A question about British trad grades

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Kees 27 Aug 2019

Last week I have enjoyed myself in your country. Climbed a bit at Stanage, Holyhead mountain and Tremadog. (Re)learned myself the ways of trad. We never got much above HVS-5a, because frankly it was a bit frightning for a bolt clipper like myself.

I have a question though. When I look at the grade conversion table from Rockfax, I see something weird. I understand the technical grade is about the hardest move in a route. But why then is a 5a in a HVS route harder (when compared to the French scale), then a 5a in a VS route?

 Neil Williams 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

It's a bit difficult to actually map it, because French grades assume bolts and so perfect safety throughout the route (much as a big fall may be scary).  Whereas British trad grades consider not only the technical difficulty of the climb, but also how well protected it is.

So if you have a VS 5a (which according to the Rockfax table you typically wouldn't have, but hey) and an HVS 5a, the most difficult technical move in both routes will be of the same difficulty, but the HVS 5a will be a more serious undertaking overall - i.e. most probably less well-protected than the VS 5a.

Does that make sense?

To use more examples using the ranges suggested by Rockfax, a VS 4a would have quite easy moves but be near enough unprotected (so would be pretty much a free solo), whereas a VS 4c or higher would have rather harder moves but be quite well protected (so you'd be as safe, or near to it, as if the route was bolted, provided you took the opportunities for gear provided and placed it correctly).

Post edited at 10:40
 Aly 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

Short answer is that it shouldn't be.  The 5a move on an HVS might be bolder (feeling harder), or it might be a more sustained section of 5a (which would get a higher sport grade), but individual moves *should* be within the spectrum of 5a irrespective of what the adjectival grade is.

The long answer is, it's complicated...!

1
 Offwidth 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

Maybe an issue with the table or maybe the routes you climbed. Trad 5a does have a range from easy to hard for the grade but that range should in theory be the same everywhere (even though it isn't as standards vary across the UK.... eg Yorkshire is tougher, Pembroke easier).

5
 Neil Williams 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

...and it makes a difference what type of rock you're used to.  Grit will be a shock if you're used to juggier stuff.

 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

> why then is a 5a in a HVS route harder (when compared to the French scale), then a 5a in a VS route?

More of it, or poorer protection. VS 5a is technically hard for the overall VS grade, so you'd expect a short, well protected bit of 5a amongst easier climbing. At hvs 5a, you'd expect more 5a climbing rather than a short crux - but you'd expect the gear to be decent. At e1 5a you'd expect poor gear at the 5a crux (particularly on gritstone, where a shortish groundfall potential from the crux is standard at e1 5a), or alternatively it could be well protected but steep and sustained 5a all the way. This is going to feel a lot harder than doing a short, well protected 5a crux on a VS 5a, hence the higher overall (adjectival) grade. 

Post edited at 10:51
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Aly:

> The long answer is, it's complicated...!

Indeed. Although they're not in theory, in practice the technical grades are adjusted according to the character of the route/area, such that 5b on a short outcrop is technically a completely different kettle of fish to 5b on a juggy sea cliff. I reckon that if you put a lot of Pembroke 5b moves on a little bouldering crag in a grassy meadow, they'd be 4c.

 john arran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

If a VS is given 5a then the 5a section is likely to be very short, while a HVS 5a is more likely to have more sustained or multiple 5a sections. As such it is likely to be an easier proposition overall physically and hence merit a higher sport grade.

Of course there will always be exceptions, notably due to tech grades being quite wide, so a VS with a top-end 5a move could be physically harder overall than a HVS  with only bottom-end 5a moves.

1
 Offwidth 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

I agree, but grade differences do exist across the UK even if experienced with all the relevant rock types. The same argument occurs with technique..... 5a hand jams can feel like the living end if you lack the technique. Then we have reach where a move is 5a for most but might be 6a for some with less reach. As Aly rightly says ...it's complictated.

OP Kees 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

Thanks everyone for your answers. And yes, it sure is complex! And not always very obvious...

For example, I was quite comfortable on VS-4c. Usually plenty protection, not very hard technically so I had time to try a few different pieces. So I looked at a VS-5a in Tremadog, Pant Ifan Upper level. But it had a fluttery bird symbol, meaning runouts, in the guide book! That's not how I understand the grading system!

Another example, I had been dreaming of Dream of White Horses while still at home. HVS 4c. Should be technically well within my possibilities, but I was unsure if the 4c would be just a joke because in the HVS rangeit could be much harder? (In the end we had a quick look at the cliff and I ran away in horror).

OP Kees 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

About my own question, I think I kind of understand now thanks to your comments. French grade for the entire pitch, the Britisch technical grade is the hardest move. A french 5b could very well be lots of 5a moves making it harder then just 5a. Likewise a HVS 5a could be lots of 5a moves, making it harder then a VS 5a with just one 5a move.

 Neil Williams 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

The fluttery heart doesn't just mean "run out", it means bold moves.  Those moves can be psychologically bold rather than dangerous.

 john arran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to john arran:

> If a VS is given 5a then the 5a section is likely to be very short, while a HVS 5a is more likely to have more sustained or multiple 5a sections. As such it is likely to be an easier proposition overall physically and hence merit a higher sport grade.

