UKC

I notice that the new selected Lake District guide from the FRCC is now out - see http://www.frcc.co.uk/publications.asp

That page says:

"This publication replaces the best-selling 2003 guide as the guide of choice for visiting climbers. Jointly published with WIRED guides – a collaboration of not-for-profit publishers including the FRCC, BMC, SMC, CC and YMC – this guide is the first of an exciting new series that will cover the whole of Britain."

Can anybody in the know explain what exactly 'WIRED guides' is, and what their future plans/agreements are?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Well, since you ask it's "... a collaboration of not-for-profit publishers including the FRCC, BMC, SMC, CC and YMC".


"... an exciting new series that will cover the whole of Britain".

I think the idea is a series of selectives covering most or all of Britain, and by collaborating (rather than FRCC, CC, BMC etc doing things independently) they can reduce the work and keep costs down.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

To give Rockfax a run for their money!!

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I can tell you they have produced an absolutely brilliant guidebook and a great overview of Lakes climbing. Go buy!

mike

In reply to mike lawrence?:

So should I replace my (as-yet unused) 2003 guide? Which I got for a trip in... a month.

In reply to climbwhenready:
Not necessarily. The big bonus of the 2003 guide is that it is small enough to go in your pocket on multipitch routes. On the downside it has diagrams (very good ones though) and is over 10 years out of date.

The new guide has excellent photo topos but is Rockfax sized and has a card cover rather than the tough plastic cover that the older FRCC guides have. It's bang up to date and the crag photos are pretty inspiring.

Perhaps you need both!

In reply to climbwhenready:

FWIW, I have never got on with the 2003 guide, I found the diagrams somewhat of a pain. Glad this guide is here now, Lakes has been crying out for an updated photo guide for years now!

In reply to climbwhenready:

Definitely, it is a bit bigger and a bit coffee table like but much clearer and very inspirational.

mike

In reply to mike lawrence?:


To the shops I will go.....

With all these coffee table books people keep making, I might need to get a coffee table. Or four.

In reply to mike lawrence?:

A friend got it last week and she said it didn't have maps that help you get where the crags are. She thought that was quite a weakness. Agree?

In reply to TobyA:

"Lake District Rock contains over 1500 climbs on 85 crags and features clear maps, crisp photodiagram coverage for every crag and sensational images..."

From the FRCC web site /publications

In reply to climbwhenready:

The 2003 select guide is pretty good. I'd say getting another one would seem a waste of money for just the occasional visit.

In reply to TobyA:

OS maps? There will be grid refs in the guide I imagine.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Just get the new guide and use with a phone or a camera...

In reply to Michael Gordon:
If you're happy with those computer generated crag diagrams - not always easy to follow! Also things like pegs that have rotted away - useful to have updates on that. Above all, a photo topo is just so much better for leading through and deciding what you might want to do.

In reply to Misha:


depends on how good the artwork is

In reply to Misha:


I can't comment on this paticular guide - I haven't seen it, but for long mountain routes line topos which concentrate on the features you need and doesn't forshorten the crag are often much easier to follow.

In reply to GrahamD:

Odd really that people might prefer a photo for a long multipitch. Topo for me anytime.

In reply to Steve Crowe:

Yep, well that was just her impression on leafing through it. I looked and the photos and layout looked very nice. My Lakes guide was a 90s reprint of what from the photos looks like an early 80s edition, so I'm definitely in the market for this one - and I can read an OS map too!

In reply to TobyA:


The maps seem perfectly adequate if a little on the small side (but no smaller than they would have been in an old format FRCC guide). As with any mountain area, the appropriate OS map and compass will never go amiss.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


Agree!!! I haven't seen the maps in this guide but a map and compass and the knowledge of how to use them can be essential for some mountain crags particularly if the weather turns nasty a guide book maps aren't usually of sufficient size and quality to navigate safely from. You wouldn't normally go into the mountains without a map. Even some of the moorland crags in the Peak District I carry a map in my bag. I'm hoping to go upto Pillar Rock in a few weeks time and I certainly will be carrying a map as with any other day out in the mountains

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Have to admit to not having seen the new guide, but I really, really liked the old FRCC 'panoramic valley view' which was half map, half topo to help locate the crags on the hillside. Its really nice to stand at the bottom of the valley and actually locate your crag from there.

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes though aerial overviews can be really good too, see the excellent Yorkshire gritstone guides for examples at armscliff or simmons seat.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:
There are large scale maps for each area to give you an idea of where the crags and the paths to get to them are but as you say a map would never go amiss in mountain areas.

In reply to GrahamD:
I can assure you that the photo topos are excellent. No foreshortening issues, presumably most were taken from a distance - but the resolution is still very good on the vast majority of them.

In reply to mike lawrence?:


I'm not overly impressed, which is a shame because I really wanted to be.

The FRCC/Wired still haven't got their head around that crags needs to be described from left to right, because that is how we read things. It makes far more sense.

There are also some very odd route emissions. The most notable being Trilogy, R n S special and Fine Time. 3 Extreme Rock ticks and I would guess 3 of the most climbed routes of their grade in the Lakes. This is like writing a guide to North Wales and missing out Resurrection, Right Wall and Lord. It is not like they haven't included other hard routes. I imagine Path to Victory and First, Last and Always receive a fraction of the ascents Trilogy does.

I also though it was bizarre that Through the Looking Glass at Hodge and Not Hard and the other HVS whose names escapes me at Hard Knott Crag were left out. All these routes were in the original LDR and I can't logically see why you would remove them from this edition.

I was also less than impressed with the set of action shots. Some of them have been used in previous guides. In the age of digital cameras it is pretty easy to get hold of loads of great shots of all but the most esoteric routes.

I was also disappointed to see neither a graded list or the use of plus or minus grades. I know the Cumbrian favourite MVS+ does seem a little ridiculous and graded lists should be taken with a large dose of salt, however it is nice to have vague idea of which routes are soft touches and which are sandbags.

There is also some worrying examples of grade creep. Main Wall Rib at Sickle Barn Crag is steady/soft E1 and never ever E2. You'll be in for a shock if you got on a Stoney E2 after that one.

I also thought the maps were on the small side and whilst I agree with Stephen that it is worth carrying a map and compass when you venture up on to Scafell or Dow I am unlikely to carry one in Borrowdale or the Duddon. It would be nice if a small map was included at the start of each crag's description.

Anyway it's a nice guide and I hope it sells well.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
It's a lovely book but not sure how long it would last in my rucksack -coffee table for me

Agree TRip about raven route omissions

In reply to John Kelly:

Pretty useless as a climbing guide, it won't go in your pocket.
On multi pitch trad routes, as opposed to sport, its often useful for someone to take the guide up.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I've now got a copy.

Nice production - but I agree about the size: it's physically too big. I don't see why it was thought a good idea to go to A5 rather than, say, the size of the new FRCC Langdale and Wasdale guides.


I asked that question because I couldn't get a hit for 'wired guides' on google. Text in the new guide points me to http://www.wired-guides.com/, which explains a *bit*. I'd still like to know more about the actual arrangements/agreements though.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:



As an ex guidebook editor, all I can say is that I wish that were true!

In reply to Gael Force:

I haven't carried a guidebook up a multipitch summer route in decades. I always used to photocopy (or even sketch) and put the pages I might need in a plastic freezer zip-bag bag with the current page at the top but these days you can use your camera or even your phone (camera). I think A5 is the right decision for modern UK rock climbing guides. On winter or alpine stuff I think there is a bigger argument for smaller pocket guides.

In reply to Offwidth:


The FRCC themselves clearly don't agree - look at the format of their new series - which makes the choice of A5 in this case even stranger.

