Grades?

[daler]

I Started a new post in response to PMS's post on Spindrift about the grades. I feel that the North face of Big Four is not a grade 5 setting, the approach is all flat on a packed road. And there is a trail almost always to the base. The face could easily be retreated from without leaving much gear. In Selected Climbs in the Cascades the grade range is described as grade 1 the easiest to grade 5 the most committing and difficult. Liberty Ridge is given grade 5 which in my book is a way more committing climb, although tecnically much easier. The northeast buttress of Slesse is given grade 5 and is tecnically harder than spindrift. In Alaska a route like Ham and Eggs is given an Alaska Grade 4-, probably grade 5 in the cascades. Spindrift as far a committment goes is easier than all of these.

I'm not trying to inflame the spindrift post, but rather starting a conversation on grades in general.

 

dale

[Jason_Martin]

Dale,

 

I don't think this is inflaming at all. I think it's important.

 

As this week is the last chance I have to make minor changes in the ice climbing book, I'd like to hear other opinions as well.

 

Jason

[Dru]

Alaska Grades do not convert to NCSS Overall grades.

NCSS grades are not the same as Cdn Rockies Water Ice Commitment grades - generally speaking, to convert a WI commitment to an equivalent NCSS, subtract 1 to 2 numbers. For instance, Slipstream, VI 4+ as a water ice route, would be V WI4+ if rated as an Alpine route.

 

The whole system is confusing,and that's why Euro alpine grades make more sense.

 

Also, if you Do use NCSS its real important to use the Roman numerals. Otherwise, if you say Spindrift (eg.) is a "grade 5", do you mean its a

 

a) V, WI4

b) IV, WI5

or c) V, WI5????

 

d) you probably don't mean it's a IV, WI4.

[Peter_Puget]

Rankings of any sort are destined to be ridiculed, debated over and appealed to as a matter of course. Over time they slowly change and perhaps become meaningless. Think of the term third class. If I said that route was three pitches and then third class to the top you'd rightly conclude that the difficulty of the 3rd class section was much less than if Johnny Bachar said the same thing. Take the Grade V rating on Steck-Salathe. Formerly a multi-day climb; now who really spends a night on it? Not many. Think of Space Shot in Zion. How many parties have run out of daylight on the Davis-Holland route? Some California climbers whose names many would recognize had a forced bivi on top Lovin' Arms! These are all rock routes which have far less variability in conditions than any winter alpine route in the Cascades and yet there appears to be much imprecision in what the rating/grade really means. Yvon Chouinard noted that in a couple of years of rock climbing at a specific location a person could become truly an "experienced" rock climber but that due to the high variability of winter conditions measured not only over days, weeks, and months but also years, that it was near impossible to become truly experienced in winter climbing over a small number of seasons. To expect much in the way of precision in winter alpine grades is folly.

 

PP

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

(Forget it.)

[layton]

I agree its not a grade 5 either. I'd give it a 4. 4+ if the climbing is in challenging conditions. As stated by a few folks, the approach should not be concidered.

[mattp]

I believe the approach SHOULD be considered. As I understand the grades, they are not only to indicate the lenght of time it takes to complete a climb, but also the commitment factor. A six pitch rock climb on Snow Creek Wall is not as serious as six pitches on some spire in the nothern Pickets, and the grade SHOULD be affected by this. This doesn't make the grade II into a grade VI, but it probably does in my mind make what might othwerwise be a grade II into a grade III. My general impression is that the approach and decent have been taken into account in the grade system over the years.

[layton]

Okay, then I'd give Big 4 a IV+ if you climb the cliffs or brush instead of avy gullies.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Grades are subjective and even change on winter routes. I climbed Mt.Youwilldie and it's rated 5+ with the approach a gruelling 38 miles on a camel toe with alpine hookers.

 

Considering the routes in question and how many times some of them have been done use some common sense about the grading may be off due to few ascents and consensus.

