Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2009 - 07:37pm PT
|
Even though I agree with RGold's general observations, I do believe that R and X ratings do have a place in a guidebook. The purpose of a guide is several fold, but primarily, get you to the route, let you know where the route goes, how difficult the route is (which would include R/X ratings*), any special gear requirements which may not be apparent, and descent info.
Other important info would include, FA info, route's orientation to sun/shade or shelter from winds (if relevant). Historical tidbits and stories are nice too; guidebooks are often the only venue where this information can be preserved and passed on to future generations. Personally, I find historical info often adds to my appreciation of a route.
None of these things detract from the climbing experience (imo), but can add to it.
However, the overly detailed beta (e.g.: "place 1.5 inch cam here"; "lieback this feature rather than jam" or "look for a hidden pocket on the right-hand face") that tells you how to climb (rather than about the climb), can ruin your experience and I place it in another category altogether.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2009 - 09:12pm PT
|
I think seriousness ratings are very useful as a point of reference when considering venturing up on a route especially one with vintage hardware in place. An R rating in my mind presents a risk of a 30+ foot fall from a place where a fall is likely at the grade of difficulty of the route.
An X rating implies either a very long fall or a clearly bad landing or groundout if a climber falls from a place that is likely at the grade of the route.
So many easy routes or alpine climbs are covered with climbing where a fall would certainly be disasterous. Using an R or X rating excessively distorts the demands of a particular route and has a definite influence on climbers shying away unnecessarily.
The Gunks is full of great R routes that folks don't do because of the adjectival grade as Rgold has said elsewhere. It is not a trivial rating and needs to be clear and comparative by definition.
I tend to seek out bold routes and really like to also know who did the FA so I have some idea what the route might require.
|
|
Pate88
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2009 - 09:24pm PT
|
I want to say Walk On The Wild Side, a truly stellar R climb, but I'm seeing pics of people rapping off of it over on rc.com, and I'm wondering- has it been re-bolted?
The times I did it you wouldn't even want to sneeze on the bolts let alone rap off of them. But t hat was a while ago.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:01am PT
|
One of the extensions of this whole R/X argument is that these days, in many people's eyes, if you put up a new route and it is R/X then you are a bad climber who isn't thinking about the climbing community and just some selfish, elitist butthead who only climbs for your own pleasure.
For me, doing first ascents, ground up, is about heading out into the unknown and trying to get up the rock. I don't go out of my way to avoid placing bolts where they are necessary, but sometimes you just can't stop and drill where you want.
Also, I don't worry if anybody repeats the routes I put up. Popularity isn't necessarily the major factor if a route is 'good' or not. Very few people have done Bachar-Yerian, but I doubt if people are calling it a crap route because it doesn't get climbed very often.
We need routes of all seriousness in climbing. The risk factor is just as valid as a grade as is the technical difficulty.
Bruce
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:06am PT
|
^^^
Very well put Bruce.
Mucci
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:14am PT
|
SG: "An R rating in my mind presents a risk of a 30+ foot fall from a place where a fall is likely at the grade of difficulty of the route."
The "R" is often used on slab and face climbs, where the crux pitch is well-protected, but easier - often much easier - climbing before and after isn't. So you end up with a route that's 5.10, with (nominally) a 5.8R pitch - which gets called 5.10R. Quite misleading - the issue in context is the "5.8", not the "R".
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:14am PT
|
Spray in penance for off-topic postings lately
Rope solo on Lucifers ledge to the Oasis. The best anchors were two rustly 1/2 inchers, the worst, a fixed bong. No pro, can't see the next anchors, and the lichen isn't even worn.
I got one rope, so I'm committed and it's getting late. Extensive downclimbing required to get on track once I saw the anchors.
Then I spent the night up there
http://www.yosemiteclimber.com/LucifersLedgeSolo.html
PEace
Karl
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:15am PT
|
So many easy routes or alpine climbs are covered with climbing where a fall would certainly be disasterous. Using an R or X rating excessively distorts the demands of a particular route and has a definite influence on climbers shying away unnecessarily.
The problem is that easy routes are rated very inconsistently compared to harder routes. And yet falls on easy trad routes tend to be more dangerous than falls of the same distance on hard trad routes (since there's usually a lot more to hit on easy routes).
