UKC

Most people would agree that the E grade is having a bit off difficulty at the minute. In the car yesterday a couple of us came up with a possible solution.

Back in the day the E grade covered 2 (sometimes 3) French grades. They still do for totally safe climbs, so:

E5 = 7a+/7b
E6 = 7b+/7c/7c+
E7 = 8a/8a+
E8 = 8b/8b+
E9 = 8c/8c+
E10 = 9a/9a+

Now, following on from an e-mail recieved by Ian P from John Dunne it's suggested that the following apply.

Totally safe climbing fit's the above system.
If it's scary but safe add 1 E grade
If it's scary and serious add 2 E grades
If it's death add 3 E grades.

So for example:
Captain Invincible which is 8b but safe gets E8.
Indian Face, which is 7b+/7c climbing, i.e. E6 if safe, get's E9 as it's death.
Hell's Wall, which is 8a+ i.e. E7 if safe, get's E10 as it's death.
Rhapsody, which is 8c/8c+ i.e. E9 if safe, get's E11 as it's scary and serious.

As I don't know the french grade of Either Walk of Life or Echo Wall it's difficult to comment, but for Walk of Life to be E12 it's either got to be death 8c/8c+ or scary and serious 9a/9a+.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell: Damn straight! Seems to make perfect sense to me.

In reply to andy farnell:

This is certainly the way that I've understood the E grade system for years, and as far as I can see it removes most of the difficulties experiences with the E grade when correctly applied. There's some ambigutity as to whether you think something is "scary and serious" or "death" but these anomalies get ironed out over the years. As you have pointed out, this way of understanding E grades also fits very well with many/most routes with established grades. A third advantage is that it clearly demonstrates how the E grade system works - the "E" or adjectival part gives overall difficulty, taking into account seriousness and physical difficulty. The numerical part defines the hardest move alone so that in combination you can guesstimate how much of the E part of the grade is due to seriousness and how much due to physical difficulty.

In reply to RupertD:

I should add some further things:

Firstly: the well rounded climber at any grade should be able to climb both the hard/sustained but safe end of the grade and the bold/dangerous end of the grade. So you want to know why people aren't onsighting E8's in this country? Well, how many people are anywhere near onsighting 8b/8b+ in this country (which represents the safe end of the E8 grade). Very few.

Secondly: the difficulties of correctly grading grit. It's always been very hard to pin a sport grade on grit routes, they're short, conditions dependent, and often morpho offering few intermediate hand or foot holds. They often have specific or trick moves. Also because the routes are short, with few gear placements it's hard to estimate how dangerous they are. Falling 15 ft into pile of rocks can be anywhere from uncomfortable to fatal depending how you fall. One person looking at the landing might think "I'll be fine", the next "I'll probably smash a few bones". Add these two difficulties together and you can get wildly different grades for the same 15 ft bit of rock.

In reply to andy farnell:

I think the suggestion clarifies things a bit, but overall the whole E grade system is unnecesarily complicated and unclear isn't it? Personally I don't see why everyone is so attached to E grades. They don't make a lot of sense to me. There can be such a huge differencein difficulty within a single E grade which to me undermines it's value

Neil Gresham's suggestion in Climber the other month seemed much more sensible to me, i.e. French grade plus danger rating and leave it at that

In reply to andy farnell:

I totally agree with you and Rupert on this one.

As many have said, the E grade is not broken just not fully understood at that level; until now. BMC grading guidelines leaflet produced by Andy Farnell?

In reply to Jake Shaw: But the UK system makes so much sense when onsighting easier stuff.

Big thing everyone's forgetting is that if someone's climbing on something hard, whether onsight/headpoint/ground up/etc., they'll almost certainly know the French grade, the English tech (and maybe a font grade), they'll know the danger and will probably, whether they like it or not, know the gear placements. French grades and danger ratings aren't exactly new; look at the grit list for example.

Aces! Another E grade thread!

Is it really a problem, really?

In reply to Jake Shaw:

"The criterion of difficulty is how many people can do it, not some vague quality that’s supposed to exist independent of people. If you think it’s hard, either because of ‘technical difficulty’ or because you think you’ll get the chop, then it’s a hard route."

Al Rouse


You don't seem to have done much of trad., according to your profile. When you have, the adjectival grade will probably make a lot more sense. Most people who have some trad. mileage understand there's nothing wrong with the E-grade which works fine for what it was designed to grade: the overall difficulty of starting at the bottom of a rock and climbing to the top.

Just lose the useless UK tech. grade for a bouldering grade or sport grade as appropriate (it's happened everywhere except guidebooks) and it's all good.

Andy F / Ian P's suggestion is a way making the link between between E-grade and French grade more systematic, but it's what most people are doing anyway.

In reply to andy farnell:

Good interesting post Andy which clearly demonstrates the broken E grade on the grounds that it currently has no clarity, what so ever at the higher end. PG (protection good), R (runout) and X (certain death) would go a long way in mending our high end grading.

E.G if as you say..........

Then using E8 as an example........

.....or grade it E8 (PG/R)
..................E8 (R)
..................E8 (X)

It's fair to say that we have a system that is over complicated from E5 upward.

Surely we should have a grading system that is easily understood at the top end.

This is blatantly not the case at the moment.

Great suggestion. This would be the most useful for me.
Bouldering grades indicating less continuous routes and Sport grades for more sustained ones.

In reply to richard kirby: but surely using R, X etc with an E grade is half hearted, you either scrap the E grade altogether and go for a technical grade and a letter of seriousness or keep the E grade and the british tech.

Andy summed it up nicely I think.

In reply to richard kirby:

No, this is exactly the same as using a sport grade plus PG/R/X. It's no more complicated above E5 than below. You don't have to consciously go through the above process to grade a route, you can just grade it relative to other routes to some extent, but the above correlations keep things in check. One obvious difference is that up to E5, many people often climb many routes in a day out climbing, or a short period of climbing, and therefore get a better intuitive idea of what the relative grades are. At E8 this doesn't often happen so it would be much harder to grade intuitively with the same level of accuracy.

In reply to RupertD:

Surely it is better that the grade is as accurate as "possible" at the time of grading - particularly with death/X grades?


So you think it's OK to have to apply pythagorus to a route grade to actually work out the true grade or rather a grade that is more readily understood??


I guess we shouldn't put warning signs on hazardous chemicals advising not to drink them. People should be able (are expected) to work it out for themselves? If they are unable - then lets face it they should't really be doing dangerous sports like climbing Making something clearer but with a balanced view on not over complicating is surely better.

I like the E grade very much. It does encapsulate the overall grade exceedingly well in the lower extremes. Your comment; RE all round climber being able to climb all aspects of THE grade is bang on - but it isn't effective, at relaying sufficient information, in a clear way, at the higher end.

Surely the level of discussion this topic has provoked over the last few weeks/months is the biggest indicator that there is lack of clarity. It works but it should be enhanced/titivated at the higher end.

