UKC

Really like this new guide, great photo topos and nice layout. But are the + and - along with the adjective grades really necessary? It basically triples the amount of possible adjective grades.

Does our grading system really need subdivided further? What is the difference between E1- and HVS +, and is there really any need for MVS or MS? Surely HS/VS or HVD/S would do?

Any thoughts? Maybe I'm in the minority and people really need grades spelled out to them better in this way!

In reply to Smelly Fox:

Isn't E1- just a shorthand for "E1 low in the grade" and HVS+ "HVS high in the grade"?

The FRCC guides have always had MVS and MS haven't they? Though I agree that they're not terribly useful.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Yes that is what is intended for sure. I don't have a problem with "low/high in the grade" being used in specific situations, like in other guides, but blanket use for all routes is effectively subdividing the original grades. The are 3 different E1 grades for example: low, normal and high.

I just think it's unnecessary, and somewhat dilutes the experience.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

Especially when you consider the overlap e.g. HVS+ is harder than E1-

In reply to Smelly Fox:

HVS+ and E1- are the same thing - surely

In reply to Goucho:
E0 which incidentally I'm perfectly happy with... The HVS grade is ridiculously broad and probably does warrent a division.

MVS and MS not so much.

In reply to Goucho:


Close. E1- should feel harder than HVS+ for most people.

I quite like it.

Gives a bit more information for little space.
Saves having a graded list and an extra line of text if low or high in the grade.

It started for this purpose in the FRCC Selected guide, if you don't like it just ignore.

In reply to Goucho:

Not sure, but MVS always seemed easier than HS in FRCC guides
(but its a long time since I was in the Lakes)

In reply to Doug:

In NE England MVS is usually harder than VS

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

Square Chimney and Whisky Crack

In reply to Rick Graham:


At least with a graded list at the front or end you can ignore it! Not when it is incorporated into the route grade!

I'm happy to accept I could be the minority, each to there own. I'd still buy the guide, but I do hope the idea doesn't transcend to other modern guides.

In reply to BnB:

Harder than the average Almscliffe VS climb eh? I think not.

In reply to Smelly Fox:
HVS /E1 my grade on a good day-I would suggest a lot of climbers climb similar grades and
that adding +. or - just gives a little bit more info.
Climbed a lot in Langdale last summer and found it usefull.

In reply to Offwidth:

No, silly, just harder than plenty of the VSs at Stan-age.

Is anything harder than an Almscliffe VS?

In reply to BnB:

Square Chimney was Severe when I first did it, and I found it easy for the grade. Last time it felt mildly desperate, and it's impossible that I've got worse so it must be more polished

If you want a tough MVS, try Birdland Direct at Peak Scar. Then for a rest you can do Jam With Same (VS) at the same crag.

In reply to Rick Graham:
Got to have graded list though to have something to argue about.

In reply to BnB:

Crookrise was of the big crags. Kyloe in the Woods Severe was hard for VS.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

Agreed. Apart from the few routes at the top/bottom of their respective grades (which can be mentioned in the text), there's no need for further subdivisions. For 2 reasons:

1) this is just as subjective as grading in general but arguably more so since it's trying to be more specific. In many cases an E1- could still be a middling E1 or HVS.

2) despite the inevitable inaccuracies mentioned above it still provides some idea of relative difficulty. However, this means there is less room for (welcome) uncertainty within the grades. It's good sometimes to end up on something difficult rather than progressing in tiny incremental steps. One can still usually avoid really hard or bold routes by reading the description and looking at the line.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

When living and climbing in the Lakes for two years between 2012 and 2014, I have to say I found FRCC's +/- system helped with route choice. If I was having a especially good day, we'd go for a + in the grade boundary, if it felt like a wobbler was in the pipeline, drop it a bit and go for a - grade.

It also feels like it helps more with the longer routes. Routes with sustained difficulties tend to be at the + end of the spectrum. One hard pitch but then more amenable pitches otherwise would give a -.

I can see that an argument is there for just dropping a grade if you feel like you're on an off day, but sometimes just a small increment down is enough, and is actually more enjoyable.

Either way, it's each to their own, and I appreciate the extra detail the FRCC put into their guides.
Disclaimer: I don't always agree with their assignment of +/-, but it's usually pretty accurate.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

+ and - suffixes are nothing more than a formalisation of colloquial descriptions among climbers and should be taken with a big pinch of salt. As we know, grades have always been a subject of fierce debate. Sometimes a new grade would be deliberately invented by an individual - Extremely Severe by Peter Harding in 1951 and its subsequent division into E-grades by Col Read in 1978 are examples. On the other hand no-one invented HVS. Climbers just started referring to "HARD very severe" and so guidebook writers in the late 60's went with it and top-sliced the VS grade.

Over-precision provides great material for drunken arguments among those who actually at particular grades and thus don't need it, but I'm not sure that it really benefits people who are trying to work their way up.

In reply to: of the few I've done,MVS tends to be bolder, HS tends to be more technical. Of course this is generalising.

My favourite is what's the difference between MVS+ and VS- ?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Birdland direct is definitely easier than vs (exposed finish but easy), about right at mvs. Jam with Sam is straight forward and at the easy end of vs. Certainly easier than frenesi.

In reply to Smelly Fox:

The idea is fairly logical - and HVS+ is not E1- - but has been dropped in the Scafell & Wasdale guide and the forthcoming Selected Guide - with appropriate comment.

Another idea - mentioned in the Selected Guide in the Duddon section - is the idea of a decimal system - eg HVS.3; HVS.4 etc. This could replace them idea of a graded list idea and give hours of discussion about - is VS.6 or VS.8 !!! - but the idea is not being taken forward.

In reply to Ron Kenyon:
bring back the graded list, hours of fun

In reply to Ron Kenyon:


Hahaha, oh god....

Like I said before, the "+and-" don't detract much from what are great new guides. I just don't like the idea.

Looking forward to the Scafell and Wasdale guide for sure! Really enjoying the lakes exploring and climbing recently.

In reply to Ron Kenyon:


Al's original 8 page bumper fun topo guide to the Duddon raised absolutely loads of £2's for the original Lakes Bolt fund. It had grades to one decimal place. The idea was taken from the decimal/average grades used to formulate the graded lists for the main guides.

One justification, that has not been discussed, for +/- grades, is the effect they can have on reducing grade creep.