closest to giving an accurate estimation of what the climb is like.

 

# of indicates how adept you should be at that local area. i.e. if you head to prussik peak you should be familiar with snafflehound deterrent practices, ranger avoidance, and the burgner/stanley version of 5.9

 

# of indicates logistical needs for climb such as food, gear necessary.

Example: The nose of el cap might be a climb.

 

# of indicates how much of a hardman you must be such as . .

. . .can you drink an old E while fingerlocking might be a climb.

[Dru]

I rate tex's post