Please ignore the above. I seem to have lost track of which route was being referred to as 'it' and flipped not once but twice!

Other replies make much more sense

> Of course there will always be exceptions, notably due to tech grades being quite wide, so a VS with a top-end 5a move could be physically harder overall than a HVS  with only bottom-end 5a moves.

 GridNorth 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

It's also worth bearing in mind that HVS is a bit of an odd grade.  Some feel easier than a VS but others can catch many Extreme leaders out.  With regard to DOWH.  Personally I've always felt that it deserved E1 and at some times it has been.  Technically it's not that hard but the traverse, from what I can recall, is good 5a. The last pitch is quite possibly 4c but it has one of the highest intimidation factors of any route I know.

Al

 AlanLittle 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

> So I looked at a VS-5a in Tremadog, Pant Ifan Upper level. But it had a fluttery bird symbol, meaning runouts, in the guide book! That's not how I understand the grading system!

In this case the 5a bit is highly unlikely to be the runout bit.

 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

> So I looked at a VS-5a in Tremadog, Pant Ifan Upper level. But it had a fluttery bird symbol, meaning runouts, in the guide book! That's not how I understand the grading system!

Might be a bouldery 5a start, then protectionles 4b above. 

> Another example, I had been dreaming of Dream of White Horses while still at home. HVS 4c. Should be technically well within my possibilities, but I was unsure if the 4c would be just a joke because in the HVS rangeit could be much harder? 

Not a joke. Just committing as the grade correctly suggests.

Post edited at 13:01
 galpinos 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

Should you come back, DOWHs is very much worth doing and the climbing is actually pretty easy (if you follow the right line) but the intimidation factor is quite high so overgripping is common.....

In reply to Kees:

The simple answer is: the HVS 5a is certain to be far more sustained at that standard, while the VS 5a is almost bound to be a 'one-move wonder' having very good protection around its 5a crux.

 Sam Beaton 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

>  (In the end we had a quick look at the cliff and I ran away in horror).

Don't worry, most Brits, including me, did the exact same thing after their first look at DOWH Then discover it's one of the best routes in the UK when they go back a second time 

 Michael Hood 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Sam Beaton:

DOWH - cloud down, grey day, run away

Sunny day, party already on the slab, looks great, get on it

 springfall2008 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

> Last week I have enjoyed myself in your country. Climbed a bit at Stanage, Holyhead mountain and Tremadog. (Re)learned myself the ways of trad. We never got much above HVS-5a, because frankly it was a bit frightning for a bolt clipper like myself.

> I have a question though. When I look at the grade conversion table from Rockfax, I see something weird. I understand the technical grade is about the hardest move in a route. But why then is a 5a in a HVS route harder (when compared to the French scale), then a 5a in a VS route?

The other thing I find is that Trad grades have often been set a long time ago when men were men and anything that doesn't kill you is easy...

For example I've had friends who climb F6a outdoors without a problem fail to get up an HS 4b, which in theory is no more than F5a.

I've also led an HVS 5a where the crux was certainly as hard as any F6a+ single move I've climbed.

OP Kees 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But, in theory, the 5a part in the VS is just as hard as all those 5a parts in the HVS?

OP Kees 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Michael Hood:

That's a great description of the DOWH athmosphere. We had a reconnaissance look after a day climbing on Holyhead mountain. The wind was picking up to stormy levels and it started to rain. And I was supposed to be the lead climber, so it all became a bit spooky. Instead we marched of to Tremadog.

I really want to come back some day. Won't happen this year anymore though, no more vacation days.

Post edited at 20:55
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

> But, in theory, the 5a part in the VS is just as hard as all those 5a parts in the HVS?

Yes. There shouldn't be much difference in the technical difficulty of any "single move" of 5a, regardless of whether it's on a VS or an E1. But what is a "single move" anyway?

Post edited at 21:09
 Robert Durran 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> But what is a "single move" anyway?

One hand movement if you're a sport climber and moving both feet and both hands if you're a trad climber. Roughly.

 Wiley Coyote2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

You mention the Rockfax conversion table.  TBH it is almost impossible to make an exact comparison between sport and trad grades because of the different skill sets and mental pressures involved. If you must do so, it probably makes more sense to go by the colour bands (as explained in the text alongside the chart that hardly anybody  ever reads)  rather than trying to read straight across the grid to compare grades.  EG I've lead 6c+. Reading straight across the chart that equates to E4 but I know perfectly well I can't lead E4. The colour bands suggest it compares with  top end E2/bottom end E3, which frankly still looks a bit ambitious to me but probably closer to the mark.

 Siderunner 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I think that the RockFax comparison table is for the technical difficulties ignoring protection and the psychological challenges. I.e. top roping f6c+ and top roping e4 are similar challenges.

Then (as you say) it’s reasonable to relate that level of climbing ability to leading trad at the e2-e3 level, dependant on how developed are your trad skills/ gear-placing-stamina/ risk appetite near your limit.

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to springfall2008:

That's an ignorant view in both respects: nearly all modern UK trad guidebooks have regraded extensively (in the definitive I co-edited about a third of stuff sub VS changed) and the comparative difficulty of a move depends on experience and honesty on both grades... when I was more regularly leading extreme I failed to redpoint some 5's in France (and indoors found sport 6b easier than those 5s). I'd certainly trust modern graded UK trad more than any lower grades sport grading. That HS 4b won't have been graded for an early trad leader lacking experience on the rock type or the required technical skills..

