S ratings

[ashw_justin]

The system seems incomplete and unnecessary, but just for the sake of argument:

 

http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/ratings/s_ratings_article_web.htm

 

Discuss...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe an additional rating qualifying the surface conditions (ice>corn>powder) ? Technicality (crevasse field, tightness, etc) ?

 

Care to rate some local favorites?

[JoshK]

 

seems like rating a snowslope is next to impossible and kind of silly. Conditions dictate everything.

[cracked]

 

You can say the same thing about alpine climbs, or ice climbs, or snow slogs, or.....

 

[ashw_justin]

Hence my opening statement. Obviously the best way to judge a slope is to find out when you get there.

 

 

Just wondering how you would rate conditions, hypothetically, as if you cared.

[JoshK]

I figured somebody would say that I think for skiing it's way more subjective however. I dunno, maybe others feel otherwise. Even with ice I think the rating gives a general idea of the difficult. With skiing, so many factors weigh in.

[cman]

seems like there is a huge jump from S5- to S5. 45 degrees is steep, yes, but the difference between 45 and 55 is huge. at 45 you can actually carve small turns, given the space, while 55 is full on jump turn and much more pontential for getting out of control.

 

of course if you straight line it the difference is negligible

[skykilo]

In the right conditions, one can carve on 55.

 

I think the rating system is good for what it is. Think of it theoretically as rating the relative difficulty of all descents given the exact same conditions. In perfect corn we can demote anything to S0 sweet.

[AllYouCanEat]

For some reason, I keep thinking about beavis and butthead talking about 's' ratings. I thought I'd bring that up. Ha. We are all beavis and butthead's talking about skiing. So, here's another morsle to feed our disease.

 

My spin: I agree with sky that the rating system is good given ideal conditions. I believe I've heard McClean say this in the past. He went further to say that knowing a route is S5 here you can be somewhat certain that you can tackle an S5 route elsewhere...

[mounthay]

As far as I know, the S ratings are based solely on steepness and exposure given favorable skiing conditions. It's implied that the skier will understand this and take into consideration making adjustments in the rating if the conditions warrant it. Using a previous rating+conditions, you should decide whether or not to ski a line. In McLean's The Chuting gallery a slope of S5 is described as: 45-55 degrees expecting injury if you fall. I think the reason their is so much range is that rarely is there a slope that is straight 50 degrees consistent the whole way down. the book allows for S5- and S5+ describing a run in which there is more 45-50 slope vs. 50-55 slopes. that's my interpretation anyway...

[ashw_justin]

So what if you had a three-factor rating such as:

 

(angle).(surface).(technicality)

 

angle - convert from the S system

surface - 0 powder, 5 clear ice

tech - 0 impossible to encouter an obstacle, 5 impossible without rappels and/or suicidal cliff-hucking

 

so, the rating for any particular slope would occupy a range, varying within this range depending on conditions. Maybe that would defeat the whole idea of trying to rate it anyway, but at least you would be closer to being able to realistically classify descents.

[iain]

seems like there needs to be an X add-on, since there are some not-so-steep runs that would be really bad to fall on, such as gentle glacier terrain that runs out to an icefall or crevasse-riddled areas.

[ashw_justin]

seems like there needs to be an X add-on, since there are some not-so-steep runs that would be really bad to fall on, such as gentle glacier terrain that runs out to an icefall or crevasse-riddled areas.

 

oh but that's part of what I meant by technicality.

[JoshK]

What rating would a low angle traverse threatened by an overhanging serac be??