UKC

An Italian friend of mine, who is pretty experienced, bolted a little crag in Vallecamonica a few years back, but left one corner crack unbolted. We had a go at it a few weeks back on top rope (as it was in need of a clean and we had limited trad gear) and he reckoned it was around F6a+ as a sports climb. The protection in the crack is fantastic and you could lace it with cams the whole way up, if you wanted to. It is about 20 minutes uphill walk from the road.

What trad grade might this climb get? Anyone any ideas / suggestions?

In reply to Jamesmoly:

E1? How long is it?

In reply to Jamesmoly:

Vertical - E1 5b Overhanging E2 5b. If there's a tricky crux, maybe go to 5c.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

How long and sustained? There are loads and loads of trad cracks around that grade in Finland where I used to live/climb - I reckon HVS, perhaps E1 compared to grit routes, but HVS and E1 routes on grit can have harder cruxes than you would find on a sustained 6a or 6a+ crack route.

In reply to TobyA:

I agree... but to be honest, it's Trad 6a+.

Why make it harder than that.

At least for well and reasonably well protected stuff.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

what size of crack. What features to help up? Is it jamming? What makes you say it is 6a-ish? I personally think it is virtually impossible to say without at least see/know more.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

Almost certainly E0

In reply to Jamesmoly:

If the protection is as you say, then I'd start with HVS 5b and see how many people complain.

T.

In reply to Jamesmoly:
Thank you,

I do agree with the comment about why making it more complicated than 6a+ trad, but I am asking the question because my Italian friend was wondering how the grades work in English and I really didn't know what it would be and I was curious.

The 6aish grade suggestion was made by my Italian friend who climbs (a lot lot harder than me) up to 8a+ and has done a fair amount of bolting in Italy over the last 5 years, so it is fairly reliable.

It is a weird climb as the crack is in a corner that is slightly greater than 45 degrees- the left wall is a slab with little in the way of holds, the right wall is overhanging. The crack itself is parallel with the right wall. It is a mixture of lay backing, jamming, bridging and there is a short crux section near the top on crimps. It isn't pumpy as such, but it does get uncomfortable. The route isn't that long - there is a fairly easy ramp up to the corner of maybe 5 meters and then 10 / 12 meters up the crack say.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I would have said (and still would be tempted to say) the same, but then if you look at the rockfax conversion table for safe routes, it puts it at E1 / E2. Which I don't believe it is ... but then that leaves me lost in regards to the conversion table.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

I'd stick to your guns. If the short crimpy crux is 5b, and the route can be stitched with protection, then that's HVS for me. The rest of the route can be as difficult or sod-awkward (or even fabulous) as it likes, if there's a definite 5b crux rather than sustained 5b climbing and the protection is terrific, then HVS 5b it is (or should be).

Grade it that way and to hell with the grumbles!

T.

In reply to Jamesmoly: Who cares about a trad grade? Its on a bolted crag, it might as well get bolted and left as a nice 6a+. Lets be honest, how many people rock up to a sport crag with a rack of gear and start looking for trad routes? Trad is like religion, out dated and destined to disappear.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Cheers Andy
Made me laugh!!!
Nick B

In reply to andy farnell:


Plenty of crags where cracks aren't bolted, only the face routes are. Why go to the effort and expense of bolting and easily protected crack?

In reply to TobyA:


Saves lots of people buying lots of pointless trad gear. A rack of draws is all you should need.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell and Toby:

In fairness to James I don't think he's actually specified whether or not the intention is to leave it as a trad route, and there's been no suggestion that in that eventuality it would "officially" be awarded a UK grade; one assumes that, bolted or not, it'll get F6a+ if that's what it settles at. His enquiry here appears to be no more than part of an academic exercise to help his friend understand how UK trad grades work.

My contribution (?) to the process is to try and recall various well-protected UK routes that I think would probably merit F6a+, should anybody care to make the conversion; so far most of them seem to be E2 or thereabouts.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

Depends how strenuous it is to get the gear in but about E2/5b/c a bit harder than The Strand?

In reply to Jamesmoly:

At least e1 probably e2. HVS if bolted only goes to f6a+ if it was the wrong grade in the first place. Leading HVS on trad gear will probably feel like leading hard f6a sport in terms of effort (or maybe harder) but it's a lot easier, quicker and less committing to climb bolt to bolt than it is to place good gear you can trust.