 

That said I have climbed the most committing difficult route in the world. M420 A5++ M14 WI8 and call it chestbeaters.com. It's on a super secret crag in the northern hemisphere. Look for the I luv myself photos in the new climbing rag or online at http://iluvme_secret_ice.com

 

[JoshK]

I completely agree with Matt. I think it's odd to not want to include the approach. If I am talking about the overall effort and wear and tear on me as a climber I expect the grade to include all this. If we start leaving out the approach, what next? climate? altitude?

[Dru]

If you hike for a day to get into Cathedral, and climb the SE buttress as an easy day with 20 minute approach from your camp on the next day, and hike out on the 3rd day, does that 10 pitch 5.9, suddenly deserve a higher grade than a 10 pitch 5.9 in the Washington Pass area with a 20 minute approach from the car?

[JoshK]

Personally I would say yes, but perhaps I'm just expecting the grades to tell me something that you aren't. The climb of cathedral is going to require more of a time commitment, require me to plan on a larger weather window to climb in, and put me farther from help should something happen.

[AlpineK]

I don't agree.

 

I've always considered the overall grade to take into account the day of the climb but not the whole trip.

[mattp]

I agree with the idea, Mr. K, that I don't think anybody has ever suggested incorporating a day of backpacking into the rating - or at least not to a great degree - but they have taken into account the approach from, and descent back to, what was thought to be the standard camp -- haven't they? As I noted already, I don't think a 6 pitch rock climb in the Northern Pickets (say one of the Swiss Peaks) would be a grade VI, but even though the rock pitches in-an-of-themselves might not be all that serious, I believe the grade (not the rating) would take into account what would almost certainly be some kind of approach mountaineering and a mountaineering descent.

[Dru]

Id say the situation I described, the routes should have the same grades.

 

On the other hand, a 10 pitch 5.9, with a death bushwack approach, and requiring you to carry over bivi gear to descend, and with bad rock, I would suggest should get a slightly higher grade than either of the 2 given above.

 

Here's my revised list of some well known routes with grades. The only way, in my opinion, to make sense of overrall grades, is to make a list of routes that everyone can agree on grades of

and then categorize other routes by :harder than, easier than, more commiting than, less commiting than, etc.

 

I: Mountaineers Dome; Classic Crack; any single pitch in the Smoke Bluffs; Mt. Challenger summit route

 

II: West Ridge of Prussik; Diedre; R&D; Beckey route on Lib Bell

 

III: W Face or NW corner of NEWS; Outer Space; Angels Crest; N ridge of Baker; S buttress of Cutthroat

 

IV: N ridge of Clarke; SE buttress of Slesse; Backbone Ridge or Serpentine Arete; Liberty Ridge; Flying Buttress on Redoubt

 

V: NE buttress or N rib of Slesse; Navigator Wall on Slesse; Direct E Buttress Slesse; Lib Crack; Ten Years After on the Chief; Andromeda Strain in the Rockies; Steinbok NE arete, either route; direct N buttress on Bear; Beckey-Chouinard in the Bugs

 

VI: East Face of Slesse; The Diamond on Bear; North Norwegian Buttress on Index; North face of Alberta; Nose on El Cap; Bald Egos on the Chief;

 

Beckey guides used to have Tables like this, comparing Rockies, N Cascades, Yosemite, Tetons etc.!!

[fern]

I don't understand why it's desirable to try to distill a

number or code or symbol from information that could more

easily just be described in words. Like:

 

Approach: 10 miles on trail, 2000' elevation gain, 2 creek crossings.

Climb: 400', 10 pitches total, 2 pitches 5.9, rest easier, gear to 3",

Descent: scramble down to east, 3x25 raps.

 

If you want to indicate this route is hard than that route

then just say it ... I can think of 2 guides that have a

relative difficulty list of all the contain routes, as well

as others which list the contained climbs relative to popular

climbs in other areas.

 

Nobody would buy a guidebook that was just a list of route names

and secret codes anyways, it's the words and pictures that

sell the book. And when people come here, or bivouac.com or whatever

other database they for beta they aren't looking for a specific

number, they are looking for anecdotal information.