Full of cold Ru - so giving the wall a miss.

In reply to andy farnell: Which Hells Wall are you talking about? Surely not the bowderstone one as that's about 7c and safe.

Also i'd say 7c+ is hard for E6, and same as 8a+ hard for e7. Would have thought top end for e6 is 7c (i.e. hells wall), top end for e7 8a

In reply to GDes:

At E10 I think he means To Hell and Back, McLeod's route on Hell's Lum.

In reply to chris j: Correct, my mistake.

Andy F

In reply to GDes: Hell's wall on Bowderstone crag is E6 6c, if it safe as houses 7c then it fits perfectly into the system.

Andy F

In reply to RupertD:

Agreed - either way would give more clarity than current E (E6 >) situation.


I'd say it is - and you reason this below.....




Using the current E system - yes, thus a need for more info be it R,X, F grade, font grade

In reply to Oddjob:

Font grades/E grades together would probably work well on the grit.

For example:

The Promise E8 7B+, and lower down the scale, Slip and Slide E6 6B+ or Hairless Hart E5 6A+

Andy F

yes

In reply to mrjonathanr:

No!

In reply to andy farnell: I think everybody's at risk of losing the point about grades. They're there to give us a rough idea of the route's difficulty so that we can decide if we want to do that route and if we would have a chance of success in climbing it. Grades are an allowed bit of beta. But grades can't be totally precise because different people find different types/styles of climbing more or less easy, so grades form some kind of rough concensus.

What I'd like to know is this, how many people have ACTUALLY CLIMBED a UK graded route (i.e. adjective and UK tech grades) and then thought "the grade(s) gave me a totally wrong idea about the difficulty of that route, I'd have had a much better idea with the french/font/US/V grade", and I'd especially like to know how often this occurs at say E6 and above.

So lets have some actual examples on this kind of forum thread where people say I did this route and the UK grades let me down, otherwise we're all wasting our time in this debate trying to fix something that isn't broken.

This of course is all ignoring the secondary purpose of grades, which is to promote fun but often tedious discussions/arguments

In reply to Michael Hood:

Hear, hear!

In reply to andy farnell:

i understand it, i use it, i don't care if people don't get it. its our grade system- to hell with those who don't get it. it ain't broke, and it doesn't need fixing.

people like Jens from 8a should stick to clipping bolts and the little debates about who cranks harder and who sends hardest. if you need to moan on about E grades on UKC F**k off and buy a boulder mat.

rant/

In reply to thomasfoote: I've already got a mat thanks. I also get the E-grade system, I've been using it for 20 years. I'm just trying o suggest a way of improving it. Unlike you.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:
it doesn't need improving. the rant wasn't directed at you, but the concept that our grade system needs to be improved

In reply to thomasfoote: If it ain't broke don't fix it? Well it is broken at the top end, and does need fixing. All I've done is suggest a framework that can be used. It doesn't have to be used of course, but it does give some useful guidelines.

Andy F

In reply to Michael Hood:

Very well said. I haven't yet come across any occasions where I have felt that the grading system let me down. For me, the grade is just there as one indicator as to whether I might be able to do the route (style of climb, rock type etc will form the rest). When I've attempted routes that I couldn't complete I have never felt it was the grading system that let me down; sometimes I have felt that the grade was innacurate (and I'm usually wrong!) but this will be a problem with whatever system is used.

To the OP: It seems to me that any confusion that arises over the existing system comes from the fact that it uses two separate grades, and the system you suggest doesn't solve this.

In reply to andy farnell: I definitely agree with this post, and i think its how we've always treated the E grade even if we didnt define it as such.

In reply to andy farnell: Along with many people I've never had any difficult understanding the E-grade and have never thought it broken (the Tech Grade is another issue).

However, your above post is a superb, simple (and bloody obvious in hindsight) way of explaining how the E-grade works in the higher grades to the significant minority who fail to understand it that well.

Good post. It should hopefully now give people another aid to either understanding the E-grade for themselves - or more importantly explain it to foreigners, novices or the myriad of others who are rather confused by it.

In reply to Panda : agreed

In reply to andy farnell:

Not much of a trad climber so not that bothered about it but going to chip in anyway.

Seems to me that all climbing grades really refer to the overall hypothesised abilities of a climber operating at a certain level. So the theory is that climber X at the HVS level should be able to solo English 4c, lead a bold 5a, a pumpy 5b and bouldery but safe 5c(or something like that). Sounds simple enough and kind of makes sense. In the above example French grade ranges would be something like 4+ to about 6b (i.e. 5 grades difference)

The problem as I see it is that there is too much variance between the difficulty of the routes in E grades which undermines the whole system.

Looking at that website the Gritlist, within the E5 grade you have on the one hand Hairless Heart at Froggatt, given F6a and then you have Sole Power also at Froggatt, which is F7b+ (and 9 French grades of difference!!!).

So a climber who leads F6b but is very bold might onsight the former but may never be able to climb the latter even after years of training, toproping, hang-dogging, leg ups, running jumps, trampolining and other dubiousness. To call these rutes the same grade just makes a mockery of the grading system doesn't it?

I understand that there are obviously going to be differences between physical vs technical difficulties within all grading systems and different climbers vary in boldness and physical ability etc but 9 grades within one E grade?

In reply to Jake Shaw:

E grades don't really work with boulder problems, never have. Sole Power is basically a boulder problem. Ignore them.

In reply to Jake Shaw: You've made a very good point there, so I'll counter.

Sole Power is more like a Font 7B+/7C boulder problem than a route and probably should be treated as such.

If we follow the system above:

E4 = 6c/6c+
E3 = 6b/6b+
E2 = 6a/6a+

So Hairless Hart, which is a very serious solo could still fit in as it's E2 climbing in an E5 situation (add three E grades for seriousness).

With bouldery Grit routes it's probably best to add a Font technical grade and do away with UK tech grades IMHO.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

To be honest I don't know that route, but if it's a boulder problem then perhaps not the best example so fair point.

But aren't there other routes which are about f7a+/7b and e5?

Still a hell of a long way off F6a.

In reply to andy farnell:

This is essentially the same as John Redhead described the E grade system in the 80's except he used UK tech grades rather than French grades.

In a way Redhead's system is better because of course it all depends where the crux is. If you can die off a bunch of easier climbing on the route but the actual crux is safe then obviously it won't warrent the same E grade as a route whose similar crux is unprotected.

It's also follows that you also add E points for more sustained sections of climbing, multiple cruxes too.

It's also usual to deduct an E point for routes that have a short crux with say bomber overhead gear. A very safe 6a route might only be E2.

I've always thought of E grades in Redhead's terms. It has a small but useful measure of objectivity to working out the grade of a route. If you can determine the tech grade of the route's crux you can look at the gear and make a reasonable suggestion for its E grade. Alternatively you can look at a route's most serious section and work the tech grade of that section and calculate it's likely E grade that way too.

