Alpine climb ratings/grades - a question

[Jud]

OK, a question and a bit of a riddle...I just read a trip report and saw this at the end of the report: (4,100m, M5/5.9, WI4).

 

I understand the M5/5.9 ratings for the mixed and rock portions of the climb, and WI4 for the water ice portions of the climb --but what is the first part (4, 100m)? The figures don't appear to relate to the standard alpine grades (Roman numerals), etc. that I'm slightly familiar with. Anyone know?

 

Next question (the riddle): Guess the climb (sorry, no hints, but suffice to say you will probably be surprised by the answer! Just have fun with it.)

 

Jud

[counterfeitfake]

probably how tall it is.

[TrogdortheBurninator]

are you sure that isnt 4100m? i.e. the length

[G-spotter]

I really don't think there are too many 5.9, M5, WI4 climbs on Earth that have a length of 4100m, except maybe on the Rupal Flank of Nanga Parbat.

[Jud]

I really don't think there are too many 5.9, M5, WI4 climbs on Earth that have a length of 4100m, except maybe on the Rupal Flank of Nanga Parbat.

 

Duh...thanks, G-Spotter...it is indeed 4,100 meters...I saw the (4,100m) before the rock/ice ratings, and for some reason thought it was two separate numbers (4 and 100m )relating to something else...I'm easily confused, it seems

 

Yup, Rupal face of Nanga Parbat it is. It totally surprised me to learn that the House-Anderson Route they climbed in '05 is "only" M5/5.9/WI4...that is, I'd have expected it to be a more technically severe climb...but, of course, 4,100 meters would be pretty bloody severe...!

[G-spotter]

The Kurtyka/Schauer on the Shining Wall of Gash 4 is "only" 5.7. In fact, they simul-soloed a lot of it.

 

So therefore, it ought to be dead easy, right. Since the 5.7s in the gym are cake...

[Jud]

The Kurtyka/Schauer on the Shining Wall of Gash 4 is "only" 5.7. In fact, they simul-soloed a lot of it.

 

So therefore, it ought to be dead easy, right. Since the 5.7s in the gym are cake...

 

So, then, a logical question for a novice like myself is "how are such alpine ratings assigned". I mean, I understand that a 5.7 in the gym is, in various ways, different from 5.7 on rock (and that rock 5.7s, etc. vary a bit by location). So, why is the House/Anderson route "only" 5.9 and the Kurtyka/Schauer route on Gash "only" 5.7? Surely it can't mean that the hardest moves on those routes are 5.9 and 5.7? Or maybe so, and the difficulty comes in the extreme length of the route and the need for real speed to get it done and off the mountain quickly? I don't quite "get" alpine ratings. Presumably, it's the length of the route that is key when it has a "low" (i.e., 5.7) rating? Does that make sense?

 

Is there a basic guide somewhere to understanding alpine grades?

[TrogdortheBurninator]

elevation, length, objective hazard, heavy pack.... even though "only" 5.9, these factors make for a very extreme endeavor. Still, unless it is a rockiesesque sandbag, 5.9 should represent the crux pure rock moves.

[denalidave]

Also keep in mind that ratings are very subjective and inconsistent throughout climbing areas, disciplines and so on. Some areas grades will be much harder that others. I've seen plenty of Gym climbers talking real big numbers of what they can climb, only to see them get spanked by 5.8 or 5.9 trad lines. Grades can also be affected greatly by the type of climber doing the route. Some routes favor smaller hands, or taller people, etc. What could be a 5.11 move for a short person, might go 5.6 if you have a longer reach. When in doubt, stay below what you consider your average all around grade ability till you learn how the grades are for the area/type of climb you are doing. For me, I know I can usually lead something in the 5.10 range at say Ozone, but if I'm at Beacon Rock, I know I'd better stick to leading mostly 5.9's cause the grades are different, though pretty consistent for each area, IMO. It also seems that alpine rating tend to be stiffer, in general, than other types of climbing.

[Jud]

Thanks...what you and Trogdor say makes total sense. It's been puzzling me, trying to get a "feel" for what an alpine grade meant.

 

In sum, the grades appear to mean nothing...yet, on the other hand, mean something quite important! Puzzling, that

[ivan]

the bigger a mountain, the less precisely meaningful the grade

[Peter_Puget]

Still, unless it is a rockiesesque sandbag, 5.9 should represent the crux pure rock moves.

 

The idea that a rock rating equals the hardest "move" is not very accurate. Over the years there have been many arguments for and against this proposition.

 

The YDS system cannot perfectly differentiate between moves and continuous climbing in the best of circumstances. Some examples from classic climbs:

 

Butterballs .11c: no .11 moves on the entire pitch. This pitch is given an .11 rating do to the continuous nature of the climbing.

 

http://mountainproject.com/v/california/yosemite_national_park/yosemite_valley/105936538

 

not too far away is

 

Waverly Wafer 5.10+ Consistent climbing not given a plus for its continuous nature.

