klenke Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 I partially disagree with those who say class rating has nothing to do with exposure or visa versa. Exposure must have a means with which to be rated, otherwise there would be no way of qualifying the distinctions of a route. Every now and then you might be climbing someplace that's on banal ground like a forested slope or a low-angle talus field. You may come to a short step that is no higher than 10 feet above the deck but is the only way to continue--like a short cliff band in the forest. You must ascend the step. At no point are you in danger of killing yourself. This step requires the use of hands to pull yourself up and over. Is this class 3 or class 4? You used your hands, so by CBS's last definition, this is class 4. Yet, there is no exposure, so it's not really that big a deal. Others would not rate it as high as class 4 because of this lack of "exposure". It is subjective to the observer at the scene. In short, my contention is that a high percentage (say 75%) of the ineffable sense of what makes a section of a climb at a certain class level is based on the difficulty of the climbing itself. The remaining percentage (25% in this general case) is taken up by the exposure, the mental part of the endeavor. The actual percentages governing the mental exposure and physical difficulty varies from person to person (based on their experiences and fortitude) and from pitch to pitch. My nine cents worth (10 cents after taxes). Climbing is not an exact science nor will it ever be. There is always going to be personal overlap in the class 2, 3, 4, & 5.0 thru 5.14+ ratings. Personal factors such as height, reach, shoe-size, etc. often dictate how hard class 4 or class 5 moves are to someone as compared to another. Quote
Figger_Eight Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 It may be prudent to use protection with a class IV g/f. Quote
Attitude Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Figger_Eight said: It may be prudent to use protection with a class IV g/f. Especially if it is a trade route. Quote
Rodchester Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Klenke: Your example of the 10 foot wall in a forst misses thpint of the difference between exposure and the impact of a fall. Exposure is mental and has nothing to do with the damage that will occur in a fall. In your example there is no danger of being hurt, but nor is there exposure. Exposure to me is not exposure to injury, but more how your mind perceives the situtation. It USUALLY makes you feel much higher off of the deck than you actually are. Quote
jordop Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 You can often get around using pro on a well travelled Class 5 g/f if the jugs are large enough Quote
Dru Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 If your class 5 g/f is a pro, that must get expensive. Quote
lummox Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Dru said: If your class 5 g/f is a pro, that must get expensive. maybe she a real money MAKER. pimpin hoes and shit Quote
matosan Posted June 18, 2003 Author Posted June 18, 2003 Here's a description of classes from 'Freedom of the Hills' Class 2: Involves some scrambling and likely use of hands; all but the most inexperienced and clumsy will not want a rope. Class 3: Moderate exposure may be present; simple climbing and scrambling with frequent use of hands. A rope should be available. Class 4: Intermediate climbing is involved and most climbers want a rope because of exposure. A fall could be serious or fatal. Another definition is that it begins when all beginners and most average climbers will want and should have a belay. Usually natural protection is easily found. Quote
jordop Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 matosan said: Here's a description of classes from 'Freedom of the Hills' Class 2: Involves some scrambling and likely use of hands; all but the most inexperienced and clumsy will not want a rope. Class 3: Moderate exposure may be present; simple climbing and scrambling with frequent use of hands. A rope should be available. Class 4: Intermediate climbing is involved and most climbers want a rope because of exposure. A fall could be serious or fatal. Another definition is that it begins when all beginners and most average climbers will want and should have a belay. Usually natural protection is easily found. The boot/axe belay no doubt Quote
cj001f Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Rodchester said: Your example of the 10 foot wall in a forst misses thpint of the difference between exposure and the impact of a fall. Exposure is mental and has nothing to do with the damage that will occur in a fall. Huh? My definition of exposure has always had to do with the impact of a fall. A "long exposed traverse" may only be 5.1, but if a fall drops you 1,000 feet, it's exposed. 4th class, to me, is almost always 3rd class terrain with substantial fall potential (somethin like the top of Teewinot). Quote
Rodchester Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 My definition of exposure has always had to do with the impact of a fall. A "long exposed traverse" may only be 5.1, but if a fall drops you 1,000 feet, it's exposed. 4th class, to me, is almost always 3rd class terrain with substantial fall potential (somethin like the top of Teewinot). Hmmmm...well our definitions are clearly different. In my experience, exposure is mental and has nothing to do with the fall impact. It is more perception than fact. As I said earlier, you could be on a traverse 1000 feet up, but if you fell you'd only hit a ledge 10 feet below. So even though the actual fall is only 10 feet to the deck, you feel exposed to the 1000 foot fall. Take a cool climb on good holds that happens to be in a Chimney that if you fell on without protection you'd fall 100 feet. MOST would not feel any, or at least much, exposure because they are in a chimney. Now take the identical route, in diffculty and holds blah blah blah, and now take it out of the chimney, put it on a face 1000 feet above the valley floor (though only 100 above the start ledge) and say it is on something like Devils tower and each side cuts away. You now have exposure on all sides and the mind feels exposed. (Some don't get spoked at all. Some get used to it. Some never do). The diffculty is the same, still a 3rd class, or a 4th class or a 5.8. It doesn't matter. But the exposure changes. But htechange in exposure does not, in my mind, change the diffculty rating. Otherwise the Upper Exum Ridge would be a 5.8. And Tewinot's East Face would be 5.6. It's not. At most its 5.0. Most call it exposed 4th class. (The East Face is the main route...right?) Just my understanding and my experience. Quote