In reply to andy farnell: Bit of an essay coming on, I'm going to look at this from a (semi) mathematical perspective

Climbs have many dimensions to their difficulty, the usual suspects; technical difficulty of the hardest move (or sequence), exposure, rock quality, sustainedness, obviousness of moves, amount of protection, injury/death likelehood if you come off, etc. I'm sure I've missed a few.

Anyway, the UK grades work like this: E grade is the overall difficulty (all dimensions), tech grade is the difficulty of hardest move (1 dimension). Relationship between the two tells you about all the other dimensions.

US grades: 5.nn grade is the overall difficulty, R/X is the danger dimension.

French grade: overall difficulty but usually applied to routes where some of the dimensions (e.g. quality of pro) have collapsed to zero.

Bouldering grade: overall difficulty but where several dimensions (e.g. pro, exposure...) have collapsed to zero.

Now; dual grade systems (obviously) give more information than single grade systems so the UK grades give more info than French grades. But this is because UK grades have developed from trad which has more dimensions to difficulty and so you (typically) need more info before venturing onto a route. Sport climbs have fewer dimensions (less danger) so a single grade system is sufficient to tell you enough about a route without you getting hurt.

Also, because they deal with different dimensions of difficulty, it's impossible to exactly map one grading system onto another. What Andy's suggestion provides is a way of mapping French into E grades and the other way too. If it can be applied consistently (which is the key to making any grading system effective) then it may well help those making the transition from trad to sport or sport to trad, and also those operating at the highest levels where grades are far less well defined, partly because there is less consensus of opinion (due to less ascents).

I could go on with more points, but can't be bothered.

In reply to andy farnell: The only problem I have with the E grades is that I can't climb any of them.

In reply to andy farnell: One problem that seems to be missed here... I don't see many climbers soloing sport routes out here in Spain (Rope for just getting back down) and experiencing what a 7c feels like without the bolts, or any other grade for that matter. So, we are in a situation of imagining what it would feel like if it was bolted on a trad route. If its a well protected route, then we still have the problem of how well protected is "well protected"?
Mixing a "sport" grade into a "E only trad grade" only opens a whole new set of problems.
Finally, with the French sport route system... how can we tell how hard the one hardest move will be?
I only use the French grade with "both" UK trad grades. Seems to work OKish...not perfect. Mark

In reply to stp: I think a french grade does all you have said.

In reply to M. Edwards:
So, we are in a situation of imagining what it would feel like if it was bolted on a trad route.

Or if you were on a top rope. Hmmm, thats hard for these top end headpoint ascents where the E grade is getting confused!

lets not forget the E is for the onsight, thats how it is bottom end and so it should continue at the upper end,these are all projected grades for the future of onsighting aswell!

In reply to andy farnell: your suggestion makes the groove about E7/8?

In reply to Michael Hood: to be honest apart from gritstone, i'd rather have a french grade with an r or an x. That would tell me a lot more about most routes. e.g. Hunger and Positron, both get E5 6a, hunger is probably 7a, positron about 6c? Whatever, big difference in the difficulty of them. maybe that's just a bad example and Positron is just soft e5. But french grades would tell me more.

In reply to GDes:


but would it give you an idea of where the crux could be and how well protected it could be or even how sustained the climbing is?

In reply to GDes:



Have to agree with you.
I can think of several occasions when knowing the french grade gave me an idea of whether a route was feasible or not for me.

In reply to andy farnell:

I think your suggested new system would give a little more clarity, but it still has some ambiguity, because the 'E' part tries to link two aspects of the climb which are mutually exclusive: technical difficulty and danger.

For example, Quietus at Stanage gets E2 5c, and is technically harder than Cent, which gets E1 5b. The key difference is that the crux on Quietus is well protected - whereas Cent has no protection at all and a fall from the top would be devastating. For me, a low-grade, relatively low-risk climber who is taking a tentative look at climbing his first E1 within the coming months, there is no question about it - if I had to choose one of these two routes to climb, I'd pick Quietus over Cent any day of the week. So in this case, the 'E' grade doesn't help me make my choice, even though it tries to suggest which routes are bold or not.

Maybe the current system assumes that if you're climbing at a certain grade, say 6c, then you will be happy leading a 5c which has a potential groundfall from the top. That might well be true for a lot of people who are climbing at that level, but it's not going to be true for everyone.

However, having said that, I think the E grade is a unique and important element of how climbing has evolved in Britain, and I'm not sure that it should be changed. It might be true that it has its quirks, but if you understand how the system works, it doesn't have to be a problem. In the example I gave above, I can pick what's right for me by looking at the style of the route, looking at the technical and the E grade, and reading the guidebook description.

SK

Perhaps what we really need is two E-type grading systems, one for normal length routes (French grade + danger rating) and another one for the puppet-size grit/sandstone sprints (font grade + cummulative mat count)?

It seems to me that it's not the E grading system or concept that's wrong, it's the widespread inability to apply it. Now, why should that be the case?

How about giving trad routes above a certain height (10m?) a sport route grade, and a grade which gives an idea oh how well protected the crux is.

For smaller routes, the same, but maybe also with a suggested Font grade suggesting it is bieng highballed.

If people what to get thses grades right i dont think just the E and the tech grade will cut it. The tech grades can be very varied.

just suggestions anyway...

In reply to Jon Read: i know this is alot like what you said but i just thought i'd give my opinion.

In reply to Liam Copley:

Now, your first paragraph is maybe interestingly revealing reading to those more used to pitches (not routes) of multiples of that length! So is this debate really about short (and obviously hard), single pitch routes, and do those who keep suggesting sport-type grades with these in mind see them having the same relevance to the bigger, multi-pitch climbs where route lengths may be numbered in hundreds of metres?

In reply to petestack: can't we just do the same grading for each pitch? and then a estimate full link up grade?

In reply to andy farnell:

Is the French route grade particularly good for 'calibrating' shorter routes ? Given that Mick's assertion that even Akira isn't really a route, surely your system needs to use either French route grades OR bouldering grades to measure the climbing difficulty ?

In reply to GrahamD: In my view, the sad thing is that if it had been properly/consistently applied and extended over the years, the UK adjective/tech grades could have been applied to both sport and bouldering and would then have been better than French and V grades - simply because it'd be supplying more info.

E/tech applied to sport would tell you how cruxy or sustained the route was, similarly to trad but wouldn't include factors like "death fall possibility".

E/tech applied to bouldering would again tell you how cruxy or sustained the problem was but wouldn't even include factors like exposure.

Tis a shame, because then one grading system could have fitted all and direct comparisons between the different climbing games would have been easier.

D's dad (on his laptop - can't be bothered to relogin as me)

For the attention of Mick Ryan:


!!!!!! MICK !!!!!!!!!