In reply to Ian Parsons:

Plenty of retro bolted trad climbs in Dorset, HVS almost never seems to go to F6a+ and rarely F6a.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

Could it also be the locals aren't so good at cracks so for them its F6a+, whilst somewhere more trad centric would have a hasher grading for cracks and grade the climbing closer to easy f6a / hard f5+?

In reply to Jamesmoly:

highball v5

In reply to CurlyStevo:


Yes.

Mick

In reply to Jamesmoly:

Get someone to lead it who knows trad grades then ask them what they think.

In reply to andy farnell:


I went to a sport crag recently that had a couple of trad routes on it. They looked like great lines so I went back to the car and got my trad rack and lead one of them. It was a great route and bolting it would ruin it. I'd have done the other as well but it was going dark.


Don't hold your breath.

In reply to pec:

Good on you. I live in an area where more than 90% of the routes are better bolted. But occasionally you stumble across something which is eminently traddable. And it seems a shame to bolt it - so I won't.

Personally I like a little bit of difference, co-existence, some yin in yang and yang in yin. Why not? And bolting cracks just seems downright wrong. Given that you can generally cam 'em to death if you want (in Ciderslider's felicitous phrase, bless him) you could argue they're honorary sport routes anyway.

Mick

In reply to andy farnell:



Please remember that a lot of people on UKC don't get irony unless you add one of those smiley symbols.

In reply to Rob Davies: What's irony? My wife does that to my shirts...

Andy F

In reply to Mick Ward:


I remember climbing Embankment 3 at Millstone once placing only cams on the whole route. I placed one above my head before every move just because I could (apart from the last few feet where you have to "cut loose"!).
It was basically top roping on lead.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

>HVS if bolted only goes to f6a+ if it was the wrong grade in the first place.

Is that so? I wouldn't mind getting the average Italian sports climber's sport grade on Teck Crack.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I guess this could be a case of the point I made earlier about the difference in common styles of climbing between areas.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Plus its given E1 5c on here now (and rockfax) so possibly a case in point of it shouldn't be HVS? (I've not done it). Even the bmc say 21 "Teck Crack HVS 5b ««« 1958 26m A fantastic sandbag" .

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=15977

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Teck Crack is a sandbag...cheating. This conversion stuff is difficult though, as the Rockfax conversion table is sadly nonsense at this level (if the respective grades are correct) and its not just trad routes that have sandbag grades: very many older bolted routes around F6a are that as well, due to the polish (and a bit of grade drift). Also slabs can get stiff treatment on Euro bolts and very soft grade treatment for tech in the UK.

In reply to Offwidth:

I have the old Portland guide and mostly when retro bolted you tend to get HVS -> 5+ E1 -> F6a/F6a+ E2 -> F6a+ / F6b.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
For grade conversion you just have to consider if the route as it currently stands would be that trad grade if it involved placing trad gear. What it once was is pretty irrelevant... grades drift, get allocated wrong and a peg clip up HVS is always going to have harder climbing than an HVS based on fiddly wires.

In reply to Offwidth:
Sure but I can't think of a single example of an HVS on Portland that now gets F6a+ bolted. There must be very very few that even get F6a.

What do you think left unconquerable would get if bolted? I think F5+ (as long as you jam the initial crack at about HS) and maybe F5+ / F6a for the right!

This table looks about right I think
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/comptable.html

In reply to Offwidth:

Is this a bonkers discussion? Steve's already given the correct answer:


It's as simple as that.

Mick

In reply to Curlysteveo: I don't think the R would be more than 5.

In reply to wbo:

I find right really pumpy, must try it again sometime.

Left for me is one move of UK5b if the climbing above and below the crux were taken in isolation as two short climbs I think they would get F4+ each. I can't see it worth more than F5+ my self if it was a clip up.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

E1/2 my vote

In reply to Jamesmoly:

E1 5c if short and hard or E2 5b if more sustained.

In reply to CurlyStevo:



I love the comment someone's made about Teck Crack in the public logbooks:

'I find punching yourself in the face helps you get the psyche required for success!'