 

http://mountainproject.com/v/california/yosemite_national_park/yosemite_valley/105992951

 

a bit more to the right is

 

Catchy 5.10+ a one move wonder way easier to lead than Waverly Wafer.

 

http://mountainproject.com/v/california/yosemite_national_park/yosemite_valley/105939236

 

Crescent Arch at the Meadows was explicitly given a harder rating than any single move do to its continuous nature.

 

Locally compare two classic .11bs.

 

ROTC .11b No .11 moves but continuous.

 

Saggitarius .11b with a very short .11b crux.

 

The routes I have been comparing have all been cracks on similar rock. Throw in different climmbing styles (edging, friction, steep ....) and rock types (limestone, rough, polished...) and ratings become even more confusing.

 

My guess is any high altitude 5.9 rating would be nearly meaningless. Well I guess it would mean hard.

[Jud]

I just realized that my confusion over the grade assigned to the route in my example (House/Anderson route on the Rupal face of Nanga Parbat, obviously a hellacious climb, to say the least) is because it didn't have a French alpine rating descriptor attached to it, like ED...(it was just 5.9/WI3-4 or something like that, but 4,100 meters).

 

I wonder why no ED, etc. rating as I'd think something like that would be standard...but maybe for a super extreme route like that, everyone KNOWS anyway that it's ED2 or ED3 or whatever (Abominable?!), so no need to add those letters.

 

Anyway, thanks all for the clarifications and insights...very helpful as a "newb" trying to get a feel for what the various ratings mean/can mean/don't mean/might mean/should mean...etc.

 

Too much hard thinking is making me thirsty, and it's Friday...

[Dane]

The TD, ED, EDsup thing is Euro grading. These guys are Amurkins And someone was sure to ask them, "how hard!?"

 

But a 8000 meter peak with a 12,000+ foot face is something all together different. No translation past "alpine" needed.

 

4100m, M5/5.9, WI4 really translates to very high, very long, very cold and very dangerious up and down. No sleep for days, dehydration, little food and not a whole lot of air for the last 10,000 feet of the climb.

 

So 12,000+ vertical feet, M5-5.9X, WI5 and I would suspect thousands of feet of both difficult rock and ice all in big boots, crampons strapped on, lots of clothes but never really enough to be warm and a pack carrying all that is needed to survive while out and about for 8 days. It should be a given on this rouute but that X means if you fall you'll most likely die, rope or not.

 

I have done a couple of the "easier" Rockies alpine climbs @ 5.9 WI4 and had way, way more fun than I really wanted. I have no idea what these guys have done or how to apply that rating past..."damn hard, really scary and really, really long".

 

Pretty cool route isn't it?

 

http://www.russianclimb.com/nanga_house_2005.html

 

Hard to get a rating in the Rockies past 5.9 A2 or the newest version the Rockies "standard" M6 WI5. Best way to appreciate any alpine rating is get up one and then "study" your thoughts on the accomplishment.

[johndavidjr]

umm... just look at Mt Deception's "class 2" rating and then read NPS description that mentions numerous fatalities due to gravity. Fooey!!

[Jud]

The TD, ED, EDsup thing is Euro grading. These guys are Amurkins And someone was sure to ask them, "how hard!?"

 

 

http://www.russianclimb.com/nanga_house_2005.html

 

 

Oh, I understood that the Euro grades were pretty standard...i.e., looking at my copy of Alpine Select for SW British Columbia, Kevin McLane uses that system to rate the various climbs...so I figured it was a standard of some sort for alpine (amongst the welter of unique national rock grade systems".

 

Hard route? Hell, House makes it sound easy (thanks to my selective editing from the text in the link you posted).

 

"In the morning we rapelled back to the main ice gully and continued to our high bivuoac at approximently 7,400 meters...the technical difficulties eased the higher we climbed.

 

"... we arrived just below the south summit at over 8,000 meters and could see the last easy meters to the top."

 

Ya see, he uses the word "easy" twice...

 

[Jud]

"A great ascent is more than the sum of its severe pitches" - Lionel Terray...this quote, and the excerpt below kind of answers my question about what a grade means in an alpine context (i.e., like the House/Anderson route on Nanga Parbat's Rupal face, which I was originally curious about.) It made it very visually clear to me!

 

'As Terray wrote many years later "Of all the climbs I have done, Fitzroy was the one which most nearly approached the limits of my stamina and morale. Technically speaking, it is doubtless slightly less extreme that some of the climbs that have been done on granite in the Alps in recent years, but a great ascent is more than the sum of its severe pitches. The remoteness of the Fitzroy from all possibility of help, the almost incessant bad weather, the verglas with which it is plastered, and above all the terrible winds which make climbing on it mortally dangerous, render its ascent more complex, hazardous and exhausting than any to be found in the Alps." '

 

From: "The Mechanical Advantage", by John Middendorf http://www.bigwalls.net/climb/mechadv/