In reply to andy farnell:

Haven't kept up with all this thread but have the following comments:

- as I understand it, reducing things to basics, the E grade simply attempts to ascribe a number to the overall difficulty / challenge of a climb taking it account the physical difficulty of the the climbing and other factors such as protection and seriousness.
- therefore it attempts to say that climbing a well protected (say) E5 is equivalent as an overall challenge to climbing a serious unprotected E5. Obviously an individual climber may find one or other easier but this doesn't invalidate the system anymore than sport grades being used for 35m stamina marathons with no hard moves and 10m bouldery routes with desparate moves.
- it the above is taken as accepted then reducing the well protected E grade to its equivalent sport grade seems to me to be logical and sensible and the addition of a guide as to how the seriousness of a route may effect the grade also seems to be a good idea. I say 'may' since obviously the width of E grade + judgement aspect of the seriousness means things can't be exact.
- the logic of the all the above means that climbing a (say) E9 could be considered as an overall 'challenge' to be as difficult as a 8c / 8c+. This points to why pushing grades to E11 and E12 needs to be considered very carefully. At E11 the implication is that the route 'challenge' is equivalent to 9b i.e. up there with the cutting edge of world climbing, at E12 we're into a different league. The opposite side of this is when the likes of Kevin J say that the Groove is E8 and it took him 4 days work to complete - would he expect to take 4 days on a 8b/8b+?

In reply to M. Edwards:


This is a really important point I think. All grading systems are based on feelings and fuzzy links to past experiences. When you climb a route, you have a rough idea of where it fits into your climbing experiences, and this informs your idea of its grade. The more E1's you've climbed the better you'll be at grading E1's. This seems to be the only "problem" with the E grade, there aren't enough people climbing enough of the hardest routes, so it's very difficult for anyone doing so to have a good *feeling* of what a new grade in the upper ranges might be.

I think it's probably OK for E5 to cover grades from F6a to 7b+, as long as the routes in question genuinely *feel* like "E5" to the majority of people who climb them. You can say that means the E grade is broken, but more likely is it's just complicated. Climbing is complicated and trad climbing is more complicated than sport.

In reply to Ian Patterson:

There seems to be dual standards (sic) in action here. Hard routes get repeated and the repeat ascensionists give a different grade - found a better sequence, different body shape etc. On the trad hand this leads to claims that the adjectival grade is broken. On the other sports there are no claims that that grading system is broken.

So, what's going on? Well grading routes is basically a series of guesses. As more people do a route we get more guesses and a consensus emerges - effectively we throw out the guesses at the extremes and settle on something akin to the mean or mode. With new routes there isn't the number of guesses to be able to do this so any variance from the original grade has more impact than it should have.

Let's say I repeat The Walk of Life and reckon it is E11 as opposed to E12. Is that any different to me thinking that The Cad is E5 rather than E6 or The Groove at Malham should be F8a rather than F8a+?

The difference is that The Cad and The Groove have had sufficient ascents for the grades to have agreement. This hasn't happened with TWOL.

Alternatively it may be that some people have an agenda.

ALC

In reply to Matt Vigg:

Interesting point, what E5 routes out there are F6a? The easiest E5 I can think of on a toprope would be something like Hareless Heart or Hearless Hare, which I have heard are F6a+ but surely there are none easier than this. I would have thought that mostly, unprotected F6a would get E4 or below unless its an extremely insecure slab.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I don't think there's necessarily an agenda - from my perspective (as per my post) I had difficulty understanding a claim of E12 (equivalent 'challenge' to 9c) when worldwide climbing standards are just starting to consolidate to at around the 9a+ / 9b levels. It seems to me that this is either this is a claim for a route of a standard above what's being achieved in the rest of the world or the E grade at the higher end is being used in a way that doesn't fit with the structure that is outlined in this thread.

In reply to Jake Shaw: Absolutely sensible to keep difficulty and danger separate.That way onsighters and foreigners have a chance of knowing what is in store. The in crowd and locals dont need any system except to maintain a pecking order. The problem is historic _ English guide descriptions, better American style explanatory visual topos.

In reply to andy farnell: a couple of questions:

1. are french grades for an onsight or for the redpoint/easiest sequence? routes with trick moves/hidden holds/strange sequences might not fit into this scheme so well if the frenchies are not grading for the onsight - i'm thinking of routes with irreversible moves halfway through a sequence.

2. how does difficult/strenuous to place gear get accounted for?

In reply to andy farnell: Wow - this has to be the most sensible proposal for regradings I have seen. It even sort of makes sense, although I am not sure if scariness is something that should be factored in as it is a bit objective.

In reply to teddy:

Yeah sorry was using the example from above, should have said 6a+.

I agree totally with the E grade structure discussed in this thread.

One thing that I have been thinking about is how do we define exactly what a 'death 8c' is for example? Would it be:

1. Death from falling off the crux of the 8c
2. Death from falling off an easier move after the crux when you are pumped
3. Death from a much easier move before the crux (eg. a F7b move) that is part of the 8c climbing overall, just not the crux.

If I fell off a F7a move from 30 foot up it would still result in me dying but if I still had 8c to do before topping out, could I claim E11?

In reply to teddy: What E Grade would Darwin Dixit get for the solo?

In reply to Jon Dittman:

This is how those of us who understand it have been doing it all along. At E5 I'd expect something like F7b however the effort of finding and placing gear is going to drop that a bit, let's say F7a+, then if it's runout or really serious maybe another grade (or two). In addition most of the classic E4s and E5s are from a time when routes just weren't as sustained as modern sports routes, if it wasn't for two short sections, moves even, Right Wall would be E3 5c.

Think you mean "subjective" in your last bit.

ALC

In reply to teddy:



From beyond the grave?

In reply to Erik B:

Thats a great question. I am following Sharma and Andrada in saying that it is 8b/8b+ instead of 8c so the basic physical difficulty seems to equate to E8.

However, I have heard that the crux is relatively low down and you may not die if you fall off. I would therefore think probably E10 as the hard bit is serious but not deathly. The top moves seem way easier so in my view may not form part of the E10 equation, precisely my point above.

however, take this with an extremely large pinch of salt as I have never been anywhere near this route in my life!!

In reply to martin heywood:



Could be the next thread, saw the video, gear placed on lead, died after the crux, E11 PF (Posthumous Flash)

In reply to martin heywood:

Ha Ha, nice one, however the point remains as it is a hypothetical question that relates to the overall E grade given

In reply to a lakeland climber:


Yeah - that as well. I guess as someone who has never climbed harder than E2, it is all a bit mythical really. Something to look forward to I reckon.

In reply to Erik B:

is this a trick question? having different grades for solos/one-handed or barefoot ascents is a whole new level of confusion...

there are plenty of archived threads about why the style of ascent doesn't change a route's E-grade...

as a safe as houses, 8b+ then E8 in this new post-imperial age...

In reply to Jake Shaw: The problem with having a seperate difficulty rating is that most people will just avoid routes rated R or X, particularly if they get no obvious credit from the rating. It is nice to climb a sustained relatively technically easy climb, and get the boost of a high E grade. The E system is an integral of mental and physical challenge and hence better reflects the rating of a climb, than coldly divorcing the two. Actual and artistic versus accurate and boring. On this basis I go for the E system, which better reflects the challenge and eventual success.