In reply to Offwidth:

That always assumes you know what you want to do in advance ! For me climbing objectives for the weekend tend to come when we are there and climbing pairings (or even threes) are a little clearer which is often on the morning of climbing. So having a pocket guidebook is really useful for me. Even the new Langdale guide is a bit too big IMO.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Agreed, A5 is far too big for a multi-pitch guide.

In reply to GrahamD:

Exactly. You don't always know what you'll like the look of when you get to the cliff, what will be dry, what will have other teams on etc.

In reply to GrahamD:

Is having pocket guidebooks that won't compete well enough to exist good for you? Like it or not colour larger size guidebooks are the standard now for the books that sell best.

I used to photocopy or photo several pages around my probable target route. I'm still working through some of my US topo photocopies I made 15 years ago due to queues, poor conditions etc meaning I chose something else that day. Some stuff I use in the US (esp Needles Sequoia areas) the only copy I have is photos from dog-eared shop copies of out-of-print books. On smaller UK crags sometimes the book goes in the lid of my sack and I photo according to need at the base of the route (the sack staying at the bottom).

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The apocryphal tale of a leader on North Crag Eliminate pulling a copy of Hard Rock out of their jumper comes to mind. It's a great looking guide but some strange coverage - 12 pages devoted to that crucible of Lake District climbing, Bram Crag Quarry (including the sections it advises not to go near.) At least it will provide a convenient reference next time the "where do I go sport climbing in the Lakes?" post comes up.

In reply to Offwidth:

What's the 'standard' to which you refer? Which current UK guidebooks - apart from Rockfax - are A5? None of the definitive BMC, SMC, CC, FRCC or YMC guides are that size, are they?

In reply to Offwidth:


Just because big pretty picture guides sell best doesn't (IMO) make them best for purpose and I don't have to like the trend.

I'm lucky enough to still have plastic bound CC and FRCC definitive guides I can take on routes.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

In terms of the SMC guides, just the new Inner Hebrides one (but that is mainly a cragging guide)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

new BMC limestone one is A5

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The newer versions are often larger than the old pocket versions and the latest BMC limestone is also Rockfax size.

In reply to Michael Gordon & John Roberts:

Ok thanks, noted.

The only reason (a non-climbing one) I can think of for going to A5, is that production costs might be cheaper.

In reply to GrahamD:

Its not just luck, you can get most of them second hand on the web for a good bit less than the price of the new volumes. Whatever publishers do someone is going to prefer something else... question is what do most users want? Soon this may well be an Ap.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Chunky A5 guides aren't practical to carry up multi pitch trad but they are a perfect fit for photocopying. That said I usually just use my phone to photograph a few pages.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The only real reason I'd say is just to somehow fit a hell of a lot of routes in a certain number of books. And I do sympathise with guidebook writers on this, but it just doesn't work well for multi-pitch/mountain areas.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Re A5 size. Just take a photo with a phone or camera. A5 offers more space to showcase the crags and have bigger photos, useful for multi pitch. RF guides sell by the bucket load, including I gather their North Wales book which is also for mostly multi pitch stuff. Not is everything in the Lakes multi pitch.

In reply to Offwidth:

'Like it or not colour larger size guidebooks are the standard now for the books that sell best'

I have heard it said that the reason the Rockfax Pembroke guide sells better than the definitive guides is that the format is larger. That is nonsense - the reason is that the Rockfax costs £20.95 whereas a complete set of the definitive guides costs £80.

In reply to John2:

Yep, I agree, size of book is bollox.

In reply to Misha:

I wouldn't normally contemplate taking something as fragile as a phone on a rock climb - especially by the sea. I want something less expensive and much less vulnerable.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:

I would add that a smaller page format has not prevented Group Up's selective North Wales guide from being a success.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

"it just doesn’t work well for multi-pitch mountain areas" That's your opinion and doesn't seem to match that of my perception of the majority of users on the most popular crags, illustrated for example by sales for say the new Rockfax Snowdonia. I also sympathise with guidebook writers (especially having been involved on the editorial and crag writing side myself) but I think the new larger format colour guides are a big improvement in usability (in conjunction with a camera and/or photocopier) because you get more space to make approaches and routes clearer. The old pocket size guides sometimes used to leave me mystified on early visits to an area and I've always been pretty good at navigation and route finding: a touch of the "local books for local activists" attitude sometimes seemed to have existed which doesn't seem to be around any more. Rockfax tried the smaller format for Snowdonia (which some users say they preferred but seemingly a minority) but now have switched to their standard size. Again, I prefer their new volume. I also prefer the Ground Up selective and new larger definitives to the old smaller thinner pocket guides and if I want I can even photograph or copy the same route information from several guides rather than lugging several books around.

In reply to Offwidth:


If the idea is to get the info onto a e-device (or a one-use photocopy/print-out) then doing that via the intermediate stage of a hardcopy book is just weird and inefficient.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't see how having to photocopy pages (perhaps days in advance for a weekend trip) can be seen as an advantage. Similarly I prefer not to have to peer at a vulnerable phone when climbing, or even carry one. For me small books that fit in jacket in rucsack pockets are much preferable to large format for mountain routes. I can see that for single pitch cragging A5 has advantages.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Thats not the main intent though is it in modern guidebooks that are thicker and bigger than the old pocket sized guides? The main intent is to meet the perceived current majority of users paper volume needs. They are selling OK as far as I can see. Finding things more easily and including more routes and having more content for reading on 'the bog' for inspiration for the next trip is seemingly more important to most climbers than fitting the book in their pocket. The fact you have material that can easily be rehashed for an e-version is a side benefit.

In reply to John2:

I'm refering to all the books bigger than the old style pocket size, not just A5. They were changed to better fit in modern colour topos and improved route location and description information. Irrespective, Rockfax A5 North Wales Climbs is selling well directly vs the Ground Up select If A5 was a major sales issue that simply wouldn't happen. Most users I know who purchased it want it for easier multi-pitch classics in the mountains. Some carry it (hardly the end of the world on a VD), some copy it or photo pages to save weight.

In reply to Offwidth:

I do most of my climbing in Pembroke, and I regularly meet people using the Rockfax who say they would like to have the definitive guides but can't afford them. Only yesterday I met some very competent Australian climbers at Mother Carey's Kitchen who came over here for the wedding of one of the climbers featured in quite a few of the action photos in the definitive guides, but said they bought the Rockfax on grounds of cost.

In reply to John2:
Typical of some climber's daft logic: they will spend a small fortune on a holiday and scrimp on the guides (which they could easily resell and recoup most of the cost). Maybe CC will issue a selective of their own one day and we will see what really counts other than stupidity and money. While we wait, what you need to answer is why so many people are buying Rockfax A5 guides in Snowdonia for mountaineering routes against a competitor smaller format selective guide.

In reply to Offwidth:

I am not privy to those sales figures, so I can't comment.

The comments on this thread indicate that on multi-pitch routes and sea cliff climbs many people prefer to carry a smaller guidebook.

In reply to Offwidth:

Holiday-goers can hardly be called 'stupid' for deciding to buy a selective over three or four definitive guides. They're only going to be there briefly, why on earth would they want that many guides to the same area? The size of the book is definitely a secondary concern, if at all.

In reply to John2:



I have plenty of sales figures that show the opposite. i.e.. bigger books (thickness and dimensions) = bigger sales

Alan

In reply to Offwidth:

'Maybe CC will issue a selective of their own one day '

I believe a 'Wired' Pembroke selective is in the starting blocks.

Why, precisely, do you prefer a larger format? Look at the photos of Bosherston Head on page 117 of the Pembroke Rockfax and page 96-97 of the CC guide vol 4. There is more detail of the rock visible in the CC guide. This is possibly because the crag was photographed from a more stable boat and definitely because sharpening and other post-processing actions have been carried out better.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

As I mentioned before, the complete set of Pembroke definitives costs four times as much as the Rockfax. A number of people have told me that this was their reason for buying the Rockfax.

