ice grades for the new WC Ice

[Stemalot]

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.

 

I know that ice formation changes from year to year. But if an ice route forms consistantly, then "grade 4-5" would work. If a route doesn't even form up, like 3 Ring Circus, then you can't climb it let along grade it consistantly. Guide books are just guide books for sure...and they are temporary along with our grading system.

[Dru]

just rate everything grade 3, I'm sick of ppl whining about "soft Squamish grades" give them "hard Lillooet grades" to balance it out

 

sort of like Lyle's Marble Canyon rock grades with Coyotes Penis at 5.4 and Pavilion edge at 5.8

[Jens]

My vote would be to resist the tempation to downrate stuff up there for kind of a weird reason:

 

The last several Lillooet ice seasons it seems like at least 1 out of every 2 climber cars is a WA plate. Many of us Washington folk typically make our visits to lillooet before WA ice usually comes in or after it has left- for example, a lot of us make trips the first week In December and again in the early weeks of March (to give us longer ice seasons). In January, many of us stay in WA and hit U.S. ice. When a lot of the Lillooet routes are getting traffic is in very early seaon or very late season when the ice is really funky,running wet,chandeliered, or thin. So even though ice in SWBC may not have the pure enduro factor of other areas, it can sure feel funky and technically hard- and with bogus screwplacements? (Especially the firstweek in Dec.)? So guidebookauthors have a liablilty when the neophyte climber jumps on something that is rated "4+" in the new guide and can't get a decent screw or stick. Where didIread that in our part of the world we often have a higher % ofwaterfallice accidents because the screws and sticks are often less than bomber in our warm temps? Any other thoughts anyone?

 

 

I'm not sure if my post make sense.

[Dru]

yeah you are saying Don should pander to the WA market and screw the locals

 

the fact is you see a lot of WA climbers in Lillooet because they are not clued in enough to know about Whistler, D'Arcy, and Fraser Valley/Canyon ice as witness all the climber rushing by the amazingly IN Mousetrap to go Marble Canyon and the Rambles a few months ago

[Jens]

You are right. Many of us are very ignorant about that other stuff. And some of us know that when some of those lower elevation areas are in, we have great ice in down here and don't need to makethe drive north.

 

 

As a sidenote,

My last drive up Duffey I saw 7 climber vehicles. 1 with BC plates and 6 with Washington plates.

[Dru]

well when the ice around whistler is in who drives all the way to the duffy anyways?

[glassgowkiss]

My vote would be to resist the tempation to downrate stuff up there for kind of a weird reason:

 

The last several Lillooet ice seasons it seems like at least 1 out of every 2 climber cars is a WA plate. Many of us Washington folk typically make our visits to lillooet before WA ice usually comes in or after it has left- for example, a lot of us make trips the first week In December and again in the early weeks of March (to give us longer ice seasons). In January, many of us stay in WA and hit U.S. ice. When a lot of the Lillooet routes are getting traffic is in very early seaon or very late season when the ice is really funky,running wet,chandeliered, or thin. So even though ice in SWBC may not have the pure enduro factor of other areas, it can sure feel funky and technically hard- and with bogus screwplacements? (Especially the firstweek in Dec.)? So guidebookauthors have a liablilty when the neophyte climber jumps on something that is rated "4+" in the new guide and can't get a decent screw or stick. Where didIread that in our part of the world we often have a higher % ofwaterfallice accidents because the screws and sticks are often less than bomber in our warm temps? Any other thoughts anyone?

 

 

I'm not sure if my post make sense.

sorry to say that, but your post makes no sense. climbing is YOUR personal responsibility. a guidebook author is not responsible in any shape or form. so according to you the grades in the Rockies should be changed too, because many climbers from WA or CO visit here and the rating system is much softer there?

ok, on the same token let's downrate all the routes in index because some gaper fader from a rock gym might find it difficult?

just voicing such opinion is scary. makes me wonder if the present climbing population is becoming so soft that we need to cater to the lowest most common denominator? ice/mixed/alpine climbing IS dangerous, regardless of the level of a difficulty. it is one's responsibility to use judgment.

[forrest_m]

bob, i'm not sure i'm following you here. you say that upgrading the ratings at index (which we all agree are somewhat stiffer than the national average) would be bad because it would make everything the same and decrease personal responsibility. yet your whole premise in your original post is that we should downgrade at lillooet because it isn't consistent with the rockies. are you saying it's OK to sandbag but not OK to inflate?

 

all in all, i prefer the regional differences, makes life more interesting.

[Peter_Puget]

Jens - Are you suggesting that the ratings should be adjusted upwards because a significant proportion of the climbers buying the book will be climbing there at the seasonal tails when the conditions will tend to be less than perfect? I wonder how Alex dealt with this problem. Should a rock pitch be rated harder because for 9 months of the year it has a seasonal wet spot?

 

Forrestm - It seems that inflating is bad because it will lead climbers to over estimate their abilities. This error in personal judgement could lead them to make decisions that they may regret on other perfectly rated routes.