1
 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Siderunner:

The tables are just slightly misaligned around E1 as I've said here many times. Top roping a safe E1 is a tad more than a grade harder than top roping a typical sport 6a.

1
OP Kees 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Indeed I hadn't detected the color coding. Makes things a bit more understandable. I lead about 6b max in France, but because of the trad learning curve I took it very easy. A bit too easy maybe...

It's also a good idea I think to look at the comparision between the Brit tech grade and the Font boulder grade. I was having some difficulty with a HVS 5b on Stanage edge, meaning I couldn't get past the crux, very reachy towards a very slopy edge. But when I think about my exploits in Fontainebleau, where a grade 5 is still a challenge for me, needing several tries, that about fits for this particular move.

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

Very very few f5s in font are as easy as UK tech 5b   My advice to first timers is skip f5 if you can. Font has the worst grading at lower grades of any climbing venue I know. Some polished horror show f3 slabs are UK tech 6a.

Post edited at 08:57
 springfall2008 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

> That's an ignorant view in both respects: nearly all modern UK trad guidebooks have regraded extensively (in the definitive I co-edited about a third of stuff sub VS changed) and the comparative difficulty of a move depends on experience and honesty on both grades... when I was more regularly leading extreme I failed to redpoint some 5's in France (and indoors found sport 6b easier than those 5s). I'd certainly trust modern graded UK trad more than any lower grades sport grading. That HS 4b won't have been graded for an early trad leader lacking experience on the rock type or the required technical skills..


Your right, quite a few routes have been re-graded

 Pero 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

Also, 5a moves are not all the same but cover a fairly wide range.  You'll get a low-end 5a, which might equally be high-end 4c; and you'll get a high-end 5a, which might equally well be low-end 5b.

You might expect, therefore, VS 5a to have a low-end 5a move (and nothing close to 5b).  A good example of this might be B-line at Swanage.  It's sort of 4c/5a and feels quite high-end VS, but equally would feel like a soft HVS.

The boundaries for both 4c/5a/5b and VS/HVS/E1 are fuzzy in both technicality and seriousness.

 David Coley 28 Aug 2019

To my mind, the problem with conversion tables like the rockfax one when using them for converting to and from British grades is because they (and we) tend to focus on the HVS bit, not the 5a bit.

At the grades most people climb the meaning of the British tech grade is closer to the French sport grading system than the British adjectival is to the French, and should be exactly the same in meaning to the US YDS system.

Hence it makes much more sense to convert to and from the tech grade. And only then "consider" the adjectival.

I.e 5.9 = British 5a and might feel like VS to E1 

or

British 5a = 5.9 and it might be dangerous if you find the E1 label attached to it, or safe if you find the VS label.

The key (to me) is never start from the British adjectival grade, not convert directly to it.

If you open up excel or a table in word and type in the French sport, British tech and YDS grades, then add one column for each adjectival grade and colour the cells for S, HS, VS.. you end up with a much better conversion table. Maybe Rockfax could try this and trial it on this audience.

 Wiley Coyote2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Siderunner:

> I think that the RockFax comparison table is for the technical difficulties ignoring protection and the psychological challenges. I.e. top roping f6c+ and top roping e4 are similar challenges.

I'm not sure that  can be true. If you  remove all the problems of finding and placing good gear and the 'psychological challenges' you have removed an awful lot, perhaps al, of what makes  up the adjectival grade, rendering the listing of the E grades completely irrelevant.

Slightly at a tangent, I don't believe you can actually top rope an E4, simply because on a top rope it ain't E4 anymore.  Look, for example,  at Heartless Hare at Froggatt, a very scary E5 5c solo. Use a side runner (as I did) and  the same route with exactly the same moves drops to  a much more amenable E3 and there is no way I can claim it as a E5. I'd say the same was even more true of TR a route.

2
 webbo 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Are you really unable to understand that top roping a 6c+ which will be about UK6a and E4 6a which will also be about UK6a are going to be similar.

Its about the tech grade not the adjective grade.

Post edited at 20:19
 Michael Gordon 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

>Slightly at a tangent, I don't believe you can actually top rope an E4, simply because on a top rope it ain't E4 anymore.  Look, for example,  at Heartless Hare at Froggatt, a very scary E5 5c solo. Use a side runner (as I did) and  the same route with exactly the same moves drops to  a much more amenable E3 and there is no way I can claim it as a E5. I'd say the same was even more true of TR a route.

I'm sure you can top rope an E4, provided you don't then claim to have led it! Like you could claim to have led an E5 route, albeit with side runners. Like I could claim to have headpointed an E5.  

 deacondeacon 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

>  I've lead 6c+. Reading straight across the chart that equates to E4 but I know perfectly well I can't lead E4. The colour bands suggest it compares with  top end E2/bottom end E3, which frankly still looks a bit ambitious to me but probably closer to the mark.

If you're leading f6c+ you're definitely capable of climbing E4. Do you try E4's?

Our E grade system definitely intimidates people into not trying harder routes. Once it becomes clear that E doesn't necessarily equal danger its much easier to push into the bigger numbers. E4's can be safe as houses and hvs's can be death routes. 