In reply to John2:


Or more likely because there is 6 years of digital photography technology between the two photos.

Also, just think how much detail there would have been in the CC photo if it had been printed at A4 (i.e.. A5 dps).

Alan

In reply to John2:


And I am saying that our sales figures, of our own guides, indicate that the bigger we make them, the better they sell. This may also show that people just want more for their money but the sales figures on the much cheaper and smaller A6 'pocket' guides we have produced have been tiny in comparison to our A5 books.

Alan

In reply to Rob Parsons:

just about to abb in to the yellow wall gogarth last week when my partner opened the 'ground up' guide ripped the photo of the wall from (my) guide and launched himself over the edge - not sure he's going to take large format

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I predicted this a while ago, when guides became more colourful and glossy, they are becoming unfit for purpose.

Old style guides, black and white with glossy insert sections of photos survived a lot of abuse, you would eventually lose the photos but the text would remain useable, longer lasting, less units shifted.

Modern guides with glossy colour pages throughout and card covers, bit of moisture and the whole thing resembles something you may find hidden under your teenage sons mattress. More units sold.

Couple this with the ever increasing, unwieldy size of guides and you create a second market, practical guides to supplement the coffee table books currently on offer. More units sold.

The technology exists to create useable guides, be it old tech (b&w), hard copy or electronic. The desire for something nice to read on the bog seems greater than the desire for a practical guide.

It is sad that frcc, cc etc have had to resort to this to keep up

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Brainwashed consumer society.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Mike was using a later generation camera than I was - a Sony full-frame versus a Canon APSC.

In reply to John2:


Good effort on your part. Mind you, having looked at the photos I think ours on page 115 is easily as good as yours, just a bit bigger. The one on page 117 is certainly slightly over-exposed on the lighter tones though. Could certainly do a better job on that one now although unfortunately Mike managed to only take Jpegs instead of RAW!

Alan

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The answer, as with large format guides on Moroccan multi pitch, may be to put the guide in a carry pouch that clips to the harness. Sure it's heavy but that is what the second is for. There are a couple on the market.

In reply to 3leggeddog:
Yes but guide books are also about inspiration and that is where the full colour A5 format really comes into its own. It's one of the reasons RF have been so successful. Not only do you get a quality colour topo, you also get something that makes you think wow, I want to go there! You just don't get that with smaller format, b&w old school guides.

I'm not sure that any guide book for survive getting wet. The covers on modern guide books are perhaps less durable but nothing that a bit of laminate or gaffa tape wouldn't sort out.

And it's not like you can't still get definitives in the smaller format.

Also, in the last few years phone and camera technology has improved massively so people can and do take photos for multi pitch routes or abbing down sea cliffs. Not everyone does it of course but this is another growing trend. We're in the 21st century after all!

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


No, just that guide book standards have moved on. The vast majority of climbers I know would consider colour photo topos an improvement.

In reply to Stone Idle:


Yes, sure; that'd work.

But none of this answers the question about why the FRCC moved to A5 for this guide, whilst retaining a smaller (and better in my view) format for the new series of definitives.

If you compare this new guide with the new definitives, you'll see that the font size is also larger. Why? It's as if the content has just grown to fit the space available.

I realise that there is no pleasing everybody; I understand the effort required to produce guides; and I am not wanting to carp: the new selected guide is welcome. But there seems to be some unexplained factor behind the march to A5.

In reply to Misha:

'You just don't get that with smaller format, b&w old school guides'

What about smaller format, colour, non-old school guides?

In reply to John2:


One other point on the benefits of larger format guidebooks. The photo in the CC guide you mention above is a good photo and has lots of detail, but the routes it covers are spread over 8 pages running either side of this double page spread (dps). This makes it really awkward to relate a route description to the route line on the photo without incessant page flicking. Larger format allows many more routes, or all routes in the case of Rockfax, to appear on the same dps as their photo topo.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Agreed, there are pros and cons to this approach. But don't forget that the definitive guide has more route descriptions to fit in.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:

I'll take your brainwashed consumers and raise you some noisy die hards with fingers in their ears going la la la not listening. The idea that modern colour topo guides are a regressive step is plain daft. I'm not especially fussed if the books are A5 or SMC shaped or grit BMC shaped or whatever but if Alans evidence is A5 sells better, that is useful. Better sales means more activity and opportunities for improved updates or cross-subsidy for less well selling guides (on the updates point Roaches version 2 with the much improved job on Churnett stuff was a particular satisfying memory for me; I'm sure Rockfax feel the same about Eastern Grit).

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Climbers flying from Australia actually wanting to use a definitive that their mates are featured in but not being able to afford it is not daft logic? My main holidays start months before at home on the web then continue at home with guidebooks purchased and I'd rather buy a book it turns out I dont need than miss out on a great opportunity. If I can afford international flghts I can certainly afford to support the local guidebook teams.

In reply to Offwidth:


We haven't seen any such evidence. All that's been said above is that Rockfax A5 guides outsell their A6 Miniguides - but that's not comparing like with like.

In reply to GrahamD:
i hardly ever go out without my phone camera, and using it as a guide is not a problem if you're used to carrying one about anyway.
buy a cheap phone camera with a big screen, it is easier than carrying a; guide book, phone and camera about.
move with the times guide book apps are here

the new Lakeland wired guide arrived yesterday , and its a nice addition, a bit similar to the ground up north Wales guide.

In reply to gd303uk:


and then the battery runs out...........

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:

true, and sometimes the light can make the screen hard to read!
but guide apps are here and the tech' is getting better. i still buy and take the guides with me most of the time but i am ; when possible, using my phone more and more.
i dont use the phone as a phone when out, no incoming calls etc.. its not good to be intouch all the time

In reply to gd303uk:

I reckon it should be a case of getting the free app when you buy the book.

In reply to gd303uk:



But not easier than carrying an old size format guidebook, which incidentally still works when wet or after being dropped.

In reply to Offwidth:


But the size of guides to mountain areas is exactly the point of this debate. I don't think anyone is saying that modern guidebook clarity isn't superior to older guides.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've got no vested interests in Rockfax, and am normally loath to gushingly agree with Offwidth, but thoroughly agree. My first guidebook purchase was 1970s era bmc Froggatt guide. It's got a faded orange cover now, and can't remember the original colour. That was poured over time and time again, in pubs and cafes and at home, and was the inspiration for hundreds of adventures for me and my mates.
However, there's no going back, and the larger format glossy was a game changer which benefitted the definitive guides by making them up their game in presentation. The Peak definitives (esp. Stanage) are now some of the best guides around. My old Froggatt guide is a much loved museum piece now.
The other stuff which came with the new A5s like GPS coordinates for parking and crags was another innovation which becomes essential. There are recent colour topo guidebooks which are constrained by their format by having the route descriptions spread out away from the topo, and the topo not representing all the lines, so you have to work backwards from descriptions.
I know this sounds very 'brain dead consumer', but the bulk of activity going on is single pitch or bouldering, a short walk from the car park, so no prob carrying A5 format. Additionally, the new publications are a lot more than just a utilitarian guide, and I'm guessing we're not going back to my lovely Froggatt guide again.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Format quibbling aside, it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm not sure that I can see what benefits they're going to get by collaborating, but then I've never produced a guidebook. But a fresh series of high quality selective guides to keep everyone on their toes is great news anyway.

Also, out of "an exciting new series that will cover the whole of Britain", I'm particularly looking forward to the East Anglia volume.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


that is a good idea, i agree.
if you buy the book you should get the app version free, or buy the app version cheapish if you havent got the book.

and to Graham D

yes i agree, proper pocket sized guides are resilient but have you tried using one to take a picture

In reply to GrahamD:


One once dropped my Gogarth guide in the sea - it definitely didn't 'work' when I eventually fished it out!


Chris

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


Hah - probably literally! So was mine!