[Alex]

The main purpose for any rating at all is to give some guidance for an immediate region, where you can assess climbs relative to other climbs in the area. Take a second Bob, Don, Dru, others, to realize that one thing you might be trying to do is "re-align" West Coast Ice with Rockies grades. Rockies grades have always been a little on the hard side compared to the rest of the continent/world (not a bad thing), .. I am not sure true re-alignment is really necessary in the big picture... what is likely more important is that the grades are consistent throughout the region, or at least accurate for a climb in typical conditions.

 

Consider that you could extend this conversation to "bringing Skaha grades in line with Yosemite" or "Exit 38 ratings in line with Index ratings". This has value, certainly, but its more valuable for the routes at Skaha to be consistent with each other, than to be consistent with Yosemite.

 

As far as the specific examples cited here, I've only found a few routes in Lillooet that are not really consistent with the vast majority, and these have already been mentioned:

Loose Lady is a pretty hard 4+, but I don't know if I would call it a solid 5 certainly not (Rockies) 5+.

Synchro is 4, a soft 4 when I did it, but it has ice that is as hard as Bourgeau Right, Weeping Left, or any other "classic" Rockies 4s.

Never done Shreik, but I've heard of so many people backing off of it that it seems a pretty aptly named route (the Sheep in this case being you and me...) !!

[Alex]

I wonder how Alex dealt with this problem.

 

Jason and I followed standard ratings protocol, which was to try to get the consensus for the routes rating in "typical" conditions. For most routes this is pretty easy. Many routes in WA and BC have been around a long time and climbed often enough to get a solid consensus. No one would call Drury in typical conditions a 5, or a 3. Other routes are harder, especially ones that only come in once or every few years...Requiem For a Post Modern World is a good example in WA. The Gift is a good example in BC.

 

Thin ice, brittle ice, etc makes it feel much harder!! Soft ice, warm day, good sticks makes any 4 feel a full grade easier.

Edited March 8, 2004 by Alex

[glassgowkiss]

for all my critics. first you have to take into account a proximity of the BC ice and the rockies. montana and n. wyoming have the same standards of rating as the rockies. that's for one. a lot of people from WA and BC climb in the Rockies, so i don't think using the same yard stick should be a big problem. second, the grades are not even consistant within themselves- which i see a bigger issue then whether to call synchro 3+ or 4. ok, if everyone votes synchro a basic WI4 (lower end), i don't see how night'n gale can be rated harder and how shreek or loose lady can also be 4+!

forrest, i am not for sandbaging, nor for inflating. i just think that in the past 10 years ice equipment evolved, we all use much better ropes, ice tools, crampons, ice screws. a pitch could feel like WI5 15 years ago with a pair of stubais in your hands, but with modern tools, screws which are much easier to place, lighter ropes and better cloths it takes much less effort (both physically and mentally) to do the same pitch. it happened all over the world with rock routes with the development of sticky rubber, cams and other advances.

my initial post contained 2 points:

#1.ratings of some routes are easier then the grades given in the Rockies. due to the proximity i think it should be the same and writing a new guide would be an excellent point to change things a bit.

#2. the ratings of some routes is not consistent within the same area and should be adjusted.

let me also clear this up. i am not talking about routes that for every 3- 5 years or routes that form only for 3 days a year. i am talking about routes which form every year and are climbed by many parties.

i think using + in the rating is a partial solution. let's say ( i will catch shit for this one) we call Carls Berg a 4+. that would mean that on average it can vary from 4 to 5. changing shreek to 5+ means you need to be a solid 5 leader to get up on the thing. of course there is going to be a year when it will be a classic 4+ or 5, but such is life.

using of M scale for mixed/ thin climbs. for instance Dale's route at Marble. why not call it M 5/6. in the Rockies M scale usually means burlier, more physically demending climbing. M5 doesn't equal WI5.

in any case, i know Don is doing a great thing by trying to update and rewrite this guide. sorry Don for being pain in the ass on this issue. maybe a little gathering over a beer would be a better idea for trying to come up with cosistent and more acurate ratings? ciao- r

for all you winers out there wining and whimpering about bad pro early in the season or slushy ice- i can give you a quarter each so you can call someone who cares. somehow all these seasons in lillooet area i managed to find decent pro when i needed, so i just don't buy this argument. finding screw placements is just a part of the game. if you guys toproped less and led more you would not write shit like that- all i can say- soft.

Edited March 8, 2004 by glassgowkiss

[glassgowkiss]

from AAJ:

"WI3; sustained 70 degree with possible long bulges of 80-90 degrees; resonable rests and good stances for placing screws

WI4: Continuous 80 degree ice or fairly long section of 90 ice broken up by ocassional rest

WI5: Long and strenous, with a ropelength of 85-90 degree ice offering few good rests; or a shorter pitch of thin or bad ice with protection that's difficult to place"

[Dru]

well don't forget your clinometer

[MrDoolittle]

WI6: Easy 5.9