 Wiley Coyote2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Michael Gordo

> I'm sure you can top rope an E4, provided you don't then claim to have led it! Like you could claim to have led an E5 route, albeit with side runners. Like I could claim to have headpointed an E5.  

Of course you can claim to have done the moves. It is just no longer an E4. And, no I can't claim to have led an E5 because the grade in the guidebook changes with side runners. The relevant wording in my  (rather old) guides is  Heartless Hare E5 5c "....a bold undertaking ......Often climbed with side runners..at a more friendly E3"

That sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Remove/lower the risk and you remove/lower the E grade

1
 GridNorth 28 Aug 2019
In reply to webbo:

> Are you really unable to understand that top roping a 6c+ which will be about UK6a and E4 6a which will also be about UK6a are going to be similar.

> Its about the tech grade not the adjective grade.

I thought that is what Wiley Coyote2  was saying. IMO the E grades are for the lead.  Chalk Storm at the Roaches is an even better of example of what he was saying.  It's E2, E3 or E4 depending on where you place the runners.  For E2 you are essentially climbing slightly off line above the hard moves to place runners and then descending to reascend more directly.  If you ascend directly in the first place it's E4. The technical grade does not change.

Al

 webbo 28 Aug 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

No he/ she is saying that they can’t believe top roping a 6c+ and an E4 6a will be similar as by removing the Psychological challenges and the aspects of finding gear the E4 will not be the same. I think it’s the idea that most E4 6a’s might be deadly when in fact they are reasonably safe.

 Wiley Coyote2 28 Aug 2019
In reply to deacondeacon:

.

> If you're leading f6c+ you're definitely capable of climbing E4. Do you try E4's?

I'm sure I  am definitely not. I may be physically capable of the moves and even of toproping one but I am sure I could not lead one. In my trad heyday I was regularly leading E3 but I have probably led  fewer than 10 trad routes in the last five years, having switched almost exclusively to sport. My physical strength is now conditioned to fast explosive, sometimes 'up or off'  movement  on routes that take hardly anytime at all to complete. My mental approach is geared to the relatively safety of quickly-clipped bolts rather than clinging on by my eyeb rows finagling in RPs.  I very much doubt I have the endurance for a long, methodical ascent of a trad E4 pitch, hanging on putting in gear. Likewise years of safe(ish) bolt climbing means I no longer have the mental approach (ie the balls) for boldly trucking on into the unknown high above runners ). I could, of course, re-focus, train to acquire the right sort of fitness and put in the mileage to get my trad head back but I repeat, I know that, whatever the conversion charts say,  as things stand right now, I could no more lead E4 than fly to the Moon.

In reply to David Coley:

> The key (to me) is never start from the British adjectival grade, not convert directly to it.

Except: the adjectival grade tells you more (assuming that you climb with a good margin of technical ability), i.e. how good you have to be as a climber to do the route safely/comfortably.

 Jon Stewart 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> I know perfectly well I can't lead E4.

Could you lead a hard E2?

If so, you can lead a soft E4.

3
 David Coley 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

"The key (to me) is never start from the British adjectival grade, nor convert directly to it."

> Except: the adjectival grade tells you more (assuming that you climb with a good margin of technical ability), i.e. how good you have to be as a climber to do the route safely/comfortably.

Note, I didn't say don't refer to the adjectival grade. I said don't start there, nor convert directly to it. i.e. start with the tech grad, convert, review the adjectival. Or, convert from US YDS to UK tech, then review  adjectival. 

What people try and do is try and convert YDS directly to adjectival, or the other way around, which is not the way to go, as YDS and UK tech are identical, so naturally convert.

 Michael Gordon 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

In other words, an E3!

In reply to David Coley:

Well, yes, I suppose that's what I first look at. But if one is climbing 5c/borderline 6a OK (meaning 5a is a piece of piss), the adjectival grade is then all that is of importance.

 Wiley Coyote2 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Could you lead a hard E2?

> If so, you can lead a soft E4.

Back then (ie last century)? Yes.  Quite steadily in fact. Even some  Almscliffe E3s felt reasonably controlled. Today? Not a hope in Hell for the  reasons set out above.

Post edited at 00:33
OP Kees 29 Aug 2019
In reply to David Coley:

Coverting from say French  sport to Brit tech first, only then looking at the adjectival doesn't work with the Rockfax table as it stands now. That goes back to my original question. When I start with french 5b, then it matters wether the adjectival is VS or HVS. It even matters if you use the bold or the safe table, like in this link:

https://www.rockfax.com/publications/grades/

 Pero 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

So, if I say I seconded a VS that wouldn't be correct either? By your logic I'd have to say "I seconded a climb that would have been VS if I'd led it".

But that is precisely what seconding (or top roping) a VS means.

Everyone knows when they look at a second or top rope entry what that means. 

You could say the same about "did not finish". Is it still an E4 if you failed on it?