But such info has nothing to do with the physical size of the guides.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I've dropped and retrieved my old Swanage guide (the two part Swanage / Portland one) from the sea - it still did service for years afterwards - albeit it dried out twice as thick as it was before.

In reply to gd303uk:

Have you seen any of my pictures ?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

The size format of A5 is fine if all you want is to go gritstone cragging (although it does tend to get a bit dog eared when stuck in the top pocket of a rucksack) . The discussion is about the best format for guides for multipitch venues where the guidebook is likely to be carried on route.

Things like gps coordinates are a red herring as they can be put into any sized book.

In reply to GrahamD:


Well mine bobbed about for a while before I managed to reach it - it was ball-shaped when I finally got it out.


Chris

PS I once dropped a Yorkshire Grit guide in the bath and that worked like a very effective sponge!

In reply to GrahamD:

Agreed, just mulling over how the guides have moved on.

I'm out in Chamonix at the moment with the Piola guides which are mostly drawn topos and work really well. Back home though on multi pitch , a pic on my phone or a scan and print for the day is perfect, with the added attraction of a really nicely published guide back in the car/pub/home.

In reply to John2:

Selectives are meant to showcase and area and the extra space on the page is just so much better for photos and crag overview shots. Anyway, people will vote with their purses - and I gather a lot of people already have!

In reply to Misha:

I think 'voting' implies a choice !

In reply to GrahamD:
Well, there is a choice, people can still choose between the old select guide or the FRCC definitives...or buy the new one!

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Not really a choice of two current selective guides in different formats, is it ?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



sounds like the BBC dumbing down their programmes to increase their audience numbers

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I have a German guide (Wetterstein area?) which has thin card/plastic topo drawings tucked in the back cover which you can take on routes with you as well as ones in the main guide itself.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I'll take the increased usefulness over the additional weight and size anytime. If you plan a big route on, say, Scafell, you copy (and I do this with smaller guides anyway). On lower and/or lesser crags it's less of a hassle to carry or spot from the ground. If weight is that critical (because you are after E nasty something) then you will be suss ing out line, protection and the like anyway. If you don't want large format buy the definitive while stocks last. Or write your own. Or join a club and get involved.

In reply to Stone Idle:

I don't buy your 'bigger guide = increased usefulness' claim - that's the very thing we're discussing. And evidently neither - looking at the format of their current definitives - does the FRCC.

In reply to Stone Idle:

You make the assumption that you already know you are going to Scafell. Most campsites and huts I visit where I make the decision do not have photocopiers.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Thanks for the feedback Tom -

To take your points -
Left to right is the convention that is used in all of our guides and has been adopted by Wired. Some crags do require a different approach: Shepherd's (from the cafe), White Ghyll and Gimmer are examples where it makes sense to describe the routes as you arrive -(although not everyone agrees and it does lead to lively debate).

Route Selection
I'm not defending the omission as the Raven Crag 'hard classics' could have been included at the expense of some of the easier routes. Although it may seem odd it relates to the evolution of the guide. The other routes you mention are less well known and on mountain crags - we want to highlight the challenges that exist in the mountains or include routes that will not appear in any other guide - Barad-d'Ur and Touching Cloth.

Through the Looking Glass could not clearly be shown on the topo. There was no space for any other routes at Hard Knott Crag - in my view the best are included.

Stephen Reid has already responded regarding the action shots - these have been incredibly difficult to source and I acknowledge there are glaring omissions, Esk Buttress being one of the most prominent. I would urge you all to take a camera with you, take high resolution images and submit them for future guides.

With the Scafell & Wasdale guide FRCC Guides abandoned the use of + or - grades. Wired guides do not use them. A graded list is fun - I believe that the new Borrowdale guide is having one prepared.

Main Wall Rib - a subjective comment Tom; its E2 if you do it properly, stepping further right towards MW Crack reduces the grade. We have tried to grade for ground up on sights, not regulars' flashes. We have put The Pillar up a grade too... and some MVSs (a quaint FRCC grade) are now VS.

A map for each crag - totally agree.

Useful comment - thanks again.
Steve

In reply to Steve Scott:




Left to right should always be used.

In reply to Toerag:


The old MCSA guides to the Magaliesberg used to come as a boxed set (of the small guidebook size) of punched pages - you could select the gorges/areas/sectors you intended visiting and clip them into a sturdy pocket sized ring binder.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


Perhaps when using photo topos. When just using text describe the crag whichever way makes most sense according to the features and the way they are approached.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


"Arrive at right end of crag.
Route A......starts here.
Route B starts 3 metres left of Route A.
Route C starts 3 metres left of Route B.
Route D starts 3 metres left of Route C.
Route E starts 3 metres left of Route D.
Route F starts 3 metres left of Route E."

This may be why Alan started a guidebook revolution.

In reply to Rick Graham:

what may be why?

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes and they could opt not to buy it. But I gather it's selling very well indeed. Of course there's no way of knowing if it would have sold better or worse in the smaller format. Clearly there was a demand for a modern selective whatever the format. But my point is if people really thought the format was an issue, they just wouldn't buy it.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Being able to follow and climb line 6 on the photo diagram ( Route F ) without reading and cross referencing pages of text.

Edit Only route 6 if logically listed L-R


Rockfax somehow manage to get easy to follow crag access info and all the required data to up to twenty routes on 2 sides of A5.

In reply to Rick Graham:

I'm not sure which guide(s) you're referring to, but that problem of 'recursive' (?) route descriptions had been solved (e.g. in the Peak guides) long before Rockfax came on the scene, by the use of good crag diagrams. (The old Lakes guides did lack in that respect, certainly.)

In reply to Steve Scott:



Crags always need to be described left to right. End of. Even crags like Gogarth Main Cliff make much more sense when described from left to right.



This is my major bug bare. The emission of Trilogy is just baffling. This must be one of the most (if not the most) climbed E5 in the Lakes. Leaving it out is just like leaving out Troutdale Pinnacle, Eliminate A or CB. I just don't get it. It is a selective guidebook it is supposed to inspire and present the best climbing in the area. I'm all for including the line of the likes of Incantations, Path to Victory and First Last and Always (and indeed the full descriptions if spaces allows) in selected guides. However this should not be at the expense of one of the most popular routes of the grade in the area. I really hope Alan puts a picture of Trilogy on the cover of his forthcoming guide!


I just looked up those two. Unrepeated E6s on high mountain crags, probably the sort of routes that should be in definitive books. Whilst I don't have a problem with their inclusion per say I find their inclusion over three roadside Extreme Rock ticks totally bonkers.


Why didn't you just use photoshop to manipulate the crag and include it? This is what Rockfax will do. I'll be amazed if this is not possible.


I nearly always take a camera and would be more than happy for the FRCC to use my photos FOC. But they were never asked for. Where do I send them?


That's a shame a graded list or a selective grade list (ie only the *** and some ** route) is really helpful.


I've only done it once. A couple of months back so my memory is relatively fresh. I just followed the line and description in the Langdale guide... the pitch goes very slightly right at the top. It would be pretty contrived and eliminate to go direct.



No worries. I really hope the guide does well and I hope my feedback is helpful for future 'Wired' books.

In reply to Rick Graham:


And what if a photo diagram is not possible (e.g. trees in front of crag)?

Alternatively what if the crag comprises lots of short outcrops or is too small and minor to justify the photo diagrams?

In reply to Misha:



Of course people will buy the only available selective guide to the Lakes irrespective of whether the format is optimum or not. A slightly inconvenient guide trumps no guide at all every time.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


When just using text describe the crag whichever way makes most sense according to the features and the way they are approached.

Only if the pages numbers are also reversed from the normal way!! Otherwise its total confusion, like the Stanage guide before this current edition.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

All the above criticisms have some validity but it is a brilliant guide, really good.