So you end up with hard routes rated R when a fall is no big deal, and easy routes not rated R because they are "easy." Then you have better climbers decrying R ratings on easy routes while hyping up their own runout hard climbs that are actually much safer. Definitely a double standard.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:27am PT
|
So you end up with a route that's 5.10, with (nominally) a 5.8R pitch - which gets called 5.10R. Quite misleading - the issue in context is the "5.8", not the "R".
Right. The only guidebook I know that gets this right is Adirondack Rock, by Jim Lawyer and Jeremy Haas. They'll rate a route 5.9 G (5.7 X), for example.
Also, their protection ratings are based on their estimate of what might happen to you if you fall in "the wrong spot" and not on how long a fall it is, which is not especially meaningful on overhanging ground, for instance. Thus, for example, some relatively short falls with nasty impact zones can get an R rating, as they should.
All this makes sense, but I still think the state of trad climbing might be better off without it. On the other hand, guidebook writing is a labor of love, and I can also see how authors can easily be caught up in providing ever more more precise and detailed information.
One argument I don't buy: once the information is available, ignoring it is not at all the same as it not existing. (This is almost as clueless as saying you don't have to clip the bolts if you object to their presence.) The only way to keep the (I would have thought central) role of the unknown in trad climbing is to STFU. But here we are on...ahem...Super what?
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:32am PT
|
do Baboons count, or do we have to be human?
oh, and In and Out Burger , is Not.
they need to either change their lead time, or change their name.
i mean all they do is a buger, or a double burger, why not throw down more than one patty at a time, it's not like the next guy is gonna order a BLT, WTF, over? I just don't get it. 10 people scurrying around in those cute whit hats, but all i wanted was a burger and a shake?
|
|
jmap
Social climber
NC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:37am PT
|
One of my early leads was the first pitch of Sundial Crack, a 5.8 at Looking Glass, NC. The area we were on is mainly known for eyebrows and small horizontals so I racked up with #2 and smaller cams, and some nuts and tri cams. I had just started really feeling comfortable leading and I was very focused on climbing in a powerful stance-to-stance style, meaning I would climb to a stance, place pro, evaluate the next series of moves to another stance and gun for it.
I really enjoyed climbing like this, but as a beginner, I believe I was too focued on up and didn't take the time to evaulate properly all the rock around me.
On this first pitch, I found a good piece at 10 feet, a good piece at 20 feet, and then nothing else. But I felt good about the climbing, the moves and stances were straightforward, and I was confident if not entirely comfortable.
I climbed another 70 or so feet to the last move before the anchor, which turned out to be the crux: it was a weird, kind of balancey mantle move over an awkward bulge. The move would have protected nicely with a #3 C4 but of course, I didn't have one. I made the move and clipped in, pretty relieved.
I later learned that a climber had died on that same pitch a couple of years back. It was pretty sobering.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 02:03am PT
|
I pretty much rate my FA's R or X based on the quality of stretches of pro, the looseness of unavoidable rock that must be climbed, on specific fall potentials, or some combination of the above. One recent route which I've repeated twice has once pitch with a crux consisting of a structure of three interconnected loose flakes where you have to 'set' the two flakes on the right to lock or anchor the one on the left into place and then use it exclusively to pull the crux. The pro below it is ok, but it's an overhanging section above a slab and so it has an R rating for both the potential for pulling the three flakes down on yourself and for the possibility of a slab fall if you and you belayer aren't paying real good attention to the slack situation.
The FA I've currently been working on has a p3 that traverses a [rare] band of Smith-like tuft, but in the form of blocks about the size of cars several of which are loose. That 70' lower section of the pitch takes you to the base of a large roof which is of more normal, good stone, but is comprised of very technical moves and sports poor protection until you are established under the roof. It also trends far to the right over the void such that getting back to the belay can be quite challenging. It's rated R for that combination of reasons.
Other times climbing clean dictates the rating on my FAs. I sometimes free climb over sequences of #1-3 Loweballs / Crack'N Up placements - those pitches I will also rate R/X.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 02:06am PT
|
I think all of the low pro/no pro routes I have done were slab routes.
yup, and the thing we'll never know was what combination of the following factors made for those runouts
Cheap
Poor
Lazy
Making an ego statement
wanting to make easy climbing more exciting
in a hurry
local ethics
and so on. Not to mention the skill of the leader, versus difficulty of the terrain, versus any idea of establishing a climb in consideration for climbers of that grade and so on
Guess we'll never know except if the FA parties tell their stories. Fortunately , we get those on the taco from time to time
peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 02:09am PT
|
Gosh Joe
Sounds like those route are R rated if everything goes very well for a guy who blows a crux. Pretty good chances for far worse wouldn't you say?
