ice grades for the new WC Ice

[glassgowkiss]

hey everyone. last weekend made me thinking. i am convinced Don should change a lot of grades in the new guide. a lot of routes the grades are really, really soft (like a purring kitten). like carlsberg- did it something like 10 times all together and that pitch is never harder then louise falls (WI4+). i also have hard time to see how synchro can be 4+, since the longest vertical section is like 5 to 7 m at the most. did night' n gale 2 times and also can't see how this thing is 4+. on the other hand shreek or loose lady were quite hard for the grade. WI5 pitch on red wall was a very good value, at least full grade harder then carlberg

i know, i know, conditions hence the grades can vary. on the other hand there should be some yard stick to tell people how hard things are. i would suggest knocking a few of the climbs a bit down a grade or half, up some of them too. and use rockies grading standards:

cascade- typical WI3

professors- WI4

Carlsberg - WI5

Pilsner - WI6

just my opinion and suggestion

[Dru]

synchro is not given 4+ in the old guide

[J_Fisher]

I've heard it said that Carls Berg is easy for the grade but I've done it a few times and found it to be full value. It may not be sustained at 90 degrees but it's always been pretty technical for me--chandeliered and overhanging blobby things. As hard as the RH Weeping Wall, and a lot harder than the Carlsberg in Field (in the conditions I did it a couple weeks ago--more like 4/5--probably easy shape?). I would not recommend it to self-described 4/4+ leader. And certainly harder than any time I've done Louise Falls (including when Loiuse had a 1 M roof in the middle of the steep bit in 01/02)

 

Loose Lady is the hardest 4 on earth if its a 4.

 

Icy BC (3d pitch) is probably the 2d easist "5" I've been on (easiest being RH of the GBU). But I'd keep the grade for tradition's sake.

 

I backed off Shriek the one time I went up to it--skinny little 80 foot pillar didn't look very 4-ish to me. The big crack at the top sealed the deal for me.

 

Synchro is a 4, but isn't that what the book calls it? If you find it without the little pillar at the top of main climb (pitch 6 if you're not using 70s or simulclimbing) it's probably 3+.

 

Shit, I'd leave 'em as is, except for maybe LL and Shriek. I bet LL is the most backed off climb in Lillooet by a long shot.

[glassgowkiss]

ok dru, i don't have the guide in fronf of me. but even if it is graded WI4 is it really as hard as professors? honestly, it's more like a harder version of the cascade.

also i have heard a rumor the climb to the right of top pitch of Icy BC (name?) was given WI6. there is no way it would be that hard (did it 4 times over the years), since the whole thing is 20m long and there is no hand rest half way up that thing.

i think it would be good time to adjust ratings to the Rockies standards, since the book is "under construction".

i just don't see how a climb with only 5- 7m sections of vert can be called WI4. and even the little pillar at the top of synchro is like 10m long. so if synchro is 4 then red wall wandrer would be wi5+/6 since it's so much harder (and it's wi5)

ok, other comparisons- carlsberg vs real wi5- superbock, cold choice, sourcerer, postscriptum, fine line direct- all typical wi5 and a full grade harder then cars berg. my point is that a lot of climbs in the rockies were downgraded a few years ago (with a new ice guide). the other point is you have to hang on for your life on a wi5.

Edited March 5, 2004 by glassgowkiss

[Dru]

well you have to distinguish between a route that is 200m long and has 10m of WI4, and a route that is 200m long and has 200m of WI4.....

 

I think Synchro is harder than Cascade fer sure. Cascade only has about 60m of WI3, Synchro has like 190m of WI3 and 10m of WI4.

 

The route right of 3rd pitch Icy BC was already discussed in this forum as to grade and conditions.

 

I say - it's all whatever. There's no point in arguing if a climb is 4 or 4+ when it can form up anywhere from 3 to 5 depending on the season, thickness of ice, quality of ice and degree of traffic. Louise Falls is a good one cause it can be full 5 sometimes and easy 4 at others. I know of local climbs that have gone from 4+ to 3 in as little as a week as they filled out.

 

the grades on Lyle's ice map seemed accurate to me.

[glassgowkiss]

dru, how do you account for 200m of wi3 on synchro? it's like 70m + 60m of WI3 to a questionable 7-8 m of WI4 and the rest is WI2. and i said synchro is a harder version of cascade, but it is easier then professors hence it would bump it into WI3+ category. when you rap the route do you see any place where the rope is just hanging?

the route to the right of icy bc (wtf is the name anyway)- did not see the conversation on that one.

btw there is way more vert climbing on this house of sky (lower section) then on the whole synchro.