There is a more detailed map on how to get to St Bees, more of these would have been good.

I do wonder if they are over egging the stars on some of the minor crags, that said I went to a minor crag earlier this year and it was clean with mostly good rock so maybe there are lots of lesser known gems out there.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Send photos to me Tom - editor@frcc.co.uk

If its a large file use a file sharing program or mailbigfile or similar.
We currently need images for Borrowdale, Dow, Coppermines valley, Slate, Eskdale and the Duddon.
Thanks
Steve

In reply to MG:


Stanage is an example of a crag where photo-diagrams and L-R make absolute sense. It's so easy to get good photos of a nice neat section of gritstone crag. It's smaller, more 'bitty' crags with less good visibility or trickier of access that photo-diagrams will not necessarily always be the best solution.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I have to disagree - describing any crag from right to left adds an extra level of complexity that just isn't needed.

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I think this is also an issue of activist view dominating over the needs of the less experienced or less familiar climbing public (who most need help from the guidebook). Time and time again L to R with photo topos proves to be the easiest to use and so this has come to dominate and this means right to left although the most natural way to describe some crags with no photo topos actually becomes confusing (except for those who have been using guides like this for years). The last but one Stanage guide had a special place in my memory for head spinning issues with useability, despite genuine good intentions,.. when the likes of Dave Gregory think its hard to use, you know you got it wrong.

In reply to Offwidth:


This probably sums it up quite well. Personally I think confusion with R-L only arises because there's a photo-diagram (which obviously you can't reverse!).

Stanage is a good example of a crag where pretty much everyone agrees this has been got wrong in the past, but a crag with such a simple layout as this shouldn't be used as evidence that L-R is always correct.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Can't be arsed going through all the 120 odd responses on the off chance someone answers my questions

Seeing as the FRCC are going the Rockfax way in terms of size, are they also including a shed load of ads too?

In reply to Michael Gordon:
The whole approach from the right argument in totally spurious since the second and subsequent routes climbed at the crag are likely to have been approached from all sorts of directions depending on the descent line.

The only crag where I have ever known every single approach to be from the same direction was Gogarth main. There I can forgive the R-L but am not sure L-R wouldn't work as well.

Always, always,always describe L-R unless writing in chinese! It has nothing to do with approaches and everything to do with our brain's perception of L-R in reality vs forward and back in a book.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Don't know why people advocate taking a photo of the relevant page of the fairly annoying wired guide, as expensive phones are vulnerable on routes, irritating, and also pretty useless, if it's sunny as you can' t read them...

In reply to Gael Force:

Your comments are entirely valid. Why don't the people who produce guidebooks understand them?

In reply to John2:

Maybe because they know you can use a camera or photocopy or in extremis neatly cut the page out and tape it back later. Despite this being a disadvantage there are many advantages discussed at length here that more than compensate.

In reply to TobyA:

A friend got it last week and she said it didn't have maps that help you get where the crags are. She thought that was quite a weakness. Agree?

No I bloody well don't. It's a flippin' stupid idea to go onto the fells without a map and compass and the ability to use both. The usual advice about clothing is also relevant. No excuses, as it's been well publicised for years. The above TobyA post is probably a wind-up, and if it is, it's done the job of winding me up.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


Another vote for left to right off me ,
Hopefully with any luck Rockfax will do a new lakes book , maybe update the bouldering guide too ?

In reply to Removed User:

I don't think I've ever been summer cragging in the UK and taken map with me, let alone a compass, I expect a guide book to direct me there.

In reply to Offwidth: Which part of you can't see a phone screen when it's sunny do you not get? I don't usually take a photocopier in the rucksack either, nor do I own one...
Having now been given a copy of this book as a present it's a nice book but pretty useless for cragging, however some of the route choices are weird, three pages to a vdiff on steeple, not going to be high on anybody's list so why enlarge the book needlessly with the author's favourite photo's of his friends.

In reply to Gael Force:

with the author's favourite photo's of his friends.

To be fair that happens in most guides, photos submitted by a limited number of people who in turn climb with a limited number of people

In reply to Gael Force:

I climb quite a bit in the bright sun in the US desert and I have never had a problem seeing my camera screen. I prefer photocopies as the camera is best with the second and too much review drains the batteries. I do most copies in the UK and sometime use a motel or paid copier if we changed plans say due to fires. There are also guidebook holders made for A5 guidesthat clip to the harness and on long routes it can sit in the climbing rucksack. It really is not a major inconvenience apart from for angry throwbacks.

In the old style pocket guides the information on some routes was so sparse that I could pretty much remember it. In fact when I started climbing too many pocket guidebooks seemed to me like resources for local experts and as a pretty good navigator who loved puzzles I wasted hours and sometimes the odd day in areas new to me trying to get to routes. Steve Ashton's Gritstone and North Wales guides showed me what guidebooks could be for providing inspiration to climb a route with ease of finding and following the route; unsurprising from an editor that knew and loved the routes he was describing. That's always been my approach to guidebook work and will remain so.

In reply to Gael Force:


Maybe you're exaggerating a bit, but I think a lot of people manage to use their phone outside when it's sunny, I certainly do.

I used the guide for the first time last week, carried it up a couple of multipitches too, or at least my second did.

Seems like a really good guide, I like it.

In reply to Tyler:

I think the maps and photo maps in the wired lakes guide are quite good. I'd agree with your point about maps for cragging but they can be useful on the higher hills when the mist comes in. Some climbers in the UK have paid for blasé navigation in the UK mountains by ending up in a rescue (or worse) in places like Five Finger Gully.

In reply to Offwidth:


Climbers or walkers?

The climbing guide has a very precise map to get you off the top safely.

In reply to Colin Moody:
Some climbers (as well as walkers), all there in the mountain rescue reports. My club were taught by local mountain guides to try and make sure it didn't happen to us. The precise map was partly a response but in the end in bad conditions you need the pacing and bearings memorised.

In reply to Gael Force:


Actually, it's a damn good route which few people will have heard of or done and hopefully it might inspire some to spend a few days in Mirk Cove which has to be one of the loveliest and most remote places in the Lakes. As to the photo, yes, all the photos in the Ennerdale section are of my friends or my friends' friends as they were all set up. So for the Steeple photo, I gave up a lovely potential climbing day to take photos of a friend of mine and her friend doing a route I had already done twice before. For the Pillar photos, it wasn't so bad as I actually did some climbing on routes alongside the ones the friends were climbing so I could get photos of them, though again on climbs I had done before. Personally I would much rather not to have had to have done this but you know what, if we had waited for all the people who haunt UK climbing and who seem to delight in posting endless little nitpicking comments in to send in half decent photos of people climbing in Ennerdale (or indeed anywhere else in the Lakes for that matter) then the guide would never have come out at all. And, as an author, I have no say in what photos are used, I just send them in.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Well said Stephen.

Ive had this criticism leveled at me in the past as well. Some nitpickers seem to think action photos (especially half decent ones) just drop into your lap as soon as a guidebook is being written. I know for a fact that most climbers like seeing inspiring action pics esp of routes that are less known and not over done with the cliche shot.
Too many pics in modern guidebooks is becoming a problem though, bumping up the size unnecessarily. I think that only '5 star' pics should be used (I'm not commenting on the Lake District guide here as I havent seen it yet....even though I am working on the Pembroke one!).

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I wasn't all that taken with this book at first, it's too big for me, but the pics of the VD on steeple are pretty inspirational. It's made it to my coffee table as a thing of beauty.
Kern knott crack HVS 4c, spot on, scary

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:
I have a special regard for climbing photographers. Good shots take time, effort, costs and sometimes a fair bit of waiting to for the right conditions as well as the loss of many good climbing opportunities. The processing of said shots takes a lot of time as well not so far from the editorial effort on the climbs ... all mainly as volunteers and where paid (say for the mags) its some of the lowest paid hourly work in the UK.