[Dru]

but fern, chestbeating requires numbers!!!

[mattp]

Fern, I agree that that the descriptive information in any guidebook is more valuable than the grade, but I believe it does add something to have the quick numeric indicator of overall seriousness. Despite the arguments from Dru and Don about how the grades are confusing and the European system is better, I have found the NCCS grades to generally be informative over the years -- in a way that would not be so easily gained from "Approach: 10 miles on trail, 2000' elevation gain, 2 creek crossings. Climb: 400', 10 pitches total, 2 pitches 5.9, rest easier, gear to 3", Descent: scramble down to east, 3x25 raps.."

 

In a recent conversation with Gordy Skoog, who was trying to compile some new route information from trip reports on CascadeClimbers.com, he voiced the complaint that the trip reports contained all of the ancedotal information and usually had a rating for the crux pitch, but generally lacked the grades.

[Cpt.Caveman]

In a recent conversation with Gordy Skoog, who was trying to compile some new route information from trip reports on CascadeClimbers.com, he voiced the complaint that the trip reports contained all of the ancedotal information and usually had a rating for the crux pitch, but generally lacked the grades.

 

Tell him all my reports are grade VI. and that if anyone could argue it's because they did the bypass, when it was easier or aid climbed with tape and leashes

[freeclimb9]

"Grade Rating:

I A short climb with a short approach and easy descent. Time required is an hour, or two.

II A 1 or 2 pitch climb with a short approach and easy descent by rappeling, or downclimbing. Time required is a few hours.

III A multi-pitch route at a low elevation which may take several hours, or a route with a long approach that requires good winter travel skills, or a route subject to occasional winter hazards. The descent is often by rappeling. Time required is half a day.

IV A multi-pitch route at higher elevations, or a remote route which requires mountaineering and winter travel skills. May be subject to objective hazards (i.e. avalanche, or rockfall). The descent may be difficult, and involve rappeling. Time required is a most of a day.

V A long climb on a high mountain face that requires significant competence as well as commitment. The climb is subject to objective hazards in addition to bad weather. The approach and descent may be long and difficult. Time required is a long day, or two.

VI A long, multi-pitch route on a high alpine face. The climb may include winter alpine climbing logistical problems in addition to severe objective hazards ( i.e. avalanche, falling seracs, high elevation and remoteness). Time required is many days."

 

[fern]

mattp but what information specifically is lacking from my

description that you would infer if I called it a IV on top?of that

 

[Dru]

freeclimb9 said:

"VI A long, multi-pitch route on a high alpine face. The climb may include winter alpine climbing logistical problems in addition to severe objective hazards ( i.e. avalanche, falling seracs, high elevation and remoteness). Time required is many days."

 

El Cap is a "high alpine face" and "remote" ???

[Dru]

Lets not forget that grades change over time. Lotus Flower Tower was originally rated a VI. When freed, it was called "one of the world's few all-free Grade VI's". Now it is routinely called V.

[Alpine_Tom]

Seems like approaches, particularly in winter, vary as much as the climbs do. If the road's closed so you have to hike or ski another four or five miles (Baker, Big 4, Colchuck) then by that standard, it's more committing. And there's the approaches that are easier in the winter when the snow cover minimizes the bushwhacking.

Nelson differentiates the approach and the climb in his books, that seems like a sensible way to do it. But really, you'd have to be pretty naive NOT to be aware that the Northern Pickets ares a long hike in, and requires a lot more commitment (and weather planning, etc) than Snow Creek Wall.

[mattp]

Fern -

A comparison of verbal descriptions would not as easily promote an overall comparison of how serious the route might be compared to one that is perhaps a little harder, though shorter, with an easier approach, but more difficult descent. Note that I use the word "might" -- because applying and interpretting the grades is subjective, at best. But I still maintain that I have found them useful over the years even though once I focus in on a particular route I focus more on the details of the description along with what I know about the range, the formation or the mountain, what I can gleen from a topo map, reports from others who have done the route, etc...