 GridNorth 29 Aug 2019
In reply to webbo:

I think I disagree.  They can be reasonably safe if you have the stamina, the skill and the bottle to hang around to protect them.  "Reasonably safe" is also a judgement call and relative.  That's why they are E4 and not E1. To say if you can climb f6c+ you can climb E4 is absolute and dangerous nonsense. If you are not saying that please ignore this post. The E4's I've climbed do not tend to have a nut placement every couple of feet and if they do it's usually bloody hard to hang there and place it.  Other E4's are long run outs and not at all "safe". 

Al

Post edited at 11:04
 Offwidth 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pero:

Yes adjectival grades are designed for onsight leads. Factually you do second a route given that grade but the grade doesn't mean so much in that. Its often easier to second an unprotected E4 than a brutal but very safe E1 in  my experience. The technical grade is a better indication of an ability to second something than the adjectival grade.

 Pero 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Everybody knows that already!

 HeMa 29 Aug 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> To say if you can climb f6c+ you can climb E4 is absolute and dangerous nonsense.

AFAIK f6c+ is near the upper physical end of the spectrum for E4. So based on that it certainly is true physically. Mentally that is completely different ball game.

 Pero 29 Aug 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

That's the crux, as it were. If I find myself on a well protected climb that is technically too hard, then I end up with bad gear, because I lack the ability to hold on while I place it properly. It soon becomes dangerous, IMO, if you are out of your depth technically.

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pero:

If everyone knows, then no-one would anyone make a bit deal about seconding any adjectival grade (except being ironic with safe sandbag brutes ...  eg I've just seconded an HVS... not entirely sure why its called Masochism ).

 Wiley Coyote2 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pero:

> So, if I say I seconded a VS that wouldn't be correct either? By your logic I'd have to say "I seconded a climb that would have been VS if I'd led it".

*Sigh*. You really are overthinking this. No, if you say you seconded a VS you would be absolutely correct and everyone who knows about climbing would understand exactly what you mean. And they would know that seconding it  may well be an achievement in its own right, just not quite as big an achievement as leading it. As  has been said, by others, further up the thread, the grade is set for a lead, not a top rope or second. There is some truth in the old saw that the E grade is the leader's grade and the tech grade is the second's but that's a whole new can of worms.

So to truly get the grade you need to lead it or solo it.  That's just how climbing works in this country (and elsewhere). That's why you can't claim a new route until you have led it cleanly. Top roping it does not count. That's why when headpointing , no matter how many times you top rope it  or how long you work it you eventually have to pull the rope and go for it on the sharp end or solo if you want to claim it. That's why when you tell your mates you have done some impressive, dangerous route their first question will often be: "Did you lead it?"

Now if someone wants to big himself up by claiming   to have 'done', some classic frightener like, say, Downhill Racer,  that's no skin off my nose but he should not be too surprised if everyone laughs when it emerges our little Walter Mitty was on a top rope.

 Pero 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I'm not sure now whether you are saying you can toprope an E4 or not.  Your original point, as I understood it, was that top roping an E4 created some sort of logical contradiction.  Now, I think you're saying you can top rope an E4, but not then claim to have led it.  Which seems incontrovertible.

That said, if I ever do top rope an E4 (which I seriously doubt) I'll be well chuffed!

 Wiley Coyote2 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pero:

You understand me correctly, In my opinion (others may disagree) the very act of top roping the route draws its teeth and eliminates much, perhaps everything, that makes it E4. In those circumstances I might say I 'had a ride up the route' I might say I had 'taken a look at it' on a rope, I might say 'I went sightseeing on it' but no way would I ever try to kid myself or anyone else that I had genuinely climbed an actual E4 and I certainly would not think it made me an E4 climber.

There is a very simple reason why  we top rope routes we think we can't or daren't lead and that is because it makes them much  easier so on that basis it seems undeniable that if the route is graded E4 to lead it will not be E4 to TR. The risk is gone, the sweating palms, the over-gripping, the arm-burning pump as you try to fiddle in a wire while risking a 30 footer, the nagging worry that that crack after the blank section that looks like it should take gear might be blind and you'll be stranded and running out of gas above a horrible landing, these are all eliminated and that desperate scary route seems  quite tame when the worst that can happen is a gentle slump onto the rope and a mild swing into fresh air.

And that, at the risk of labouring, the point is why I believe you cannot top rope an E4 - because the top rope eliminates the risk and it's no longer an E4 in exactly that same way that the guidebook says Heartless Hare is E5 5c straight up but a more amenable E3 5c with a side runner. I leave others to decide what it comes down to on a top rope. The moves are only 5c so the perfect protection of a rope renders it what? E1 5c? HVS 5c? VS 5c? I don't know. But one thing we can all agree on is that it sure as shooting ain't E5 anymore

Post edited at 22:53
 Robert Durran 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> And that, at the risk of labouring, the point is why I believe you cannot top rope an E4 - because the top rope eliminates the risk and it's no longer an E4 in exactly that same way that the guidebook says Heartless Hare is E5 5c straight up but a more amenable E3 5c with a side runner. I leave others to decide what it comes down to on a top rope. The moves are only 5c so the perfect protection of a rope renders it what? E1 5c? HVS 5c? VS 5c? I don't know. But one thing we can all agree on is that it sure as shooting ain't E5 anymore.