In reply to Oliver Hill: everyone should climb for their own reasons but if they don't want to climb routes because the grading system doesn't reward them for danger then i think that is quite a shame.

In reply to Tobias at Home: i think that is quite a shame.


Quite. Its not like there aren't enough muppets in the world already

In reply to teddy:

Yes, as the climbing on the route is F8c standard


Yes, as the climbing on the route is F8c standard


F7b is a sports grade, not a move grade, but as the route would be F8c overall, then yes as it's still F8c.


No, you'd be dead.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Fine, this is only to illustrate the point.

OK, how about Echo Wall where the death bit is on a F7b+ after the kneebar rest but not after the protectable F8c+ crux. Surely, the 'death' E grade addition of 3 extra grades should not apply in this situation as the 7b+ is so much easier than the crux. It would be like me doing a well protected E5 to a rest and then doing unprotected 5a moves - I would not claim E6 for doing those much easier moves without gear.

Yes I know F7b is a route grade. I can still use it to illustrate my point though. A move on a F7b route would be much easier than one on a F8c.

I don't think the situation is as clear cut as you suggest. If the move is far easier than one found on an 8c, I don't think 3 extra E grades could be claimed as the climber's life is not being risked on the crux.

Yeah, I was only saying that to make a point. Like I said above, the assessment of risk making up the E grade is hypothetical. My statement was not meant to be taken literally.

In reply to andy farnell: I'm just back from doing a new multi-pitch route with two clients (one Englishman with many years experience, and one Dutchman with lots of indoor experience and limited outdoor climbing) The route we climbed was on-sight and at Echo 1 (sunny and hot) That's the picture...
Now what to grade it? My system I use here...
I lead all four pitches (the route is 300ft)
First pitch is E1 5a/b (F6a)
Second pitch VS 4c (F5)
Third pitch (crux) E2 5b (F6a+)
Last pitch VS 5a (5+)

In the UK system it would get E2 5a/b 4c 5b 5a
French/Spanish would be 6a 5 6a+ 5+

What system gives you most info? Mark

PS My clients gave these grades.

In reply to andy farnell:

Going back to your first post Andy.

Didn't Neil Gresham have an article in High years back that said exactly the same thing?

One of the examples used was The Bug Issue. F8a+/b = E8, add a scary start and the strenuousness of big pitch placing gear = E9

In reply to andy farnell:

All grades are surely supposed to signify an equivalence 'difficulty'. With E grades this is a combination of difficulty and danger equating to some sort of perceived equivalence of overall difficulty.

The problem as I see it with the E grade system is that I can't see that a bold run out route is as hard (even accounting for fear factor) as the well protected equivalent.

Using the grade ranges above E7 could be anywhere between F6c+ (solo - death fall) to F8a+ (well protected). There are loads of climbers who could onsight the former and not many at all who could do the latter.

I just can't see that these are equivalent efforts as the latter to me seems infinitely harder.

In reply to Jake Shaw:

I see what you're saying but if soloing scares the crap out of you, I would choose the hard well-protected climb every time. Eg. I would not dream of soloing a bold grit slab solo of only F6b but would be happy on a big strenuous E5 6b covered in wires.

BTW, which E7's are only F6c+?

In reply to teddy:

No idea was just using the calculation above...maybe there aren't any! If anyone knows any let me know so I can go and top rope it to death and become an E7 climber...ah the glory

In reply to Jake Shaw:


One issue is that one would be the lower end of E7 while the other (8a+, placing gear) would be right at the top end. Also while many might be eminently capable of onsighting 6c+, doing with terminal consequences is a different kettle of fish. Interestingly from my experience of the easier end of this sort thing I would say the most popular E5 onsights tend to fall in the moderately hard, boldish part of the scale with both the very serious and well protected, proper hard ends of things being less popular.

As to the possible implication that the 6c+ easier climbing but very serious makes a much easier headpoint than an 8a but very well protected I don't know since I haven't tried headpointing. I know that I wouldn't fancy a solo of Free and Even Easier (7a+) which I've done loads (hundreds?) of times and would fall into the very serious but maybe not totally deadly class (its on 10m high after all!), but then I haven't redpointed 8a either.

In reply to M. Edwards:


The dual system, by a factor of two... But where was it mooted to revert to a mono grading system?

In reply to teddy:

The Independent Route E7 6b at Avon Gorge. It's low-end E7 but if you want to go and onsight it, you're a braver man than I am.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

For me the E grade (and all other adjective grades) only work when combined with the technical (crux move) grade, so we agree. My point is, I only use the French/Spanish grade to accommodate the local system. The French/Spanish system tells me nothing of much value, unless it was on a sports route, as it was intended of course.
From a sunny (but with a slight chilly wind) Costa Blanca, Mark

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

F6c+ = E4 if well protected, so add 3 for seriousness = E7!. The formula still works...

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Cheers Andy (and Ru) very useful just need the equivalents for stuff that mortals can climb now

In reply to Micheal Hood

I'm a fan of the UK grading system but know it is easily capable of hiding the nature of risks faced on a route. An E2 5b could be a protectable beast or completely unprotected slab. E1 5b could be a bouldery start with a death route above or a standard protectable route. The US film ratings and Yorkshire P systems are especially useful for when it's not obvious looking at the route from below that you may be risking serious injury or even death on part of a route if you slip; guidebooks usually give warnings in the text but not always.

One thing I'm thinking about re this formula is that it seems skewed towards the easier routes getting more E grades for little more effort. Eg. to improve from F6c+ to F7b might take most people probably a year's worth of dedicated training if you were climbing full time. However, to go from F8c+ to F9b might not even be achievable by 99% of the climbing population yet you would only be recognised by a measly 2 extra E points for a well protected trad route.

How about 1 extra E point per half french grade above F9a? Eg. 9a=E10, 9a+=E11, 9b=E12??

In reply to teddy: You've got to remember that there's easy and hard routes within a grade. The E grade covers a range of difficulty, even at the higher levels. To start condensing the grades at the top level would lead to the problems we have with the UK tech grade at the top end i.e. no-one knows what the hell 7b is...

andy F

OK but it looks like we might not get any routes higher than E10 until 2050!

In reply to teddy: Why, when we have routes of E11 now, which fit into the system?

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Alright, Rhapsody is E11. We have one E11....but it looks like we might not get any routes higher than E11 until 2050!

In reply to M. Edwards:

I have always had an issue with the UK grades for multipitch routes. Okay, it's E2 overall, but which pitches are E2? Are there 2 very scary pitches of E2 5a? How does the current system differentiate between the final pitch being safe as houses (VS 5a) or very serious (E2 5a)? I prefer your initial system of giving dual grades for each pitch. This way an 'uneven' party can climb a route, with the harder climber leading the E2 pitches and the easier climber climbing the Vs pitches, safe in the knowledge that they aren't going to get scared stupid.