In reply to Gael Force:


it's high on my list

In reply to Removed User:


True. But if you're using an OS map, it can be less than totally useful in getting you to the crag. Even if it's got the same name then it may be in a slightly different place to where the climbing is. Harvey maps are better.
Of course a grid reference would serve the same purpose as a map in the guide. Perhaps this one has them - I don;t have a copy (probably won't as I'm buying the definitives as they come out, and to be honest agree with those who says it's too big).

In reply to Offwidth:


Couldn't agree more. I've taken thousands of climbing photos over the years, almost all of which would be useless for a guidebook. I've had a handful used, but take enough and you're bound to end up with one or two good ones.

To take a really good shot will almost always need then photography to be your chosen activity of the day, rather than pictures of your mates' bums/heads while climbing. There are exceptions of course, but not enough to fill a guidebook!

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


Just interested, do guidebook editors usually appeal widely for photos (e.g. by asking on UKC), or do they tend to just ask among those already involved in the guidebook?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


We have tried both techniques - ask generally on UKC and ask a reliable group of photographers who have provided good photos in the past. The former is rarely successful except in odd cases, the latter usually produces the goods on the popular crags.

But, by far the best source of action shots in recent years has been the Photography section of this site. We have used many photos that were found by searching for a crag and ordering by votes to get the best ones. This has also uncovered some excellent keen contributors who now make an effort to get photos whenever they are going away.

Alan

In reply to Gael Force:


It's a good route and, as Stephen said, if you camp in Mirk Cove or similar you can combine it with other crags up there - e.g., Pillar.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


None of the ones I know do.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:

There were three appeals for photos on UKC for the SMC Inner Hebrides and Arran guide.

In reply to Colin Moody:

Did they have any luck?

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:



Actually, I fibbed, the one of Paul Platt on Tapestry was gleaned by trawling through UK Climbing and then contacting the photographer. It was the only decent climbing shot of Ennerdale on UKC that I could find. Hence my decision to make several trips in to various crags just to take photos.

When I was FRCC Guidebook Editor I am sure we put out appeals on UKC for some of the guides, certainly the winter one for which I spent ages trawling through the photos section to find usable shots and contacting the photographers to see if they had any more. But I have to say that the response to any such appeals whereever made has always been poor.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:
So for the Steeple photo, I gave up a lovely potential climbing day to take photos of a friend of mine and her friend doing a route I had already done twice before. For the Pillar photos, it wasn't so bad as I actually did some climbing on routes alongside the ones the friends were climbing so I could get photos of them, though again on climbs I had done before. Personally I would much rather not to have had to have done this but you know what, if we had waited for all the people who haunt UK climbing and who seem to delight in posting endless little nitpicking comments in to send in half decent photos of people climbing in Ennerdale (or indeed anywhere else in the Lakes for that matter) then the guide would never have come out at all. And, as an author, I have no say in what photos are used, I just send them in.

Oh dear it seems people aren't allowed to criticise FRCC grandees!
I don't think I post on UKC too often, not as much as you anyway, so looks likes you are haunting more than me.
My condolences on having to spend your valuable time photographing your friends and then having your pictures published, must have been quite stressful for you as you say.
I'm sure you were surprised when they made it into the guide to.
At least there's no more of the ageing pensioner Martin Armitage with his shirt off.

The point remains, it's a good book for the coffee table if you like that sort of thing, but as a climbing guide it's far too big and cumbersome, my point was the size could have been reduced considerably by not having so many huge pictures, 3 pages on one vdiff which is okay, but not that brilliant, is a good example. There's plenty other examples e.g. page 433 how exactly does that assist a visitor? Poor full page photo of what exactly, not even a crag.
Page308/309, poor photo spoilt by page fold.
Anyway, not a bad book, shame about the size...

In reply to Gael Force:


Criticise all you like but criticising is always the easy part. If you actually want to be helpful then go and take some good climbing shots and send/email them to the current FRCC guidebooks editor Steve Scott. Current guides being worked on are 1. Dow & Coppermines, 2. Duddon & Eskdale and 3. Borrowdale but photos of climbs in other valleys are always wecome - they'll be saved for later use. And you'll stand more chance of having your photo published if is not of the easily photographed classic on an almost roadside crag.

In reply to Gael Force:


Not my reponsibility I'm glad to say but a commercial decision based on the fact that big guidebooks outsell small guidebooks many times over - strange but true I'm afraid.

In reply to Gael Force:


Ah it's a jealousy thing is it? Well, I'd be happy to take some of you posing on something with your shirt off if you think it'd improve guidebook sales!

In reply to Gael Force:


You've posted 110 times in the last 6 months, Stephen 43 times ;-p

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The Climbers' Club website have a 'guidebooks in preparation' page which contains a list of guidebooks in preparation, the email addresses of the respective editors and authors, and a general appeal for photos.
We do occasionally use action shots received this way, but most photos are sourced by guidebook team members.

In reply to Gael Force @ 11:11:

What a nasty, vitriolic post.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


I'm trying to think where equivalent large and small books ever went head to head to be able to draw this conclusion ? Certainly BMCs old big Limestone guides didn't seem that popular so I don't think its just a matter of size.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports: 'big guidebooks outsell small guidebooks many times over'

Are you comparing like with like? It is cheaper to buy a Rockfax selective guide than to buy all of the definitive guides that cover the same area. People often say that they bought a selective guide on grounds of cost, rather than page size. The Ground Up North Wales selective has a small page size, and that doesn't seem to have prevented it from selling pretty well.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I recieved the new guide last week and it has really made me excited to go back to the lakes and get out on the crags. It really is an inpiration, so well done to the authors, and don't pay too much attention to the nay-sayers.

In reply to bigbobbyking:

fortunately I think they respect their market enough that they'll pay plenty of attention to all opinions, and either change next time, or do more of the same, depending on which views have the most support

In reply to Neil Foster:

Get a grip

In reply to Gael Force:


He is quite good at that as well

In reply to both:

>I'm trying to think where equivalent large and small books ever went head to head to be able to draw this conclusion ? Certainly BMCs old big Limestone guides didn't seem that popular so I don't think its just a matter of size.


As I wrote, not my department, but I think like was being compared with like. eg Rockfax North Wales vs Ground Up North Wales, Gary Latter Scottish Rock vs SMC Scottish Rock. I think the theory is that people who are starting out tend to go into shops and just pick a guide of the shelf without realising the getting it up the multipitch route aspect of the whole thing until later, and bigger guides are altogether brighter and appear to offer better value for money so that is what they go for. Personally I argued for a pocket guide but in the end supported the A5 size as the economic case was so strong.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

'Not my department . . .', 'I think . . .' - no one is coming forward and giving actual sales figures for these comparable guides. I do know that in Pembroke people carrying the Rockfax often express interest in the definitive guides, but say they couldn't justify the cost.

In reply to John2:

Well that'll be resolved with the new Pembroke Wired.

In reply to John2:


I sort of did here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=618493&v=1#x8076676

I can only compare our sales to our sales, but 'big equals more' for us.

Alan

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

The Gary Latter guides vs SMC one isn't quite comparing like with like since he uses 2 books to cover (roughly) the same area as SMC's one.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I've got the Latter guide vol 2 and it's a bit on the large side to, although not as maaaassive as the Lakes one, and not so full of bumph.
Also I don't think people will buy more guides because they're bigger, I'm sure it's just far more people climb nowadays and because selective guides are so expensive for the whole of the Lakes, whatever size the selective one is it would be popular.
The only way to test the theory would be to have the guide available in two sizes.

In reply to Gael Force:

Undoubtedly (as you say) whether a guide is selective or definitive is more of a factor than its size alone. While I can understand that larger guides may well be attractive, I don't think they always make good guides. Fair enough for cragging, it may give you more for your money. For mountain areas weight and bulk should be a major consideration.