[fern]

I think +/- grades in a guidebook are dumb. Pick the best integer for publication and use your judgement on the day you climb it to decide whether it is +/- . I'm not interested in how coastal climb compare to rockies climbs on a scale of difficulty. I'm interested in how coastal climbs compare to each other.

[glassgowkiss]

ok, i buy that. what i am saying then they don't even compare to each other. if carls berg is 5 then red wall is 6 (at least)and that would push shreddie and other harder climbs into wi7.

[Dru]

it can be easier than professors and still be wi4.

it can be easier than carlsberg column and still be 5.

 

routes can be easier or harder than a representative route of the grade without being up or down a grade.

 

like when i did night n gale it was 3+ the way we did it but I have heard and seen pix of it being 4+ under different conditions. i would say it is about a 4 most of the time, just guessing. as for + and + they are really only used in the Rockies for 4, 5 and 6, 3+ is a local usage and there are some 3+ that would be 4 in the Rockies and some that would be 3's. I have only done Moonlight in Kananaskis once it is given WI4 and I thought it was very similar to Oreegon Jack WI3+ out here. Then again Panther Falls and Bridal Veil at the Cineplex area are both given a 3 in Jo-jo's guide and I thought they were both harder than Moonlight when I did them, it could have just been conditions. But I guess my point is you can't just use one route as a grade standard you need several for each grade and the boundaries blend into each other. Also Bob you seem to be using steepness as the only criterion whereas perhaps ice quality comes into it too.... out here the ice is often way worse than it gets in the Rockies and a climb like Shannon Falls is usually climbed under conditions rarely if ever seen or climbed in the Rockies.

[J_Fisher]

I think + and - grades are helpful, especially since WI grades cut a much wider swath than rock grades anyway. If we had "Rock 5" covering roughly 5.8 to 5.10+, I think you'd find a plus or minus very handy, even if ice is more variable. At least you know the mean to expect the variation to deviate from.

[glassgowkiss]

dru, actually the ice conditions are like the most forgiving i have ever seen. there is more freeze/thaw then in the rockies, hence the climbs fill up much more. it might be more wet, but that is a question of comfort, not the grade. it rearly gets colder then -15c, which in itself makes for easier climbing.

all i am saying that the "older climbs" are a bit overrated. and that makes newer climbs put up by jia or rip guy out of sync. i agree with night'ngale a 3+. both times i thought it was like that. so what i am saying why not dowgrade it a bit and make the whole thing more logical?

[thelawgoddess]

I think + and - grades are helpful, especially since WI grades cut a much wider swath than rock grades anyway.

they *could* be helpful if ice was consistent. i've taken newbies to "wi2" routes that were definitely wi3+ at the time. are ice routes generally graded for when they're in their best condition? that would account for stuff seeming to be graded easier than the shape they might be in - even if consistently off over the past few years ... especially considering the - um - "obvious" global warming.

[Dru]

I dunno about old climbs being graded easy and new climbs being hard, because Shriek of the Sheep was graded 4+ way back in the 80's.

 

The first time I did Cherry Ice it was WI2 for sure then later on I've seen it as a 3.

 

Bob I have never seen such wet, rotten shitty ice in the Rockies as I have climbed out here. But then I guess I haven't climbed in the Rockies in March either. All I'm saying there are few routes in the Rockies at sea level, that come in 8 pitches high and then are totally gone 4 days later, like the Mousetrap does....

[glassgowkiss]

dru, u are startning to split hair.

first of all what i am reffering to are climbs that form pretty much every year. like carls berg, shreek night'n gale, icy bc. so leave climbs at sea level alone, since they hardly ever form, so 80% of the climbing crowd will never get on them in the next 10 years. (mostly due to the fact they are stuck for 5 days at the office while there is high pressure and it is cold).

and my point was that shreek, loose lady, red wall wandrer all are in the same range, which would make them into WI5 category. explain it to me, why is there a car always under loose lady and carls berg doesn't see that much traffic? (even though i think ll is harder then cb). it's because carls berg is rated 5 and ll is 4, that's why.

[rat]

blah blah fucking blah.

[Dru]

what rat said

[layton]

you are a bunch of nagging bitches

[Stemalot]

blah blah fucking blah.

 

Not trying to single out rat here but why does every ice gradeing topic ends up with someone saying "blah blah blah" and then others agreeing with it?