In reply to Jake Shaw:

>
>

You have already stated that you aren't much of a trad climber. Have you done enough to 'know' that what you are saying is the case or are you just postulating? Personally, I think the system works. A very necky climb may be technically easier but sure as hell feels just as 'hard' as a safer more physical climb. Maybe you should try looking at it as a ratio of the consequence of a fall against the liklihood of a fall. For a f6C+ E7 the liklihood is lower but hte consequences are awful, for an 8a+ E7 the consequences of a fall are pretty much nothing, but the liklihood is high. They balance out.

I have to admit though, that the system doesn't always work for bold youths who are happy to push their limits in deadly positions. Very impressive, but their lack of considering the consequences may allow them to push the bolder end of the grade spectrum a long way.

In reply to teddy:

Though I guess you could argue that following Sonnie Trotter's and Ste Macs ascents that it becomes 8c/8c+ + 1 for scary but not really dangerous so E10!! - which would sort of balance with how quickly SM repeated it, is it really harder than his sport routes?

As to narrowing the E grades at the higher level I think maybe that's what has been attempted with the recent big grades - I don't think its a good idea since changing the logic halfway up the grade range only devalues the whole thing. If people need to recognize that route x is definitely harder than route y why not use E9, E9+, E10, E10+ as for french grades.

In reply to Offwidth:

Having being lured onto some mightily scary run out terrirtory by the innocuous P2 grade, I am definately not a fan of the P grades. As things stand elsewhere, you make your own choices based on what you see(and maybe a fluttery heart gives you a clue if its scarier than usual). Give an affirmation that there WILL be protection, as P1,P2 does can really get you unstuck very quickly.

In reply to Monk:

Quite true, youthful stupidity can get you some good ticks, but this is balanced out in later years by mid life timidity!

In reply to Monk:


The text nearly always tells you. UK guidebooks invariably give you much more than the grade.

On long routes why not adopt Alpine mentality, where your grade is much more nebulous than an E grade ?

In reply to GrahamD:

A good point, and also why the E grade works just fine - anomolies are normally mentioned in the text, and in UK guides we always have route descriptions for trad routes, unlike sport crags where you have numbered lines.


Not sure what you are saying here. I think that I agree with you - I don't think I would head up a long E2 without either knowing I could lead every pitch myself, or knowing that my partner could share the E2 lead climbing. My worry is that if I set off with a VS leader, how could we decide how to split the pitches? Same as if I was off on an AD - I would want my partner to be competent at that grade too. My point was that giving each pitch on a long route a dual grade would give far more useful information for just 2 extra characters per pitch description.

In reply to GrahamD:

That P2 thing is just bad grading. There are plenty of VDs out there that are really VS despite the efforts of the likes of me to change that.

In reply to Ian Patterson:

LMAO, so very true. Have an honorary wad point

Andy F

In reply to GrahamD:


the muddiness of alpine grades is due to the variability of conditions and remoteness really. to be honest, i don't think they should be used for alpine rock routes either - should be exclusively the domain of mixed/ice routes.

In reply to Offwidth:

Maybe that particular experience was bad grading, but its does beg the question of just how do you interpret P2 ? am I safe or not ? how scared should I be ?

I think, on the whole, I would rather be told that you might not be safe on some routes (fluttery hearts) rather than be told that you will be safe (P1,2).

In reply to Tobias at Home:

Partly variability of conditions but also there is the Alpine ethos of climbing long routes without a runner by runner, move by move breakdown. There comes a point on longer routes where people are going to have to think for themselves.

In reply to GrahamD:

Fluttery hearts is binary (you get one or you don't) and many routes that should get them don't which seems to me a lot more of a problem than a P2 really being a P3. As to what it means: read the instructions in the book, it was perfectly clear to me. Those that dont like bold routes can always stick to P1.

In reply to andy farnell:

Does this mean your back climbing and have come to terms with , to quote yourself ''Mediocrity'' ??

In reply to Offwidth:

I always take fluttery hearts as more advisory - handy extra information as it were, so I'm not worried how exact they are. The P grades are actually supposed to be part of the grade so they actually tell you a route is safe, which is a dangerous thing to do. IMO, obviously - some people like P grades.

In reply to GrahamD:

No they don't tell you a route is safe, they give levels of prang potential and the guide makes it very clear that no route is safe just becuase it has good pro. I see no philosophical classification difference to a fluttery heart or US film ratings which also don't imply any route is safe just because it has good pro.

In reply to GrahamD:

They don't tell you whether a route is "safe" only the consequences of a fall so it's consistent in that you can take a big but safe fall or a short but potentially serious one. The P is short for "Prang"

ALC

In reply to nbonnett: Just because I'm commenting on the UK grding system from a perspective of having used it regularly over the last 20 years doesn't mean I'm climbing again.



























But yes, I have come to terms with my mediocrity...

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Under the new system, what grade does Right Wall get?

I was under the understanding that it was no where near as hard as 7a+.

In reply to andy farnell:
...and so have we.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

E5 6a...

or Safe but bold F6c/6c+ (E4 climbing in a safe but bold situation).

Andy F

In reply to Serpico:

Didn't take long for you to do that did it Dad

Andy F

In reply to Monk:

I'd read the description and use the English grade - all you'd need.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Well it's low end E5 and probably F6c or F6c+ with a UK 6a tech crux. You can take a nasty fall off the upper crux if you aren't careful. Not a big fall but if you don't push yourself out from the rock you can catch the girdle ledge - ouch!

ALC

In reply to andy farnell:

safe(ish) - people have hurt themselves falling off above the girdle ledge. Examples like this clarify things a bit - the +1 grade does incorporate some risk, thats why it's worth an extra grade. I would say that by the time you get into to the +2 grades you really wouldn't want to fall off, for +3 grades falling off its not an option that can be contemplated (e.g Indian Face).

In reply to andy farnell:

Someone else may have said this earlier, but doesn't the whole thing fall over in the case of solos. Very few people want to undertake serious solos, so the E grade will not reflect the overall difficulty of the ascent. Happily there aren't too many routes of this sort in the UK but that could change if someone started taking the bolts out of slate.

For example, what E grade would a solo of London Wall attract (assuming nuts hadn't been invented)?

Another obvious anomaly is Ben Tetler's solo of Knockin on Heaven's Door. Let's say 7b+, add 3 grades for death and that gives you E9. Now which would you choose to do with a gun to your head, Parthian Shot or walking in Ben Tetler's footsteps?

In reply to Offwidth:

I understand what the P grades are supposed to indicate - by saying 'safe' I am just giving what a common interpretation of P grades is. Unless that common interpretation can definately be avoided, P grades are more of a hazard than they are worth. IMO of course.

In reply to gallam1: Soloing a route would, in theory, be it's difficulty in french grade, i.e. 7b+ for KOHD and 8a+ for PS. In E grades they both get E9 as E6+3 (E9)for KOHD and E7+2 (E9)for PS.