In reply to Mick Ward:
My experience and impression is that the ability to onsight a random UK E0 (the equivalent on the table) is way less common than that to flash 5+ (unless on euro slabs that seem to get undergraded around this grade on bolts, or when polished up). 5+ flash to me is equivalent to a tougher VS onsight with safe easily placed pro. This is as a climber who doesn't do sport anything like so much as trad (so has skill sets in the wrong direction). Those leading about my grade seem to agree with me more and those disagreeing more seem to be better climbers looking down grades.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

As a sports route I'd say a 6a at least in terms of equivalent difficulty of clips mid-layback for LU, which is as soft as proper grit E1 gets (and reputably at least a full grade easier than Teck Crack)

In reply to Offwidth:
Your argument is flawed in numerous ways:
E0 is not a grade
Leading trad from around tough vs and up typically placing the gear makes the climbing significantly harder, even if it's easy to place, to do so and properly check the gear takes an order of magnitude longer than clipping a bolt.
Trad gear is rarely consistent to place and trust the whole way up the climb and takes risk analysis, bolts can normally be fully trusted.
Bolted climbing has less doubts about next gear placement and route finding, so is faster to commit to.

I agree btw leading harder vs / easier hvs is probably equal to leading easy to mid F6a on bolts to the average uk climber in terms of effort, but to top rope the two would feel very different.

In reply to Offwidth:

I dunno I've done harder F5+ here and abroad.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
I thought we were talking averages and in the normal styles. Adjectival/sports around those grades are normally onight/flash. Top roping feel is obviously way easier than onsight for most trad. E0 is just shorthamd indictating F5+ is around the HVS/E1 border on that conversion chart.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


The OP was asking about a crack. I can point you to various crack routes in Finland that are grade 6a or 6a+ which are way less scary than some of the sports routes of the same grade. Gear where you want it in a crack, whilst the possibility of four or five metre falls easily on plenty of sports routes.

In reply to TobyA:

What grit trad grade would those cracks be?

In reply to Offwidth:
No the op was asking what trad grad the crack would be without bolts not what trad grade would feel the same as leading F6a+.

safe 5+ only just tips over to F6a on those charts mostly it equates to F5+
Tough Vs shouldn't be F5+ if bolted at most F5, the VS is likely badly graded it is F5+ (to top rope / if bolted)

In reply to TobyA:
Yes but even crack routes sometimes you move out of the crack to one side or the other or indeed only use the crack for gear, bolts can help with the route finding here.

Personally I'm more comfortable with typical sport falls than falls on to trad gear although I agree sport can feel commiting at times.

In reply to Offwidth:
He's given them HVS, and I tend to agree.

Or perhaps E1.

But in all honesty some could even be VS. Säkkipilli on Kustavi would be contender for that.

In reply to Offwidth:
Sorry wrote that too early
"safe 5+ only just tips over to F6a on those charts mostly it equates to F5+
Tough Vs shouldn't be F5+ if bolted at most F5, the VS is likely badly graded it is F5+ (to top rope / if bolted)"

should read
"safe HVS only just tips over to F6a on those charts mostly it equates to F5+
Tough VS shouldn't be F5+ if bolted, at most F5, the VS is likely badly graded if it is F5+ (to top rope / if bolted)"

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I still read the OP as asking for a trad grade for a corner crack that is F6a+ on a top-rope. The conversion table says just in the top end of the range for safe E1 and I'm saying I very much doubt it as the liklihood is any tough safe E1 corner crack on grit is going to feel a lot harder.. the conversion table is IMHO about a grade out for 5 and low 6.

In reply to Offwidth: Well what would you give Long Tall Sally at Burbage? 6?

I would also disagree with your assessment of LU as a 6. The moves aren't hard enough, being on fairly large holds, good rests above and below , and there are easy places to clip from, so 5+ for me. That's no reflection on the quality of the route of course.

In reply to Offwidth:
"I still read the OP as asking for a trad grade for a corner crack that is F6a+ on a top-rope. "
Yes we agree on that
"I'm saying I very much doubt it as the liklihood is any tough safe E1 corner crack on grit is going to feel a lot harder"
Yes we agree on that, but that's because of various reasons:
- trad gear weighs a lot, you have to carry it up
- trad gear takes more time to place and check over sport and isn't always as bombproof as a bolt
- exact way to go if you leave the crack for a trad route takes time to assess
- for trad it takes time to assess where the next gear placement is and to commit to it

None of these tables are attempting to equate how hard it is to lead a given trad grade with a sport grade. They are merely comparing the physical difficulty of the rock climbing (ie comparing the difficulty of top roping each route with no gear on your harness)

In reply to Jamesmoly:

E2 ish?