 

If we always look for exceptions in how one climb is easier or harder than what it "should" be, then we'll never come to a satisfactory gradeing system. Since ice formation changes, the rating system should take that into account. Instead of giving a climb a simple grade "4" or "5", why not try "4(in early season) to 5(later season)" or some range that captures the dynamic property of ice formation. I am not picky about what "grade" I climb. I can either climb it or barely climb it...or chicken out on it... People picky about a particular grade will never be satisfied with others' opinion anyways...if you are one of them, stop wasting everyone's time!

Edited March 5, 2004 by Stemalot

[daler]

Bob,

 

I have l climbed professors 4 times and Syncronicity 5 or 6 times over 8 years. Syncronicity has always been every bid as hard as Prof.. Although not as long and easier to get off of. So professors gets a harder grade but the same tecnical rating in my book.

Carl's Berg(lilloett) has always been harder then Carlsberg(Field).

 

Go backwards in the grade. If you are going to give the last pitch of Syncro WI 3 then you are going to have to give the second to last tear WI2 then you have to give the first appoach Ice WI 1. I don't think so.

 

Both times I have climbed Shriek it has been WI6- early season. So I do believe that one and Loose Lady are sandbags at the current WI ratings.

 

You state that you don't understand how a section of 5-7 meters of vert can be WI 4. From Gadd's book "WI 4 A short bit of Vertical ice or a longer pitch of 75 to 80 degree ice. Most novices will make it up on a top rope without problems, but leading is serious."

 

5-7 meters would cover a short bit of Vertical ice in my book.

 

The point being there can be a wide range within a WI grade.

 

Bob when you going to come out to colorado and climb. Kristie and I have tons of room. It would be fun to see you shake up the boulder crowd!!!!!!

 

cheers,

 

dale

[glassgowkiss]

i might visit colorado in sept.

[thelawgoddess]

Since ice formation changes, the rating system should take that into account. Instead of giving a climb a simple grade "4" or "5", why not try "4(in early season) to 5(later season)" or some range that captures the dynamic property of ice formation.

it's not really that simple. it can vary from season to season; not just within a season. guidebooks are just guidebooks for crying out loud.

[thelawgoddess]

i might visit colorado in sept.

i doubt you'll find much ice then.

[Dru]

i am interested if there is anyone who DOESNT think shriek and loose lady are sandbags. although i would support leaving them in the guidebook at 4+ anyways sort of like index 11d

[sill]

what are you talking about? The cool routes in Rocky Mountain National Park form up at the end of September, Smear of Fear, Feilds Chimney, Alexanders. A friend of mine climbed the Smear in September last fall.

[Don_Serl]

shriek and loose lady are THE sandbags of SWBC!

how was i to know? i hadn't climbed either back when bruce and i put the guide together, so we just believed what others told us (well, actually, bruce was on the FA of shriek, btu they probably found shriek in uniquely filled-in condition; it was early march when they did it.)

 

i've sure heard lots of tales about people finding it 5+ (or even 6 in early season), so that's what it'll get in WCI2.

 

loose lady might come in to 4+ condition every now and then, but it's easily the most backed-off route around, and 5+ seems way closer to typical.

 

dale, bob: you guys both have significant rockies grade 6 experience, and i'd like your input on grading the short horrendous things we get around the coast. the "rules" in 'waterfall ice' define WI6 "A full 50m pitch of dead vertical ice or a shorter length of nasty proportions", so the question comes down to "how much shorter?" and "how nasty?" for it to still be considered grade 6. are there any 20m WI6s out there (i don't think so..)

 

also, while saying the grade is "technical", i believe common usage is to 'grade the pitch' rather than 'grading the moves' like you would on a rock route. i'm fine with that.

 

bottom line is that most short super-funky stuff out here tops out at 5+ - it's just not long enough to get a "6" by rockies standards. tom bridge reversed that tradition with some of his routes, giving "6s" to body shop, fender bender, as seen on TV, house of cards, etc. if it was "technical 6", he called it that.

 

continuing that direction will yield a fair number of "soft-touch" 6s out here, and i'd rather stay consistent with the rockies. maybe we need to innovate with a "6S" grade, the S being for "short"?

 

or do i go with 5+/6? cuz stuff which is sometimes 6 is often 5+ or even 5 later in the season...

 

or just call it "6" if it 'typically' is "nasty" enough?

 

opinions?

from other people too...

 

thanks for the input,

cheers,