UKC

Obviously we have the current system with Overall & Technical grades, but the system doesn't currently answer the question of what you were actually climbing.
The new system will look like this.
The Overall & Tech grades will remain, but further grades will describe the ascent.
The first grade describes how much of the pitch was "wintry", so 0 = no snow/ice/hoar/rime/verglas (summer nick), 100 = totally covered.

The second grade describes how much of this white stuff was actually used in achieving upwards progress, so 100 = a snowed up gully or pure water ice pitch. If the white stuff is just frost, or powder snow that you brush off the holds, you score 0 - the crag may have been white in appearance, but you can't climb frost - it's not strong enough.
So a snowed up gully would be 100/100. A snowed up gully with a short section on frosty rock would be 100/90.
A frosty looking crag with no water ice/neve would be 100/0 - at the end of the day it's essentially a dry tool ascent - all the frost did was stop you using summer boots & bare hands.
A dry, black looking crag, climbed using an ice choked crack for hand tools but too narrow for crampons would score 0/50. An easy angled crag plastered with fresh powder = 100/0 if all you're doing is brushing the powder off the holds.
A 2 pitch route of dry tooling to reach the base of an icicle would be 0/0, 100/100.

Simple, and stops all arguments there & then.

In reply to Chris Harris:
I'm liking your work sir!

In reply to Chris Harris:
Pfltftstfltphftspslts! (Chokes on tea.)
Can you do us a pitch by pitch analysis of the Liathach Traverse?
See thread here:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=397307

In reply to Chris Harris: Or maybe you could read the description?

In reply to Chris Harris:

". . . . Simple, and stops all arguments there & then"

not sure -

each nov/dec theres a verrrry serious thread about whether the first few routes climbed in the season are 'in' - with photos of grey rock from below and snowy shelves from above.

read the thread titled something like 'good route dave bad show' and the abuse thats exchanged on there.

good old internet forums, eh !

ah

In reply to Chris Harris:

More f***in' paperwork. Just what we need.

In reply to Chris Harris: are you related to Ed Drummond ? sounds like a winter version of his system

In reply to andymoin:

Sorry, I should have clarified:

This is not intended as something that will go in the guidebook. It's something to decribe the nature of each individual ascent so that there will be less subsequent arguments about the legitimacy of the ascent.

In reply to Chris Harris:


You've not done much proper winter climbing have you?

In reply to Chris Harris: This must be a joke? thats the most confusing pointless post ive ever read, i mean please, do we realy need to add to the current grading system?!which as far as im concerned, works well enough!

In reply to rovers123:

If it works well enough, why all the arguments every year?

The current grading system gives a grade for a route.

The actual grade and nature of the route as climbed on the day can vary enormously.

Flexibility is needed - have a guidebook grade for an ascent under some pre-defined "typical" conditions by all means, but accept that conditions can vary - some tricky gully lines can become a banked out snow plod.

Rock climbing has flash, onsight, headpointed etc for the same route, why can't winter climbing have dry tooled on hoar, banked out, pure ice etc for the same line?

In reply to Chris Harris:

Do you seriously think replacing a number system that goes from 1 to 11 with a system that goes from 0 to 100 will improve things?!? :-S

In reply to Chris Harris:
A troll, methinks. 10/100

In reply to robinsi197:

100/0 rather

In reply to robinsi197:

Grading is about recording the difficulty and risk of a climb. I'd therefore impose UKC grades from 0-5 to indicate the degree of flaming risked by a certain route. This could apply equally across winter and summer routes - for example a route that could be described as "bloody hard but not looking terribly white on the pictures" could be graded UKC5, whereas padding up Crib Goch in the height of summer in big boots gains a UKC1 grade.

Unlike most grading systems, it'd be harder to tick the lowest category (no flaming possible) than the highest (chipping 3 Pebble Slab to make it definitively HVS) - sneaking under the radar of the UKC ethics police is nigh on impossible.

In reply to Chris Harris:

lets have grading system for UKC replies.
bunch of numbers and letters and pluses and minuses to grade where a reply sits along a scale from arrogant spiteful misinformed trolling bullshit, to intelligent humorously relayed useful information.

this thread is a good one to start on.