In reply to Jamesmoly:


5.9

Sorted.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Almost, but only if it was graded before the 60s... after which it should be 5.10a if 6a or 5.10b if 6a+ or a tad harder.

In reply to HeMa:

You may have missed a smidgeon of Robert's irony.

E1/2, 5.9 (FA Pat Ament 1967?), HVS (Yorkshire in the 70s), VS (Scotland up until probably the early 80s).

Take yer pick!

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:


I might have... but 5.9 is still incorrect... unless we turn back the clock some 50 years or so.


But again, why make it so hard.

F6a/+ and no other attribute as from the description it's going to be safe.

In reply to Jamesmoly:

HVS 5b or E1 5c.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Indeed. Though "Almost, but only if it was graded before the 60s... after which it should be 5.10a if 6a or 5.10b if 6a+ or a tad harder" does explain it - sort of!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Indeed, YDS used to be broken (just like UK Tech) because they made the system fixed ending at x.9. Well, the UK Tech is not fixed, but quite a few top players seem to agree that at 6C and 7A range it certainly is not working anymore.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I disagree. I think the equivalence most climbers expect is directly on normal modes of ascent (otherwise it would say how things feel on a tr or similar) and these equivalences were mostly written 20 years back when they worked (grades move). Part of the clue is in the US grades where if anything YDS sports grades are in my experience easier than the trad grades even though you often need a big rack on the trad pitches. For F6a vs E1 that's a flash vs an onsight attempt. You even acknowledge that LU is a pretty easy E1 so as such should be a 5+ on the table.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'd personally be just as happy with LU HVS 5b and RU E1 5a but there you go

In reply to wbo:

Yet you have E2 as your best onsight and F7a as your best sport flash (so from the table should be onsighting safe E4). This happens time and time again on the logbook, even with those who are occasional spots climbers, so either nearly everyone is a trad wuss (or incompetant with pro) or the equivalence is wrong.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I'd say they are about the same with RU maybe a smidgeon harder for a genuine onsight and Little just about the hardest of the triplet.

In reply to Offwidth:
" disagree. I think the equivalence most climbers expect is directly on normal modes of ascent"

BTW if that is true than the UKC table is clearly wrong and so is this one https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&u...

There is no way that leading tough VS is equivalent at most to leading F5 sport its more like hard F5+. My interpretation is they are meant to compare how hard the climbing is without placing or carrying gear.

Back to the OP's main point if the crack really is F6a+ then using your logic how can that be HVS if leading HVS feels like bolt clipping easy 6a at most, but you are accounting for placing and carrying all the gear on the HVS in that equation already?

In reply to Offwidth:

No! The equivalence is right, top roping E2 would be about F6b, however to carry all the gear up, place it and trust it most find harder, that's why most people have a higher sport grade than their trad grade if you compare it in the equivalence table!

Having climbed a fair bit in dorset I have a good idea on how difficult it is to lead / second around HS to E2 / F4 to f6b+ on pretty much the same rock. I think the UKC / BMC tables are spot on if you are comparing top rope ascents! Its also the same way the pros describe how hard the climbing is on hard trad routes, the sports grades they give alongside the trad grade are purely for the climbing not for carrying and placing gear!

Finally if you like I can provide examples of reasonable well protected trad climbs that are now bolted that also agree with this interpretation:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=29941 was HVS 5a
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=30640#photos was E1 / E2 5C
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=14192 was VS 5a
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=13218 was E1 5b

In reply to Offwidth:

Following discussion is sticking just to French grades. I assume the French grade is the worked difficulty of the climb when top-roped.
I would expect that I can top-rope a grade or so harder than I can sports lead. I would assume at least two grades between my sports lead and my trad lead. So if I can top-rope 6b, then I can probably sports lead 6a+ and trad lead 5+.

With your example of the person who can flash 7a, they might only be able to trad lead 6c, which only comes out to safe E3. If they have spent more of their time sports climbing than trad leading then their sports-trad gap might be larger, say 4 grades, letting them trad lead 6b which is safe E2.

To me French grades are nothing to do with the climber (unlike trad grades); they are just the difficulty of the moves, and the manner of ascent should be irrelevant - although it is obviously harder to trad lead than it is to sports lead than it is to top-rope.