Rodchester Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 As far as the impact of a fall goes, I have always related that to the available gear or how protectable a route is. i.e. Upper exum Ridge the Frction Pitch is a great example. It is 5.5 (or 5.4?) but it is said that it is an exposed pitch and that the crux move is hgard to protect. It doesn't change the rating. Also some guide books will go as far to note that a route or a move or a pitch is an X, or one that will result in a death if the leader falls (Likely to anyways). The rating of the climb stays the same. Quote
Rodchester Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 One thing to think about: What is the difference between a 100 foot fall and a 1000 foot fall? Correct me if I'm wrong, you still hit terminal velocity on each and the impact is the same. The difference is mental. Quote
Dru Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Mental difference will affect the decision to rope up or not. Hence the class of the route for the same degree of difficulty. otherwise everyone would be able to free solo (="3rd class") anything they can succesfully top rope without falling Quote
Distel32 Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Rodchester said: One thing to think about: What is the difference between a 100 foot fall and a 1000 foot fall? Correct me if I'm wrong, you still hit terminal velocity on each and the impact is the same. The difference is mental. I don't think you're going to to hit terminal velocity on a 100 ft fall. If your entire body is spread out and you're falling parallel to the ground your TV is approx 128mph. If you are in a pencil position fallinf perpendicular I think it is around 231mph. I remember those numbers from 3 years ago when I did a paper on it. I believe you need a couple hundred feet to reach TV but I could be mistaken, it's been awhile since I read anything about it. Quote
Dru Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 what do you know about it, you dont even reach initial velocity from a sit start let alone terminal velocity Quote
Rodchester Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Distel32: I got to thinking about it and i had remembered that it only took like 150 feet to reach TV. So I looked it up and you are correct, it takes a good bit longer. TV for a falling man is normally around 125-130 mph. But it can go up to 200 with a powerdive. Very high altitude jumpers have hit 600 mph Any way, the one web site said it usually takes about 400 yards and another said 21 seconds. That struck me as kind of long, but hey what the hell do I know. Anyway, 100 foot fall onto rock is most likely going to kill as would a 1000 foot fall. :cr osseye: Quote
allthumbs Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Rodchester said: Very high altitude jumpers have hit 600 mph isn't that mach 1 or thereabouts? jeez btw, on edit I went and looked up mach - I quote "It is said that the aircraft is flying at Mach 1 if its speed is equal to the speed of sound in air (which is 332 m/s or 1195 km/hr or 717 miles/hour.) " So if some fukka is free diving at 600 mph, all i gotta say is good luck mutha fukka - hope your oxygen valve is operating. Quote
klenke Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 trask said: Rodchester said: Very high altitude jumpers have hit 600 mph isn't that mach 1 or thereabouts? jeez btw, on edit I went and looked up mach - I quote "It is said that the aircraft is flying at Mach 1 if its speed is equal to the speed of sound in air (which is 332 m/s or 1195 km/hr or 717 miles/hour.) " So if some fukka is free diving at 600 mph, all i gotta say is good luck mutha fukka - hope your oxygen valve is operating. Ha ha. Non- engineer trying to discuss engineering matters. Note that the speed of sound in "air" [or any medium] is dependent on the altitude as well. The speed of sound (acoustic velocity) at sea level is greater than that of, say, 20,000 ft. (It is even greater in water, but that is another matter.) Whether or not you can breathe has nothing to do with mach number. Mach number is simply a ratio V^2/[(gamma)xGas Constant RatioxTemperature]^2 and says nothing specifically about air pressure. The air pressure affects the Temperature which in turn affects acoustic velocity, a = SQRT[(gamma)x®x(T)] There. There is your geeky late-night engineering homework solution. Quote
allthumbs Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 well, so would it be easy enough to breathe without oxygen at 600 mph? Quote
Rainierwon Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Ok, from Fido's perspective, and after scrambling with dogs on dog routes, I can vouch for this...... A dog can claw its way up a third class route but would run outta options and not make it up a forth class route. -J Quote
Off_Route Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Terminal Velocity: 614 MPH. Exposure: 102,800 Feet. Joseph Kittinger, 1960 August 16. Quote
Dru Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 the quest to be the first unpowered human to break the sound barrier Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.