This whole debate seems a bit crazy to me. Of course you can top rope an E4 climb - you just can't claim the E4 grade because the adjectival grade is only given for an onsight led ascent with all that entails. And trying to give it a UK adjectival grade for a top rope is meaningless because, again, they are only given for onsight leads. If you want to give it a top rope grade, then use French grade because that only measures physical difficulty which is precisely what is left once you are on a top rope.

Yes, a very safe, easily protectable E4 might be as physically hard as 6c+, but will be (obviously) be much harder to onsight than a bolted 6c+; the ability to climb 6c+ does in no way imply the ability to climb E4.

 Wiley Coyote2 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> This whole debate seems a bit crazy to me.

I absolutely agree. I think this is sinking into silly semantics. Obviously you can throw a top rope down an E4 and climb the line, making all the moves in total safety. Perhaps I should have said I do not think you can get the E4 experience on a top rope because you are sidestepping the attendant risks and difficulties of leading it.. A bit like drinking fun-free beer when it's your turn to drive -  better than nothing but you know it's  not  the real thing..

 David Coley 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Kees:

> Coverting from say French  sport to Brit tech first, only then looking at the adjectival doesn't work with the Rockfax table as it stands now. That goes back to my original question. When I start with french 5b, then it matters wether the adjectival is VS or HVS. It even matters if you use the bold or the safe table, like in this link:

That's why I suggested retyping the table 

 David Coley 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Not sure I understood your point 

In reply to David Coley:

I meant that, for me, when I was climbing comfortably within my technical grade the adjectival grade was always far more important, because it gave very important extra information, mostly to do with seriousness. The closer a route approached my technical limit, the more important the technical grade was. Thus, in my case, being capable of climbing just about every 5c on southern sandstone and some 6a's, I knew before I led Vector (E2 5c) that I was in with a good chance but would find it very tough. When it came to doing Cemetery Gates (E1 5a - some guidebooks wrongly give it 5b) I knew that technically it was going to be a bit of a walk, but given that I knew it was v well protected, the E1 grade suggested something exceptionally sustained at the standard. The adjectival grade there was much more important.

 Michael Gordon 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Of course you can top rope an E4 climb - you just can't claim the E4 grade because the adjectival grade is only given for an onsight led ascent with all that entails. > 

That sums it up in a nut shell, and so obvious you wouldn't think it needed stating!

 HeMa 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> When it came to doing Cemetery Gates (E1 5a - some guidebooks wrongly give it 5b) I knew that technically it was going to be a bit of a walk, but given that I knew it was v well protected, the E1 grade suggested something exceptionally sustained at the standard. The adjectival grade there was much more important.

But if you didn't have the fore-knowledge of it being well protected, how about then?

The problem with the "overall" grade is that it combines 3 factors (physical difficulty, technical difficulty, and lets call it danger). You get a glimbs of the technical aspect from the Tech grade. But after that physical difficulty (i.e. sport grade and sustainedness) and also danger are merged into one. In this case, it could also have been death on a stick route with reasonably protected crux... or as it apparently is a highly sustained one, but safe.

Keeping in mind how the Uk grades are generally "adverticed" for foreigners, it seems to glorify the danger aspect above all else (mainly for Grit, but who cares). So no wonder it's a mess for foreigners. For someone not used to the grade, the key is often how hard the climbing physically is going to be (so TR or sport grade) and some information on the quality and amount of gear. This information can't be read from the grade E1 5a. Sure Robert will pop in and say that read the route description... but then again, why bother even the the 5a in the grade if you need "additional" information (say description).

 Michael Gordon 30 Aug 2019
In reply to HeMa:

> For someone not used to the grade, the key is often how hard the climbing physically is going to be (so TR or sport grade) and some information on the quality and amount of gear. 

But then you don't know how hard the route is overall. Is it E1 or E3? A very useful bit of information. Nor do you know how hard the hardest move is which is probably the next most useful bit of information.

 deacondeacon 30 Aug 2019
In reply to HeMa:

> But if you didn't have the fore-knowledge of it being well protected, how about then?

> The problem with the "overall" grade is that it combines 3 factors (physical difficulty, technical difficulty, and lets call it danger). You get a glimbs of the technical aspect from the Tech grade. But after that physical difficulty (i.e. sport grade and sustainedness) and also danger are merged into one. In this case, it could also have been death on a stick route with reasonably protected crux... or as it apparently is a highly sustained one, but safe.

> Sure Robert will pop in and say that read the route description...

Err, or just look up at the route while you're standing under it?

The British system gives us much more info than other places. Also how much info do you need? You'll soon find out what it's like once you're on it. 

In reply to HeMa:

You can see just by looking at the Gates that it's got fantastic protection. A continuous crack of very varying width that is just going to swallow gear. You don't really need to have a guide, or even a grade, actually. You can see more or less exactly how hard and well protected it is just by looking at it. The grade pretty much confirms what it looks like. Limestone, I would say, is typically much harder to judge (well, it was for me, because i wasn't much good at climbing the stuff) and there I think the grades are more helpful. When I started to climb we didn't have technical grades anyway, and generally, were less 'spoon fed'. Of course, on big rock routes in the Alps which don't have detailed topos, you're having to use your judgement the whole time, particularly if the route is difficult to follow or you get off route. One of the best routes I ever did was the 'East Ferro Pillar' in Bregaglia (a very early ascent). There was virtually no description; you were just told roughly the line it took (basically up the pillar!)

