Alpine Grades in the Cascades?

[fleblebleb]

I like how Kevin McLane, Don Serl and David Jones are applying alpine grades in their BC guidebooks, and including a graded list of climbs. I'd like to see how people grade more routes in the Cascades on that scale, care to help me out?

 

I think the scale is F, PD (+/-), AD (+/-), D (+/-), TD (+/-), ED (1, 2, ...)

Some examples from Kevin McLane's Alpine Select book:

 

TD+: Bear N Buttress Direct

TD: Slesse NE Buttress

D+: Stuart Complete N Ridge

D: Shuksan Price Glacier, Rainier Lib Ridge

D-: Shuksan NW Buttress

AD+: Baker Coleman Headwall

AD: Forbidden W Ridge, Shuksan N Face, Baker N Ridge

AD-: Shuksan Fisher Chimneys (or PD+?)

PD+: Rainier DC

F: Baker Coleman-Deming

 

This kind of breaks down with the last three or so doesn't it? I didn't think Fisher Chimneys was that hard.

 

Anybody got suggestions/grades for winter routes around Snoqualmie Pass and in the Stuart Range?

 

[slothrop]

Are you looking for just winter climbs, or alpine routes in general? Triumph NE Ridge is probably PD+ in summer, ED in February. The Tooth S Face in winter, horsecock-less: definitely ABO.

 

Is there a good mapping from French alpine grade to the NCCS (I-VII) system? Both seem to describe the same things: commitment level, time on route, general technical difficulty, etc.

[Cpt.Caveman]

They're all Facile until you have an unplanned bivy.

[Gary_Yngve]

Hehe, we'll see how badly I get flamed for this one.

 

The Mountaineers have a rough rating system for the Basic climbs, where they're rated relatively 1-5.

 

In their system, it goes Baker then Fisher Chimneys then Rainier, which I believe, are respectively 3, 4, 5.

 

[fleblebleb]

I'd like to see some grades for winter stuff, that would be cool. I don't know if there is a mapping, I mean, of course there is, but the Alpine Grades seem better to me because there is more granularity.

 

Edit: Err, my post further down kind of calls bullshit on this post, heh. I don't think there is a mapping. Changed my mind, heh.

Edited January 5, 2003 by fleblebleb

[slothrop]

Is there really more granularity? F-ED is 6 grades, and the list you gave goes up to AD/grade V. You can always use +/- with the NCCS grades, too. Seems like just another system to me, and harder to keep track of unless you know French or want another grading system to memorize.

[JayB]

I'm still kinda partial to the I-VII system myself....

[Cpt.Caveman]

Reading above I suspect that the gradings in the Mclane book on 2 climbs could be the same but dont know. I've climbed the Slesse and would guess that the NR stuart full is the same difficulty......... Maybe it's not as committing since you can escape at midheight on NR stuart. It's pretty speculative like anything.

 

In winter I also believe that the US standard for seriousness is easier for me to determine since I am more educated in the already standing systems......

[fleblebleb]

Well, I've seen grades like II-III, but I have never really seen +/- used with the NCCs grades. I don't know, maybe there isn't any benefit. It doesn't take a lot to get me excited about new stuff

 

Still, I looked at grades for Triumph and Baker in the bible, Triumph NE Ridge is rated at II-III 5.6, the Coleman Headwall at III-IV and the Coleman-Deming isn't rated at all.

 

What NCCS grade should the Coleman-Deming then get, grade I? Freedom of the Hills explains that as a route that "normally requires several hours; can be of any technical difficulty" (my emphasis). Similarly grades II and III have that "any technical difficulty" clause - they're just a measure of time spent, half a day for grade II and a day for grade III.

 

Looking at these definitions the Coleman-Deming would have to be a II-III because most people take that long (excluding the approach), but grading the Coleman-Deming and Triumph NE Ridge the same makes no sense to me!

 

I do realize that there is a separate technical rating - but I want something somewhere in the rating that tells me that an incoming storm is more of an oh-shit situation on the Triumph route than on the Baker route. A bolted multi-pitch sport route with no route finding and bomber rap anchors could be rated II-III 5.12 but it would be graded much lower than Triumph NE Ridge...

 

There are 5-10 routes that I want to do this winter that all fall into the II-III range, but I am a whole lot more apprehensive about some than others. From reading McLane's explanation in the guidebook it seems to me that the application of the alpine grading system is intended to be different - it's supposed to catch ephemeral things like exposure, objective danger and the quality and quantity of pro placements, none of which are factored into the NCCS grade (according to FOTH...). They call it engagement, sounds good to me.

 

So I guess my conclusion is that there is not a direct translation between the Alpine Grades and the NCCS grades.

[JayB]

I've always understood the I-VII grades to be a measure of the overall seriousness of the route that factored in just about everything from the time it takes to complete the route, to its remoteness, difficulty of retreat, presence of objective hazards, and the like.

 

I suppose that there's a bit of play in this system, but I suppose I'm like some of the other posters here in that I have been out on enough routes graded in this manner to have a pretty good feel for what's in my range and/or how serious an outing it will be. I'm sure the French system has its merits but I hope it never supplants the one I'm used to as it'll make climbing sort of like driving in Canada (how fast am I going again???)

[Cpt.Caveman]

It seems to me the only factor the french system includes in the grade might be the commitment or seriousness factor from my experiences with other areas. Not much experience. Hehhe

 

So just stating in a guidebook that rated R or that retreat is difficult after or in a certain area is sufficient enough and even more detailed for me.

 

Does someone else have more insight?

[fleblebleb]

it'll make climbing sort of like driving in Canada (how fast am I going again???)

 

LOL, that's a good one

 

See, that's the kind of thing that prevents me from falling asleep at the wheel, it's like a little game you can play to keep your mind off things. But I have to play it with miles because I grew up with kilometers on the speed signs.

[jhamaker]

>>I think the scale is F, PD (+/-), AD (+/-), D (+/-), TD (+/-), ED (1, 2, ...)<<

 

YUCK! What is wrong w/ going w/ just the traditional Grade/difficulty rating? It is acurate enough to give you the general idea and help you pick rts in your ability range - but you must still (the horror!) do actual research w/ map and guidebook.

[plexus]

Welcome back James!

 

You were famous, they led the news with you the other day . Glad that you made it back without getting buried.

 

I agree the traditional ratings are just fine. I also like what Nelson and Potterfield did in their selected books, giving a grade to the approaches. In the Cascades, something like that is def. relevent. that don't know that Bachelor Creek is a big-ass bushwack!

[Dru]

Regarding the grade of Coleman-Deming where exactly does the "approach" end and the "climb" begin for that route? At the glacier, or at the base of the Roman Wall or what? If you go with base of Roman Wall, its definitely a I. Otherwise it might be II or even III. This is one climb that the Euro system makes more sense for. I dont think it makes a difference for II-IV or for PD+ thru D. At D+ and above, the Euro grade tells you more than the NCSS does because there are D+, TD-, TD, TD+, ED1, ED2, ED3, ED4 instead of IV, V, VI, VII - 8 instead of 4 grades. And say you have two V, 5.10 A2 climbs, with a Euro grade you will know which of the two is harder.

 

Personally I am leaning to rating everything V420 or 8=D.