In reply to Gael Force:


Which we do, for North Wales, and the bigger one sells much better.

Alan

In reply to Michael Gordon:



And it is, believe me.

But so unfortunately are economics, and I hadn't considered Rockfax's two guides to North Wales but as Alan points out, it does rather prove that big guides do sell better and if you're shelling out a huge sum of money to print 5000 copies of a guide you really need it to sell well. In the end the economics arguments win over the common sense ones.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Smaller print run?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Which two guides? Is the content exactly the same?

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:


That keeps being claimed here - but I don't think we have any real evidence. However, if it is truly the case, why stop at A5?

I keep wondering if there are other factors. Are production costs lower for A5 than for 'non-standard' formats, for example?

Stephen: following your argument, can we expect to see all forthcoming FRCC guides move to a larger format? (I hope not.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The majority of climbers the world over, for both multi-pitch, single pitch and bouldering prefer large format select guidebooks. It just took a while, like photo-topos, for the traditional guidebook publishers, to realise.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

Maybe it is to do with the simple fact that climbers spend most of the time looking at the guidebook NOT at the crag?

Chris

In reply to Michael Ryan:


How on earth could you know that ?

In reply to Michael Ryan:

That's a claim; I don't know whether or not it's true. However, out of interest, are you making a deliberate distinction between 'select' and definitive guides? And, if so, why?

In reply to Michael Ryan:


I guess we'll all have to just man up and carry that extra 200g to the crag.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I don't think so, and I certainly hope not, but these things are no longer my decision. Personally I am a fan of small guidebooks with tough covers as I prefer multipitch routes on remote mountain crags to roadside single pitch stuff.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

But it's not a like for like comparison, is it. To quote from your description, 'North Wales Climbs covers the best climbing from the whole of this huge and varied area including all the routes from the 2010 publication North Wales Classics, only with expanded descriptions and much bigger photo-topos plus many additional crags'. It would be interesting to know how many routes are described in North Wales Classics, North Wales Climbs and the competitor Ground Up guide.

In reply to Michael Ryan:


Nah, bigger doesn't always mean better. RF books are too big. The CC Pembroke guides are the best size around at the moment.

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I just picked up the new guide recently and it's lovely, a real source of inspiration. Which is what it will remain as, in all probability, because it's way too big to carry on a route! I'm okay with it as I have the full set of definitives anyway and they'll be the books that get stuffed down my jumper on a multipitch. But if I was a newcomer to Lakes climbing, only planning to buy the selective, I'd be a little unhappy.

On the other hand, not having a graded list is unforgivable! How am I supposed to find ludicrous soft touches now?

In reply to Rob Parsons:
It doesn't stop at A5... arguably Britains most critically successful selectives were Ken Wilson's.

Increased size makes multipitch use less practical and the book less physically robust but it also allows the books to be more attractive, better value for money and easier to include more detailed navigational help, with improved inspiring images and features. It is a trade off where I think the ideal size is A5 or slightly smaller (in mountain areas). Those prefering the larger format in my experience are ordinary weekend warriors or area visitors... the less experienced... those prefering the old small format are generally really keen climbers, at least reasonably experienced in the area, who don't need all the ancillary stuff. The later, more vociferous, group seem to me to be in denial their position is biassed and that they are in a stronger position individually to influence the definitve guidebook production teams (IMHO at the cost of sales)

Some of the distributers and shops will know more of the truth of this in say the case of the North Wales case... the strong hints I have are very much in the favour of Rockfax size (but even this will have brand influences as well... in both directions). The internal Rockfax 'small versus large' case is partly flawed as the bigger book was later and will be seen as more up-to-date... but they do know the success of the smaller format experiment compared to sales in other popular areas. Alan really needs to republish a small format North Wales guide to prove the point (and take an almost certain commercial hit in the process).

In reply to climbingpixie:

Since when did all the soft touches in graded lists align with experience of the short? (I think its a missed trick as well... these lists help sales)

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Most arguments against large format guidebook can be ignored; including portability - when it comes to sales of guidebooks.

It doesn't matter if you are a fan of small format guidebooks for whatever reason, most of the traditional guidebook publishers were big fans of small guidebooks and they fell in the trap of thinking what they like, the majority would like. That is one of the key reasons for their decline in sales.

Large format is what the majority (the silent majority who don't post here) of climbers want. The formula is simple: large format, photo-diagrams, route info on same page as the topo, great directions and maps, good action shots, clean uncluttered layout -= there is one more, whoops two more.

Climbers like to dream and plan about routes when at home (or in the cafe/pub), and that is where most guidebooks get used and read - so big is good, with a bit of a trade off on portability to take to the crag which usually isn't an issue ( a quick phone snap/or printed copy if you are doing multi-pitch).

M

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Is that due to the physical size? I'd have thought it's more to do with the number of routes. The larger book gives more routes per pound (sterling rather than weight!) than the smaller one.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I guess the success of the new FRCC guide (relative to the previous edition) will give an indication of who is right. I hope it's not you, as the trade-off between looking good and ease of use has IMO gone too far in the direction of the former.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

I think you are in denial, most of the posters here are telling you the book is too big for multi pitch crag purposes, and it obviously is. The size would be fine if it was for single pitch routes because it stays at the bottom. It's not just the A5 size it's the volume which could easily be cut down as above.
I don't have any problem reading smaller guidebooks either.
I didn't buy this book and wouldn't have bought it due to the size, I got it as a present. However I would buy a smaller version.
Taking photos or photocopying is a pain in the arse, and plans often change with the weather here.

In reply to Michael Ryan:

There is another point... experienced climbers on average are notoriously mean and entitled bunch when it comes to spending on guides. If you look at the number of climbers and the comparative cost of kit and petrol, guidebook producers should all be thriving. Having been involved in a few teams and knowing the pretty selfless care and dedication (sometime lifelong), Moff and I always try and do our bit by buying more guides than we need when off on a climbing trip or holiday.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I don't think sales are an indication of what size is preferred as there isn't a small version available.
Mine was bought for me, I suspect by a girlfriend who wanted to read it herself as it spends a lot of time at her house!

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
It's actually a trade-off beween good looking and much more content with ease of use for less experienced climbers, versus, robstness and ease of use of experienced climbers on the mulitipitch routes but more volumes required to cover the same area. This is in the context you don't need to carry the book and can keep using (or buy second-hand) an old edition smaller copy.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Needle Sports Sales of North Wales Selected Climbs Guides Last Year:
Rockfax North Wales Climbs (A5 "Rockfax" size) £29.95: 11
Ground Up North Wales Rock (Almost pocket sized) £24.95: 3
Rockfax North Wales Classics (pocket sized) £16.95: 0

Alan would be able to tell you the number of routes in his Classics book as opposed to his Climbs book.

All these guides are beautifully produced and equally good to my mind. The problem is that small guides get lost on the bookshelf amongst the large guides and so don't get picked, however sensible they may be for carrying up a route.

Given that a good print run of a selected guide is going to cost £20,000 - £30,000 initial outlay it is (sadly) an important to consider whether it is likely to sell or not, especially if one of its purposes is to bring in sufficient income to keep the definitive guides in print.

Interestingly, so far this year:
Rockfax North Wales Climbs (A5 "Rockfax" size) £29.95: 8
Ground Up North Wales Rock (Almost pocket sized) £24.95: 10
Rockfax North Wales Classics (pocket sized) £16.95: 7

So maybe the tide is turning?!

In reply to Gael Force:


I base my denial on 25 years of publishing guidebooks and listening/witnessing people who use them and looking at what is available world-wide.

I also know what sells. And they sell because climbers like them.


That proposition is wrong.

Intuitively you would think that, but practically guidebooks for the bigger multi-pich routes require a photo route diagram, a symbolic line drawn topo and a description. For that you have to go large.