I have actually just noticed the most interesting thing about the UKC/Rockfax comparison table - look at the colours (green/yellow/red/black). Assume you are a 'yellow' climber and you can climb up to 6a+ but only up to HVS - this is probably about right for me!

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Well reading the text alongside the rockfax tables they do appear to mean to be interpreted as I suggested:
http://www.rockfax.com/publications/grades/

"For example, a route given the trad grade Hard Severe may only have moves equivalent to a grade 3 or 3+ sport route, but a climber capable of leading a route at HS would probably also be able to attempt a sport route of grade 5 or 5+. Conversely, someone happy leading a sport route of grade 5+ should not assume that they can get up an E1 trad route despite the fact that the technical difficulty level is comparable, they should at least be happy on a red sport route of 6b before transferring their skills to trad climbing."

As a sub point they do seem to have muddled up their tables somewhat, how can the routes from the bold table be safe? Also how can generally a safe route from the bold table be harder than a safe route from the safe table. Hmmmmm.......

In reply to Offwidth:


The equivalence isn't wrong. I was an E3/E4 bod who got into sport climbing 20+ years ago. It took me a while to get my head (and body) around stuff but, when I did, I onsighted 30+ F7as. Occasionally I'd go back to trad and do E4s on limestone. They seemed about the same amount of effort. OK maybe the E4s were more like F6c+ but you had to read the rock for gear placements, hang on sometimes not great holds placing gear. So, roughly the same amount of effort on the same rock - limestone.

Take GridNorth as an example. Fantastic trad climber, wealth of expertise, F6b+ and E3 are pretty much the same to him. But they're not to most people.

On walls, you can spot really seasoned trad climbers from they way they move, cautiously, the way they read the moves ahead. Ever see someone reversing on a wall to a better resting position and mentally reading the crux? It's very rare but I do it all the time and I'm sure other old trad climbers do too.

Old habits die hard!

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:
Makes sense to me, safe E4 is what F6c maybe F6c+ tops on the table, mid grade safe E5 is F7a. F7a and E4 felt the same to you as you have a grade or so in hand based on the pure technicality of the climbing and leading trad is more time consuming and therefore harder physically even if you ignore the mental side of things. I have a friend up here climbing around E3, think you know him actually He reckons around that grade putting in the gear is the crux!

In reply to Mick Ward:

You flatterer you Thank you for the compliment Mick. Most people I know who started out on trad, probably before sport existed, think the grade comparisons tend to be about right and find the transition between disciplines straightforward. Those going the other way however seem to experience lots of problems so it's not surprising in this day and age that they are the ones who question it the most.

Al

In reply to Offwidth:


Quite right. And flashing 7a is definitely not required to onsight E4! It's not 'nearly everyone', it's just some.

In reply to Offwidth:
I used to think they would be HVS or E1 but I now suspect HVS tops if on grit? I've found some grit HVSs to have pretty desperate moves on them! But then some of the Finnish granite cracks are either longer or more sustained than grit cracks.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

So according to that argument using the full set of linked tables bold E1 routes are a bit harder to top rope than safe E1 routes. I agree effort links better with tr grades but I'm still not convinced the tables meant that. I'd like clearer definitions (plural as different rules apply to hard sport and easy sport) that work across the grades and an upgrade to take into account relative average grade drifts and notes where grades vary a lot (eg YDS with a huge range with brutal 5.9 slabs at JT vs some venues with very easy graded sport 5.9)

In reply to Offwidth:

No both tables are consistent in isolation that bold routes are easier to top rope / climb then safe routes but the bold table and safe table are inconsistent and illogical (for the bold table anyway what is a safe bold route?) with regards to safe routes.

I'm pretty confident if I dig out my old portland guide we'll see retro bolted reasonably safe trad routes tend to follow the pattern of the bmc table. I don't think you'll find a strong correlation between VS / HVS retro bolting going to F6a never mind F6a+. E1 / E2 border when retroed would typically go to F6a+ imo.

However one thing I would say is grit seems to have a greater tendency to grade cracks stifly than the rest of the UK especially at the HVS grade so perhaps you are also being biased by that.

I agree the tables should be more accurate about what they are defining.

In reply to Offwidth:



Or maybe just forget about all that paperwork, use a bit of common sense, and don't worry too much about exactitude?

