ashw_justin Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 seems like rating a snowslope is next to impossible and kind of silly. Conditions dictate everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 You can say the same thing about alpine climbs, or ice climbs, or snow slogs, or..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cman Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skykilo Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllYouCanEat Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mounthay Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 What rating would a low angle traverse threatened by an overhanging serac be?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.