Thin Fingers Rating!

[spiderman]

11c???...not likely. I think everyone should be climbing at Nason Ridge where there are no guidebooks...or just leave your guidebooks at home when you go cragging. If it looks good, then climb it.

 

[summitchaserCJB]

I agree. Have you done any routes up there?

[Rad]

I agree. Have you done any routes up there?

 

Yes, but we're not telling you what they're rated

 

[summitchaserCJB]

Fair enough. I get to look at that ridge a lot! But I won't tell you how.

[spiderman]

Summitchasercjb. Done a bunch of routes a Nason Ridge and WOW....IMHO it's the best sport climbing destination in the state by leaps and bounds. If anyone here hasn't been there, they really need to go get some!!! It's mighty steep with incredible friction. I can't really give you any beta on all of the routes I've done out there because I don't have a clue what they are...other than 5 star quality!!!

[summitchaserCJB]

hmm..cool.

[spiderman]

The only rating beta I have is it's all 5.11-5.13. Might be a few 5.10's??? But who knows, people on this web site seem to be pretty closed mouth about it like it's some super secret. LOLOLOL

[summitchaserCJB]

Well ya. How do you get there ?

[spiderman]

Park next to a cluster of mailbox's on Hwy 2. About 15 miles east of Steven's pass. Maybe 15.1-15.2. Or if you're coming from the L-worth, park 2.3 miles west of the rest area. The trail is DIRECTLY BEHIND the cluster of mailboxes. The approach trail is very straight forward and takes 15 minutes.

[summitchaserCJB]

I don't think thats right. I know the TH for Nason Ridge is along HW 2.

Or do you mean the other side of Nason Ridge. Not the Lake Wenatchee side. If so I think I know the area. Not very steep as I recall.

Edited April 22, 2010 by summitchaserCJB

[Kimmo]

11c???...not likely. I think everyone should be climbing at Nason Ridge where there are no guidebooks...or just leave your guidebooks at home when you go cragging. If it looks good, then climb it.

 

ahhh one of those "don't worry about the grades, just go climbing" types, as they emphatically tell you what the grade of a particular route isn't!

 

i've climbed at quite a few areas over the years, and yeah, i think TF would be around 11b or c at many other places, only because of the boulder problem. if you skirt the boulder problem, i'd say 10d. but in conforming to index's ratings, 11a with slab crux is certainly consistent.

 

and yeah, nason's pretty fun. the steeps are unfortunately a bit of a rarity for us seattlites.

[spiderman]

My milages could be just a touch off in either direction. But that's how you get there...and it's super duper steep! Steeper than Little Si or any other climbing destination in the state.

[spiderman]

Nice catch Kimmo! That was pretty funny that after I spray my route rating opinion, I then start off on my who gives a sh#* about ratings ideal. LOL

 

I wish we had more steep stone around!!!

[olyclimber]

LOL!

[sandalsclub]

I think a more accurate way to rate Thin Fingers is 5.10 V3.

 

What a great way to describe a route. Very refreshing and yet simple. Thanks for sharing your insight Kimmo!

[RuMR]

shoot...i had already said 5.10 V2....

[G-spotter]

E2 6a

[j_b]

Not including bouldery starts in overall ratings always seemed fishy to me. What if the crux is right off a good rest, do you discount it too?

[DCramer]

 

.11a sounds fine to me. The route narrative includes the following: The technical crux, a face move off this ledge, can be avoided by a traverse in from the right. An 11a move should be kinda hard – and it is literally one move. It seems in line with Yosemite. Eg the Calf (.11b) on the Apron has harder moves than the TF boulder problem. TF seems a bit easier than the Big Toes variation. TF wasn’t in the “original” Index guide but was mentioned in the Beckey guide as being 5.10. What’s Angel crack rated these days?

 

I seem to remember that when I first climbed TF we were placing #2 Friends (tight) in the hand crack section and now #2.5s are the ticket. Is it possible the crack has expanded a bit?

 

 

Not noting a bouldery move seems fishy to me.....I can say that I have onsight 3rd classed an .11b route. I usually omit the part about the .11b ending a body length or so above the ground and the remainder of the route is only easy 5th class.

 

[summitchaserCJB]

Angel is .10b.

[j_b]

Not noting a bouldery move seems fishy to me.....I can say that I have onsight 3rd classed an .11b route. I usually omit the part about the .11b ending a body length or so above the ground and the remainder of the route is only easy 5th class.

 

Yet, you had to climb a harder move to get to the easy 5th and that seems to be a relevant piece of information that should be included in whatever you want to communicate. If I understand well, the reason for not including bouldery starts in ratings is because of the lack of commitment for the technical crux, which therefore places emphasis on commitment over technical difficulty.

[mountainmatt]

Does this help clarify it?

 

[ryanb]

Matt, thats a good start but can you provide equivalents for those ratings in bryan brudo's "s" system as well for clarity/consistency?

Edited April 23, 2010 by ryanb

[Bronco]

I can tell you it felt like 5.11+ when I tried to layback the upper crack.

[Choada_Boy]

Does this help clarify it?

 

 

Thank you for the attempt at clarification, but you forgot 5.7 C1.