In reply to Bulls Crack:
Thats my tendancy from a personal perspective but these tables are to help people to move across styles. Mick et al have pointed out the move to sport is fine (indicating sports grades are likely soft) yet the move to safe trad aound E1 is usually not fine (indicating trad grades are hard even on tr). This discourages those who move outdoors from climbing safe trad.

In reply to Curly Stevo

I forgot to add that I'd change the BMC table as well but their errors are less problematic. To me safe but hard E1 remains more like the top of F6a+ as a top-rope (and would feel harder to onsight) and very bold E1 more like F4 on a top-rope; the range is much much bigger than they indicate.

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

I'd also like to see a clear-out of the obvious remaining grit crack sandbags. On top of that I think skill sets have declined on HVS grit cracks and all grades should be an indication of average skills for those who have climbed enough to know the techniques required.

In reply to Offwidth:

Not if the tables are just comparing the difficulty of the climbing (ie as if it was top roped). I'm pretty sure that's how most people read the tables and it all makes perfect sense then. If you can lead E1 placing and carrying gear, then without that added difficulty F6a/F6a+ is going to feel much easier you can probably attempt F6b. However if you can only lead to F6a+ then placing and carrying all the trad gear is going to feel harder so you can probably only attempt VS / HVS.

I've emailed rockfax btw as it was easier. They confirmed the tables are only comparing the difficulty of the climbs as if top roped. They also said the bold table is their standard table for comparing the climbing difficulty (as if top roped) of how hard UK trad climbs are with other grading systems.

"Both tables only equate difficulty level. It would be more like saying an E1 on a top-rope is like a 5c/6a sport route in pure difficulty terms only. The comparison of routes in terms of overall difficulty, or assessing the routes in terms of what level a climber of a certain ability would be happy attempting, is done by the colour code. This is why a sport 6a+ can have climbing as hard as an E2, but a HVS leader might be happy attempting it. We try and run this colour code system across all grading systems for all types of routes. This is explained in more detail in the text under the tables on this page - http://www.rockfax.com/publications/grades/"

As a sub point if you want to change the tables so they equate the effort, skill etc of actually leading the routes in their own style, you will then need two tables one for going from UK grades to other grading systems and one for going back.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Ignoring for the moment the confusion arising from it not being clear that the conversions are for adjectival grades on a top rope (this is odd at lower grades as fewer trad climbers climb that way and so should be clearly stated at the top of every conversion table), many issues remain around HVS and E1: the sports range is too low from safe to bold, the conversion for safe IMHO is still too low (safe trad is harder). At all grades the two tables have safe route conversions at different levels; the bold table shouldn't have a 'safe' end; and some overseas conversions look dated and or misaligned in places to me ... all these could be fixed and produce a better table to help climbers. Rockfax carved a niche providing clearer information than that of some definitive guidebook producers and always said any obvious mistakes would be rectified quicker as they are online and the turn round time was quicker between paper guides.

I dont need to produce conversions for onsights, for fellow bumblies, as the definitives do that already.

In reply to Offwidth:
"many issues remain around HVS and E1: the sports range is too low from safe to bold, the conversion for safe IMHO is still too low (safe trad is harder). "

Safe trad is generally harder at any given grade than bold trad and yes we both agree it will normally feel harder than the sport top rope grade of the route to lead. However I disagree the sport top rope grades of trad routes are radically wrong in the bold table (rockfax accept this is badly named and should be the standard table of converting technical difficulty from trad to sport grades, its the one they print in their guide books). Generally the trad climbs which don't fall in to this bracket will either feature climbing that most people aren't well versed in now a days or are plain sandbags or are extremely objectively dangerous routes. I've already posted a few examples of retro bolted trad routes that fall in to these brackets, perhaps you can find some that don't? I'm not sure I still have my old Swanage & Portland guide but if I do I can dig out plenty more examples I'm sure that agree with the bold table.

" At all grades the two tables have safe route conversions at different levels"
Yes I pointed this out and rockfax accepted there were issues with the safe table, it was designed again representing technical difficulty only, but only showing safe trad routes, so that sports climbers could assess how hard trad climbs of a certain grade are likely to be. I personally think this table is flawed and best ignored, the bold table is the main table rockfax use.

" the bold table shouldn't have a 'safe' end"
Actually it should, the table just needs renaming

Personally I think the bold table is pretty good at defining the technical top rope difficulty of trad routes compared to sport grades. I can't comment on the other grade types as I haven't used them enough. The rockfax bold table seems pretty inline with the bmc and mcofs table (if you compare against safe routes in the bold table) so I reckon they are all comparing the same thing. The technical difficulty of the climbing in isolation (ie as if it was top roped).