For our smaller multi-pitch routes in the UK, roughly A5 and slightly larger is fine taking to multi-pitch crags and either leaving at the base of the crag between routes - think Gimmer or the Mot, or putting into a small rucksack for longer routes.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Only just TBH, however I can see that we aren't comparing apples with apples here, more like apples with pears.

Alan

In reply to Michael Ryan:
I don't see how you can tell if a smaller one would be more popular or less popular as there aren't any small ones available any more to compare with.
Wearing a rucksack to carry a guidebook is a huge pain in the arse...

I am hoping that all this will become less relevant in the next few years. I am currently carrying 8 Rockfax books on my iPhone, which works really well. Looking at a release date of later this summer (finally, and I know I have said this before).

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

The next guidebook revolution begins!!!

(Properly of course).

Looking forward to it.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Free topos are much better!!
South wales mountaineering club are brilliant!!

In reply to Gael Force:

There is no such thing as a free topo. There are marketing loss leaders, cheap unreliable gifts (wiki topo) and expensive highly generous gifts (lakes bouldering).

I have to confess that, despite having all the definitives, I also bought the new Wired selective guide because it is a good coffee table/inspirational book. We were in the Lakes last week and used it to flick through in the pub in the evening but then took the definitive on the day . It is too big to take up a long route (e.g Eliminate A) but it'd be ok where you don't mind leaving it at the bottom of the crag (e.g. Castle Rock South). So I'm a little conflicted about this one... I guess it will sell well to people like me (guidebook addicts) but I do think it misses the mark in the sense that it isn't really going to work well for someone who wants to take it up long routes on the occasional trip to the Lakes.

That being said, a very nice book and nice photos by and large..

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

I am surprised that larger book sizes lead to more sales of guidebooks, particularly for mountain crags and sea cliffs, but given the consistent responses of those involved with producing guidebooks - people with more wealth of experience than pretty much anyone else - it looks like I will have to accept it. People have many different likes and dislikes that influence their purchase and also just an impulsive 'that looks good, I'll buy it' effect in the shop that may override a more considered assessment of the practicalities.

Personally, I'm saddened though. One of my biggest bugbears of modern guidebooks is the A5 size. I went into the climbing shop in Ambleside on Sunday with a view of potentially buying the new Wired guide but as soon as I saw the size of it I thought 'I'm not carrying that up a route'. One sale definitely lost.

One can mitigate to some extent - I've photographed pages before - but it's still more of a pain that just carrying a sensible sized book stuffed down my T-shirt or jumper. As for photocopying pages - most of the time (particularly the Lakes or Wales) I have absolutely no idea what crag I'll be climbing on before I go, let alone the route. It's completely dependent on the weather which is very often fickle in the hills.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to lump it and keep buying the smaller format books where they are available. Please keep producing these and I'll buy them.

One thing though - pretty much all guides on sale now are a country mile better than what was available 20 years ago.

In reply to El Greyo:


Guidebook in a clippy case hung off your (or your second's) harness?

In reply to El Greyo:

Aside from the suggestion that A5 guides sell better, it is simply not possible these days to fit the amount of information into a small book, that is viable to publish.

The latest FRCC Lakes guides are just about managing to stay small enough but I suspect that the sales aren't great, especially with their own internal competition.

GU's North Wales Rock is a great book, sells well, but it is hardly pocket-sized.

The Pembroke set of 5 books are more manageable for sure, and they have done a great job of getting some decent size topos into them, but it will be a difficult series of book to make any money with - there simply isn't the market for 5 separate books covering everything in Pembroke, never has been.

Gogarth has been split into 2 to make it manageable but sadly that has had the knock-on of making the publishing of both editions a financially committing exercise which is unlikely to ever make much/any money.

Alan

In reply to Michael Ryan:

You are spot on, certainly for selectives.

In reply to Gael Force:



In my experience people are increasingly happy to take photos with cameras or phones. This is the 21st century after all. I know not everyone will do this but most people I know would I think.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I am flogging a dead horse here but, as been mentioned: the font size in the new selected Lakes guide is larger (for no apparent reason) than the font size in the new FRCC definitives; and there is wasted of space in some of the layouts. The end result looks stylistically good - but the information within it could certainly have been compressed with no loss of usability. So I don't buy your argument.

Anyway I think I'll now leave it. I've bought the new selected guide; I thank the FRCC for producing it; and I hope it sells well. But personally I would have preferred it in a smaller size.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Do you like that method? I hate it - in order to read the guide you have to unclip the holder and unzip before opening the guide - definitely needs two hands. A lot easier (in my view) to just pull the guide out of my jumper - with the corner folded down to keep the page, I can often do that one-handed. Personal preference no doubt , but I really don't like guidebook holders.

In reply to El Greyo:


Not being funny, but honestly how often do you need to read the guide halfway up a pitch?


Chris

In reply to Gael Force:
I was going to add re most people on this thread being anti large books - people are more likely to post to complain than to praise, it's human nature...

In reply to El Greyo:
I'm intrigued, why wouldn't you have two hands to get a guide book out, do you check guide books while climbing a pitch? Plus a guide book stuffed down a jumper is uncomfortable and gets in the way. Not if you're used to it, I suppose.

In reply to Chris Craggs:



My thoughts entirely. Most people manage Freerider with a hand drawn topo out of a book!

In reply to Chris Craggs:


In my case, frequently! Especially with the modern trend of joining all the short pitches into one long 30/40/50m pitch. My memory's rarely good enough to remember all the changes of direction involved.

In reply to Chris Craggs:
On multi-pitch routes - many many times. It's very often the case that you can't see exactly where it goes from the bottom or the last belay. I did so just last Saturday and can think of several occasions this year.

In reply to Misha:


I always take a photo with my camera. It's a bit faffy if you then take 'proper' photos and have to keep scrolling back to find the guidebook pictures but otherwise works OK. Unless you end up possibly off route and wanting to check adjacent route descriptions. Or pass a good looking line on the way back down and want to check what grade it is with a view to climbing it. Both of which have happened to me

In reply to Misha:

Only if it's A5, not if it's smaller like a CC guide.

I guess I am used to it.

In reply to Misha:


This is true. In that case I'll praise smaller guidebooks then, like the recent CC Swanage and Pembroke guides. They are wonderful, in both size and content.

In reply to Chris Craggs:


It only needs to be once.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think they're usually far off, especially once you get away from grit and onto rock with proper holds. Looking through the graded list for the Ground Up North Wales Rock guide I'd broadly agree with the position of most of the routes I've done from it (even Slippery People, which I backed off the other week in the face of an unfathomably long move, is probably fair at its position, even if it was too hard for me).

In reply to Chris Craggs:

>

What a silly question. It's the belayer that has to read it (and shouts up to the leader).

In reply to Stephen Reid - Needle Sports:

Those sales figures are so different year to year as to be pretty much random?

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I had to read it halfway up a pitch last week, and we are talking about the new Lake District guide. Although it was my error, I meant to leave it with my belayer.

In reply to El Greyo:
Mid route yes but mid pitch? I try to memorise from the stance and if I don't think I can, I leave the book with the belayer so they can shout instructions. If we take the guide book in the first place - if it's multi pitch or an abseil approach, increasingly I just take a phone picture to save on the guide book weight, even if it's a small format one. Also, a phone is much easier to operate with one hand than a guide book which needs pages leafing through - not that I would either mid pitch unless there's a ledge!

Anyway, horses for courses but I think for all sorts of reasons we will see more large format guide books and it's impossible to please everyone.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I have the total sales figures from the other side, which cover two of the books in Stephen's figures, and that indicates a ratio of 5 North Wales Climbs RF (large A5) sales to 1 North Wales Classics RF (pocket A6 book) for the last two years.

Alan