 HeMa 30 Aug 2019
In reply to deacondeacon:

Gear might be obivous or not... and hardly relevant if the darn thing is over 10m in height.

As said, the important things for a foreigner is how hard the climbing is going to be (so french sport grade). Followed by the information that what are the concequences of not making it (so amount and quality of gear).

For most UK climbers, you can to an extent evaluate it from the grade. For foreigners this is not the case.

Naturally it'll make some of the classic routes "less" satisfying to talk about. Aren't most of the classic Hard Grit routes in the high french 7 grade span (climbing wise, not talkin' about amount or lack of gear).

1
 Offwidth 30 Aug 2019
In reply to deacondeacon:

I've lost count how many times routes looked much better protected than they turned out to be onsight. When combined with some bad (sandbag) grading I was probably lucky to finish some unhurt. It's one of the main motivations for my extensive guidebook work.... I felt guidebook sandbaging on bold routes was completely unacceptable. Its also the reason when climbing away from classics I always carry an E1 rack of micro-gear (RP's and Aliens) as they weigh nowt and it's saved having to be superbold on quite a few occasions... down to 'Vdiff' on one or two nasty slab sandbags.  Another tip is I always lead with a nut key to clean placements and even as an occasional emergency crack hook! I also applaud YMC for having hollow star routes for the same reason (where routes well worth climbing probably need a clean before an onsight at the grade).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Although it's actually a bit bold for the first 20-30ft

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Although it's actually a bit bold for the first 20-30ft

Indeed. But you can see that too. I was really quite nervous on that bit. I think there was one not so good wire before a tricksy move left, then the good gear started to arrive. The E1 grade is a bit controversial for the Gates, but if anything makes it E1 it's that first serious bit, as you say.

 Michael Gordon 30 Aug 2019
In reply to HeMa:

> As said, the important things for a foreigner is how hard the climbing is going to be (so french sport grade). Followed by the information that what are the concequences of not making it (so amount and quality of gear).

> For most UK climbers, you can to an extent evaluate it from the grade. For foreigners this is not the case.> 

If unsure, can't they do the usual thing when going somewhere you haven't climbed before - try a few easier things to get a feel for the grades then take it from there?

 HeMa 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

They can and do. But it’s kind of hard as one VS is a nice casual walk (well protected) where as the nearby VS is a nasty Solo with no gear. 

As said. The crucial information for Most foreigners is missing (from the grades). Route descriptions can help and steer on the right direction. And based on the routes I climbed in UK. I actually found the grades not helpful at all. Better just to eyeball the line and climb it, than look at the grades on the guidebook. Worked well enough on Grit, Cornish granite and the moors (mellow grades of mainly VS, HVS and E1, decyphered After the fact).

 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to HeMa:

>  For someone not used to the grade, the key is often how hard the climbing physically is going to be (so TR or sport grade) and some information on the quality and amount of gear.  Sure Robert will pop in and say that read the route description... but then again, why bother even the the 5a in the grade if you need "additional" information (say description).

If you are only going to have one bit of information, then nothing beats a UK adjkectival grade, because it is basically a measure of how likely is that a given climber is going to be able to climb it (it assumes, reasonably, that a given climber will require better protection  the physically harder the route is to climb it). A French grade on its own is of much more limited value because there is all the difference in the world between doing a completely safe 6c+ and a protectionless 6c+. British climbers regularly have to contend with this problem and its frustrations when climbing abroad (the same goes for the YDS). Yes, a French grade in combination with a protection grade is obviously much better and very acceptable, but a UK adjectival grade along with a French grade or protection grade is better still (I would happily see the UK adjectival grade with a French grade in the UK two tier system). 

 HeMa 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> but a UK adjectival grade along with a French grade or protection grade is better still (I would happily see the UK adjectival grade with a French grade in the UK two tier system). 

Yes... but  the two tier system of 3 variables is not really all that good. in fact, its mildly confusing or misguiding. 

And if you give out the amount & quality of gear (YDS style PG/R/X or some other flavour) and the physical grade (so french sport), where do you need the "E-grade". It's unnecessary, as the two mentioned factors are infact the things that tell everyone what they need to know. Because the higher the psysical grade, the less likely people are going to be able to climb  it... same thing goes for the gear-grade. less gear, less people climbing it. The how -grade is not really all that necessary (unless you want to claim high E-grades by spankin' them to submission and then headpointing them... sure, you'll get the Ewhatever, but in reality what you did is a ballsy F7b+ or so... and yeah, them sneaky french bastards have been soloing that grade for eons already .

Post edited at 19:28
4
 Michael Gordon 30 Aug 2019
In reply to HeMa:

> And if you give out the amount & quality of gear (YDS style PG/R/X or some other flavour) and the physical grade (so french sport), where do you need the "E-grade"? 

It tells you how hard a route is overall, not just to toprope, so much more useful than the above. And if it's a bold route (nearly always obvious from the grade, description and/or from looking up), then knowing the tech grade is really useful.

 john arran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to HeMa:

When you get a receipt it will itemise any included service charge and VAT but the bottom line TOTAL figure quoted is the most useful to you as that's the overall value of the bill to you. Yes, you could have worked it out from the constituent parts (as long as they're all itemised, which may not always be the case) but the overall total is what you're most interested in so you're glad it's clearly stated.