Peace
karl
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 03:49am PT
|
Potentially, on the flake one you'd have at least two sharp flakes headed for you and the two right ones needing to cross the line of the rope.
There are FA's / pitches I've done that I considered X rated during the FA, but if I can repeat them more than once I tend to drop it to R. That's the case on the current project, though the prospect of going back up and leading that p3 roof pitch again for the sixth time still makes my sack shrivel more than just a little.
|
|
mcreel
climber
Barcelona
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 04:06am PT
|
Stories like gonzo chemists' are the kind that make up the most vivid memories. Sometimes you get a memorable experience when you weren't looking for one, and in retrospect, these experiences can be some of the most satisfying.
About easy routes not getting R ratings: If you climb at places like Lovers Leap, you'd have to be an idiot to think that falling any distance on lead is safe. Actually, for first year leaders, just about any trad route is R rated. I think it's worth emphasizing to beginning climbers that they really can get hurt climbing. Most people understand that, but maybe some of the people coming out of the gyms don't.
To help these people out, I propose a system like the British one, but a little more informative. Something like
5.x H E C
5.x (YDS) technical difficulty
H (integer 1-5) "objective" hazard: loose rock, things to fall on, etc.
E (1-3) experience needed: has to do with route finding, tricky pro
C (boolean) is having a clue a requirement?
For example:
The Groove
5.8 H=3 E=1 C=yes.
Explanation: H=3 because of the runout second pitch. E=1 because you need to know how to place smallish nuts. C=1 because you need to recognize that mantling and stemming are useful.
Labor of Love
5.10b H=1 E=0 C=yes.
Explanation: H=1 because there are those big dikes to trash yourself on, if you hit them. E=0 because you just need to clip bolts, like in the gym. C=1 because you need to realize that H=1 is important.
Eyeore's Enigma
5.? (never did it, don't remember what the guidebook said) H=0 E=2 C=no Explanation: H=0 because if you fall, you won't hit anything. E=2: looks tricky to pro, especially with a normal rack. C=0: you'd obviously have to be nuts to try a climb like that!
So, the more I think about it, the more I like it. A system like this would really give UKClimbing and www.8a.nu something to debate about, and that would keep all of us internet slackers entertained.
Happy climbs, maybe I'll see you at the gym.
|
|
slabbo
Trad climber
fort garland, colo
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 10:18am PT
|
GEEZ Karl- kinda harsh don't you think ? I have done plenty of f/a's and never thought of myself as cheap,lazy,making easy climbing exciting.....
Sure local ethics can mean a lot and in my mind should. You climb up drill where you can and keep climbing. It's pretty simple.
I don't do f/a's so other people will approve of them. I do them 'cause I like to. If others don't want climb them or don't like the gear, there are lot's of other routes to do.
Popularity does not mean a route is great , just as a rarely done route does not mean poor.
john
|
|
Timmc
climber
BC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 10:55am PT
|
I remember leading British Airways at JT in the late 80's and being quite gripped because of that huge yucca at the base. My brother was belaying me and he kept shaking the yucca and giggling -confident that it was within my abilities. I see now it has been upgraded and a little R is there too.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 11:38am PT
|
Popularity does not mean a route is great , just as a rarely done route does not mean poor.
By the Poor factor, BITD it was often that the climber didn't have any money so every bolt was precious. For some guys, You just didn't leave money in the rock if you didn't have to. It takes a lot of cans at 5 cents a can to buy a bolt in 1980
Peace
Karl
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2009 - 11:50am PT
|
Good point upthread - many routes/pitches that are less than vertical should in theory automatically be given an "R". If you fall off, there's a pretty good chance you'll hit something. As the toll of broken feet, ankles, and lower legs shows. Yet another reason why "the leader must not fall".
Then there are the too-common routes where there is a hard bit quite close to the ground or ledge, which isn't well protected (or at all), or where you'd hit something if you fell, perhaps because of generating a high fall factor.
This said, you can't give every pitch an "R" or "X" or "PG" or whatever other alphabet soup you think up, and a lot still comes down to good piloting.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!