A solo of LW would be E5+3 = E8, given LW is 7a+ for effort i.e. safe E5

With a gun to my head I'd do KOHD as I can climb 7b+ but as yet I can't climb 8a+. Given a real world choice, neither, as my balls have shrunk in proportion to my age and family increasing...

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

To confirm that not every foreigner thinks the E-grade is daft.

Editors note From SA mountain sport jun-aug 2008:

"The British are legendary for pushing the boat out in very rough waters and will always be influential wherever they travel. Also their grading system has a lot of merit which I feel is arguably the best trad grading system in the world."

In reply to andy farnell:

I just dont't think those E grades even begin to measure the difficulty of repeating the solos.

In reply to andy farnell:

Further to my last message, we've almost lost count of the number of repeats of PS. KOHD = 0.

Another example; you can probably still name and date everyone who has soloed Right Wall. Can you do the same for everyone who has climbed E7?

In reply to Monk: I think you have a point, especially if the guide book does not tell us much ( like some modern guides where space is at a premium and the topo format rules!). This system would give us more to argue about down he pub afterwards too!
PS Just found out today whilst hanging off a belay on El Divino, that my English client is to do Everest next May... Go Dave! And good luck! Mark

In reply to gallam1: Soloed RW: Phil Davidson (1980?) and Jerry Moffatt (1983?), there probably is a few more.

Climbed E7? That list could take a bit longer.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Actually, you know what, I think with a gun to my head I'd elect to be shot rather than attempt a solo of KOHD.

In reply to gallam1:

Probably because PS is regarded as a 'safe' classic E9, but KOHD (which has had repeats) is regarded as a bit more serious, despite being easier climbing. Look at Indian Face, 7b+/7c climbing, 3 repeats in 20+ years.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

exactly - the truly spooky probably needs 4 or 5 extra E grades

In reply to M. Edwards:
Sorry if reply was terse. My point was this: do you think E+ french grade gives you more or less information than E+ brit tech grade? I'd suggest more as it pinpoints true level of physical difficulty (whether cruxy or sustained you can work out for yourself) and makes the E grade a reliable indicator of boldness, which is not currently the case.
Jon

In reply to gallam1:

IIRC Ben Heason soloed KOHD

In reply to andy farnell:

Leo by headtorch?

Nick Bullock I think too.

In reply to andy farnell: Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the system Andy was proposing was the one we had used for years. 20 years ago there was an E1 4c at Trowbarrow Qy (so a death route then - no gear and loose as the proverbial) and a HVS 6something on Cloggy with the crux a few feet above a nice lawn right at the start. So I fail to see what the difference is - I also fail to see how any alternate system would give more/better info. Most of us can work out that high adjectival grade plus low tech grade (of any complexion) equals no pro or loose rock or both - and so forth. To suggest otherwise is to show a lack of appreciation of how grades have developed. The only significant change in grading occurred years ago when variable E grades were introduced. The rest is just so much fluff - but then I am well past it.

In reply to JR:

found out the other day that Ben Tetler also soloed it a few years back, story is that big ron was walking past as ben was entering the crux, ron didn't want to see the possible outcome so carried on walking, thankfully it was a good outcome.

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

indeed and it was after a bet - I think Seb? said to him, you'll never be able to solo that. So he did. Something a long those lines, but i'll wait to be corrected.

In reply to JR:

he's got some kahunas, i've had the pleasure of climbing with him a few times, he's one of the lesser known very talented climbers

In reply to andy farnell: Isn't the biggest problem with the E grade sponsorship?

In reply to Monk:

It's an interesting point, and chimes with a route I've done where the technical crux is arguably HVS 5b and the following pitch E1 5a...


So you might hope the guidebook would illuminate some of this, but some hope when I've never seen the 'crux' pitch I'm talking about given anything other than 5b, but seen the following pitch (and I know which I'd rather fall off!) given everything from 4c to 5b. But I suppose the overall grade of E1 *should* cover said pitch either way (NB it's a route that used to be undergraded at HVS), and we shouldn't automatically link the E grade to the most technical pitch.

In reply to Monk:

In our Cornish Rock guide book, we gave the tech grade a bold typeface to highlight it as the pitch that was connected to the adjectival grade on multi pitch routes.. seemed to work well. Mark

In reply to andy farnell:



And onsight soloed by one North Westerner in an attempt to impress a French girl (failed)


(Failed to impress, not failed on the route.)

In reply to andy farnell:

''I have come to terms with my mediocrity...'' me 2 as i had no choice , but then havent we all at the end of the day

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

Dont want to be pedantic, but the word is "cojones"

In reply to martin heywood:

well balls os steel then you pedant! :0P lol

In reply to the inspiral carpet:


Balls on sight steel?


The Pedant.

In reply to martin heywood:

lol yep :0)

In reply to andy farnell: I think Mark Edwards is making the most sense here, he uses exactly the same system as I do on new trad in spain. The sport grade just does not work on trad, E's and techs put out far more information. But to try and help the T***k sport only climbers we have to try and give the totally inadequate Fgrade too.

In reply to martin heywood:

I know Nick Conway onsight soloed it - same person as your North Westerner?

ALC

In reply to Al Evans:

Not so Al. Particularly at the top end, a French grade adds more information.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Explain please Mick.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Sorry I just realised you said 'adds', I would never deny that.

In reply to Al Evans:

Within a particular E-grade - say E9 - there is considerable variation as regards the the overall physical difficulty of the climbing. The climbing could be French 7b+, it could be 8a. The E-grade doesn't cover this as it is busy trying to give you some idea of the boldness, technical difficulty, and how sustained the route is - all combined. Adding the French grade in brackets clears this up.

E9 6b (7b+)

E9 6c (8a)

In reply to Al Evans:


Go have another coffee.

In reply to gallam1:

I very much doubt that. Especially since I've soloed it a number of times and even I don't remember the dates!

In reply to JonRoger:

Like E4 5C? Wellington Crack at Ilkley must be due for a regrade then.

In reply to a lakeland climber:
I could ask him, he's re-cladding my bay window tomorrow.

In reply to Serpico:

it also takes into account how sustained it is, welly crack is very well protected, the hardest move is uk 5c, but because it's quite steep it's also very pumpy...

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Think my "North Westerner" wanted to remain anonymous.

In reply to martin heywood:

Fair enough.

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

I know.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Hi Mick, So when should we start using this new French/UK combo system? E6 upwards only? From a rainy Costa Blanca, Mark

In reply to M. Edwards:

Something like that - E7 or so maybe. People already do it, and the FRCC 1999 Langdale book did also.

From a misty Ambleside

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Why limit it to the upper grades when it can very easily stretch down to E1?

andy F

In reply to andy farnell:



Why indeed?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

OK, I'll give it a go for my future Cornish new routes... May upset some people though... but I am used to that
Had a slight dusting of snow on the Puig very early this morning, all gone now though. Mark

In reply to andy farnell: Because the tech grades make perfect sense down at 5b,5c,6a...