 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to HeMa:

Ok, suppose you have one day to go climbing and you have time for only one go at one route (or you can walk away). All routes are ***. The only information which you have to choose which route to do is a grade. You know that you stand a good chance of getting up a really well protected 7a, but would only solo a route at 6a or below. Would you rather know that the routes' grades are E1, E2, E3 nd E4, or that they are 6a, 6b, 6c and 7a in order to make your choice?

Post edited at 21:53
 gravy 01 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Are there any E1 7As?

 john arran 01 Sep 2019
In reply to gravy:

> Are there any E1 7As?

None that have any chance of being correctly graded!

 Robert Durran 01 Sep 2019
In reply to gravy:

> Are there any E1 7As?


Do you mean that - 7A is a bouldering grade.

Anyway, I'd have thought the answer is no whether you mean 7A (bouldering grade), 7a (UK tech grade), or 7a (French grade). Obviously I was talking about French grades in my last post being used as a single tier grading system.

Why do you ask anyway?

 Jon Stewart 01 Sep 2019
In reply to HeMa:

> AFAIK f6c+ is near the upper physical end of the spectrum for E4. So based on that it certainly is true physically. Mentally that is completely different ball game.

It's incorrect to think that the difference between a trad route and a sport route of the same grade is psychological. This might be reasonably true on low grades where you stand on ledges to place gear, but as soon as it gets steep and you're hanging on to place the gear, the physical effort of a trad route (onsight) is multiple times the physical effort of a sport route (onsight). Placing gear is hard work, before you've even considered the headgame of climbing above it, not knowing where the next good pro is. 

A very common way to fail on a steep trad route is to get pumped placing gear and then be unable to do next hard move. On a slabby (or poorly protected) trad route a more common way is the psychological barrier of bold climbing. 

So, being able to climb f6c+ does not mean you can climb e4 at all (but being able to climb a hard e2, which might be f6b+ with strenuous to place gear, is a good indicator, because an easy e4 could also be f6b+ with strenuous to place gear!).

However, if you have lots of trad experience and you can onsight f6c+, there e4s out there that'll be fine. 

Post edited at 10:51
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Indeed. But you can see that too. I was really quite nervous on that bit. I think there was one not so good wire before a tricksy move left, then the good gear started to arrive. The E1 grade is a bit controversial for the Gates, but if anything makes it E1 it's that first serious bit, as you say.

I felt a bit more worried than I expected, compared to some E1s I'd done, so I didn't think it felt over-graded at the time but yes it was that bit that warranted the grade, although I then did the direct finish without realising it until I got to the top and that felt 'E1ish too'

Post edited at 11:43
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I remember it went so smoothly that I suddenly found myself looking at a fiercer looking crack ... and then realised I was standing on the belay ledge and what I was looking at was the direct finish. I belayed on the ledge and then my partner led thru up the ordinary finish which I thought was really good anyway. Wonderful position.

 HeMa 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It's incorrect to think that the difference between a trad route and a sport route of the same grade is psychological. This might be reasonably true on low grades where you stand on ledges to place gear, but as soon as it gets steep and you're hanging on to place the gear, the physical effort of a trad route (onsight) is multiple times the physical effort of a sport route (onsight).

Depends on the route... a nice continuous crack is actually easier as trad than as a sport (even if the grade is the same) as you can decide when and how much gear to place. Iffy and hard to protect (and read) face climb... yes, sport is going to be easier. But then again, f6c+ trad with tricky climbing & sparse gear might not be E4... because f6c+ is near the upper end of E4 band, meaning safe but hard climbing (generally so) and in such terrain placing gear is not all that much more time consuming than clipping a bolt. At least that has been the case for me.

That being said, I have pumped out on trad routes while trying to fiddle in gear... but I have done just the same on similar grade sport routes. That being said, I try to avoid death on a stick kind of routes and stick to well protected stuff (at least anywhere near my physical limit).

 Jon Stewart 02 Sep 2019
In reply to HeMa:

> safe but hard climbing (generally so) and in such terrain placing gear is not all that much more time consuming than clipping a bolt. At least that has been the case for me.

Out of interest, where are you climbing with routes that don't take any more effort placing the gear than they would clipping bolts? It's 100% not the case for me in Pembroke, with its infuriatingly knobbly cracks and shit cam placements, nor the lakes where it's often quite bold so you make the most of any small placements available. It's all a severe pain in the arse compared to clipping a bolt, but it's what makes the routes satisfying and characterful. Totally different on grit where you can often stuff a decent size cam in a break and be totally confident in it, but that's got the problem of the proximity of the ground! 

 HeMa 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Out of interest, where are you climbing with routes that don't take any more effort placing the gear than they would clipping bolts?

Lovely Nordic granite, which means that slappin’ in a cam is about as quick as clippin’ a bolt. So the climbing is often very safe, but the satisfaction comes from climbing something physically hard (so at times only mildly more heady than sport and times even less so).

Post edited at 17:27
 David Coley 14 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gordon, I think this post is about a non-UK climber converting from a non-UK system into the UK system. Not about how we (as UK climbers) use the system to again important info. I'm sure we all do much as you wisely say.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...