In reply to Removed User:


It may make sense but we would still have a better idea about many routes if a French grade was included.

In reply to andy farnell:

Sure. We are thinking news page reports, but yes I'm sure it would work across the board.

In reply to M. Edwards: Just remembered... I gave Question Mark (E9 7a) a French grade of 8c back in 1993 after top-roping it, it was reported in the climbing press too. BTW Ken Palmer (second and only other ascent) down graded it to E8 6c. But after chatting with him in a surf shop in Newquay, he said he thought my grade was right, and he would not climb any harder... (Rewind E10 still awaits a second ascent) I think Rewind would be 8b and possibly harder if more holds snap off! Mark

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


And what incredible potential for arguing about the French grade of our classics, eg, Right Wall has been quoted as anywhere between 6b plus and 7a plus...

In reply to martin heywood:

Its that ability to imagine it was a bolted route problem again....and grade it as a sport route. I find it difficult, I have to admit too. Mark

In reply to M. Edwards:


On a top rope it should not make any difference though, which brings up another point,
Would this inclusion of a French grade lead to increased toproping of trad routes, and to the moral decay eating etc.........

In reply to martin heywood:

Good point, I think your right. I can imagine its just what all the indoor climbers would want, a direct transfer from indoor grades to outdoors... but how to get the rope up there...? Mark

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Thank you, but why? I was agreeing with you?

In reply to martin heywood:

Because what you have on most UK trad routes is easy climbing for the grade with a short crux section. The UK tech grade (originally a bouldering grade) can deal with grading that short section. What it can't deal with is where every move is at that level which is what you start to get around E5 especially on the newer routes.

ALC

In reply to andy farnell: We're British for f*cks sake ! do we really need to know of all of this before we set off on a route it totally takes away everything its supposed to be about .E3 5C E5 6A ENOUGH SAID .

In reply to mick o the north:

Thanks for your opinion Mick, perhaps you are right....

In reply to mick o the north:

Well Mike.... we do have the E grade system, perhaps the most complicated grade system in the world and do we really need to know of all of this before we set off on a route?

"ENOUGH SAID"..... best of luck with that.

Mike

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: i understand that the forthcoming CC Pass guide will include sport grades for E6 and above (courtesy of Mr Robins).

FWIW, there have been several posts on UKC over the last while all on the same subject (shortcoming of the E grade). all have generated many posts with many people agreeing that yes, the E grade doesnt quite achieve everything it should (certainly for E5 and up it seems to be widely accepted that E grades are inadequate) and that the addition of a sport grade would increase someones knowledge of / feel for a route before an attempt.

i dont see why this is such an issue: the sport grade gives you more info and if you dont like it, ignore it. end of story. can we please move on...

In reply to martin heywood:

6c is the usual French grade touted for RW. i.e. E3 climbing overall but run-out and bold in places but safeish overall, hence the E5 grade.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:


Indeed, I could see arguments around 6b+ or 6c+ but can't understand anyone thinking its 7a+.

In reply to andy farnell:


Yes, I know but judging by other comments there would be a lot of discussion and dissent about this and thousands of other routes..

In reply to martin heywood: hello Martin, why would there be? people generally accept 'all' sport grades so it should be no different giving a sport grade for RW or other trad routes.

In reply to ksjs:

Hi Keith,
I think because often the style of climbing is a bit different on limestone sport routes (tying in with the bloke from the lakes post about the E grade working fine for British climbing). For example, I sometimes think when climbing say a 6b sport route that it feels easier than many E1s.
I suppose on many routes there would be a very clear consensus on French grade, but I predict a massive and long running debate over F grades if the practise starts to be adopted wholesale.

In reply to martin heywood: youre probably right about style; for me E1 often feels harder than 6b. as for the debate thing i guess there will alway be debate but its usually (as far as grades go) about whether a route is 1 up or down from the given grade: most people know what a 5+ / 6b / 7a etc should feel like.

In reply to andy farnell:

I like your idea of the "farnell's frame".

However, I think "old" routes should be leave as they are (with some reasons), but the farnell's frame can be good guideline for grading of new lines (especially, at the top level) to time of onsights ascents.


Regards,

In reply to andy farnell:

I've got another slightly more accessible anomaly for you that I know people disagree on, so here goes.

Get the bus out of Manchester on a grey week day by yourself, read a story in the newspaper about the murders on the way, arrive at Wimberry to find the crag deserted and get on Northern Ballet as your warm-up.

Then, once you've reached the top and calmed down, try and fit it into the suggested grading system.

Incidentally, I think that as a general rule what you propose is spot on.

In reply to teddy:


Thats not actually true. The crux of the route is the whole section above the kneebar and the death bit is the redpoint crux of the route, about 8c or 8c+. After that its an E6 6a to the top. that might be the bit you are thinking of.

In reply to Dave MacLeod: (Takes a deep breath as he readies the calculator...) 8c/+ if safe = E9. Add 3 E grades for death = E12.

Sorry, had to do it.

Andy F

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

Oh right, thanks for the info Dave. yes, thats sounds extremely dangerous as it is the redpoint crux and therefore part of overall French grade. I take back my comparisons with much easier moves on an E5 after a rest. I remember hearing F7b+ being given to something on your climb but maybe it was referring to the E6 6a bit higher up? I would agree with Andy then, give it 3 more E grades, that what has been done for Gaia, End of the Affair etc, why not Echo Wall?

I am talking generally now and not about Echo Wall now but I think that if the bold bit is not the redpoint crux of a climb or is after a rest, 3 extra E grades should not automatically be applied.

None of the above convinces me that there's a problem with the British system (though admittedly I've never climbed above E5).
Isn't it more a case of the system being misapplied at the top end because there aren't enough ascents of the routes to achieve a consensus (something which will, inevitably, be achieved)?

In reply to Jake Shaw: why is this seen as so difficult and complicated?
Even at the highest level the E grade should be straightforward to estimate.

You start by deciding the tech grade. If you're climbing at the top level presently (which I'm not!), then probably if there's a hard section on it it's 6b, if it's really hard it's 6c and if it's the hardest then it's 7a.

If the crux is (say) 6c, the "standard" E-grade is E5. Then you add or take away E points to reflect the overall difficulty, judging the amount by common practice. For example, about +3 if the route involves certain death should you fail on the crux, making it E8.

Overall it's an E8 for an onsight. The 6c bit indicates that 3 points have been added, and that you need to be able to climb 6c moves. Seems simple to me.

In reply to Andy Stephenson: DOH! Simple until you remember the tech grade fall over at the higher echelons.

In reply to andy farnell:

Have we done Three Pebble Slab yet?

In reply to Removed User: that might be a problem that I'm unaware of...

In reply to Nic:

I soloed it years ago. Nice VS I thought.

Andy F