In reply to CurlyStevo:
The definitives used to stubbornly say in defence of their old style guides that its all there: you just need to look more carefully. I think Rockfax grade tables are unclear in the grade range of the majority of their customers as someone pretty experienced in the world of grades. This is all very unRockfax... sure some of the more important factors would be fixed by changing labels but clear labels are normally what Rockfax do well. Uk grades make comparing cummulative tech pretty easy: you compare with tech grades in combination with sustainedness, you have a 5a and a 5b band etc instread of an HVS band etc (I still think onsight adjectival is a better comparison at punter grades as punters normally play the trad onsight game).

In reply to Offwidth:
"Uk grades make comparing cummulative tech pretty easy: you compare with tech grades in combination with sustainedness (I still think adjectival is a better comparison at punter grades as punters normally play the trad onsight game)."

Could you explain better what you mean?

I think the way the rockfax bold table (and it would seem the other grade comparison tables and also the way top end climbers grade hard trad with a sport grade) makes perfect sense. It's comparing what grade the trad route / trad grades would be if they were bolted (or if both were top roped if you like). Its certainly what I would expect these tables to convey.

As a sub point I know you've climbed in the states a fair bit. Is that not how their grading works too? ie the overall grade reflects the difficulty of the climbing in isolation and doesn't account for how much easier or harder the overall style is (ie trad climbing a crack is harder than sport climbing the same crack, in the states would they not get the same overall grade?)

In reply to CurlyStevo:
A sport grade or a US YDS grade should be pretty much the same: a combination of (only) the varying technical difficulty of a route and how sustained it is in combination. A very protectable properly graded YDS 5.8 could be anything from a rare cruxy HS 5a, most commonly a VS 4c or HVS 4c or HVS 5a, but might include a super sustained HVS 4b (like Regular Route Fairview pitch 3). The actual range on YDS is higher as they generally grades slabs too hard (at least on the SW granite), there are big area differences (a tough 5.8 in JT is eqivalent to a 5.10a in many softer graded areas) and there are always some bad grades. Each step up to PG 13, R and then X grades adds roughly somewhere between a half to a whole adjectival notch. Yes leading cracks is still harder than than sports climbing bolted cracks at the same grade as you are carrying more weight and placements will sap energy more than clips.

If you are aligning sport or YDS with UK grades on a top-rope, and in that removing the danger of a lead fall (rock quality, exposure etc) , the range of grades are probably better compared with UK tech grades with a band of varing levels of sustainedness. 4c would run from 5.9 (if sustained) down to 5.6 (for a one move wonder). This won't work at the top end as UK grades at UK 6b and above are too wide. Measuring adjectival grades with a top-rope range of sports grades to me becomes more useful for assessing headpoints in the mid to top extremes and also deals with the daft width of UK 6c etc.

In reply to Offwidth:
"If you are aligning sport or YDS with UK grades on a top-rope, and in that removing the danger of a lead fall (rock quality, exposure etc) , the range of grades are probably better compared with UK tech grades with a band of varing levels of sustainedness. 4c would run from 5.9 (if sustained) down to 5.6 (for a one move wonder). This won't work at the top end as UK grades at UK 6b and above are too wide. Measuring adjectival grades with a top-rope range of sports grades to me becomes more useful for assessing headpoints in the mid to top extremes and also deals with the daft width of UK 6c etc."

No I'm not. I personally don't like equating our tech grade which only accounts for the hardest move with grade systems that consider the whole route, it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm simply pointing out that there is a similarity here. The US system doesn't account for the style in which a route is lead, the overall rating just describes the pure difficulty of the climbing in isolation (ie as a top rope), they seem to cope fine. You also see sport grades applied to trad pitches other places in Europe in the same way. This is also the way that UK grades are assessed in grade tables when comparing them to French grades or US grades. It makes sense to me and seems consistent.

I agree using sport top rope grades along side a trad grade is more useful at the higher grades to help describe the actual difficulty of the climbing on a particular trad route. However for grade conversion tables I see no issue with the way it is applied here either.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Its the hardest move in the whole route and more strongly correlated with a sports grade than an adjectival grade and is easier to help climbers moving from one system to the other.

Looking at Rockfax Eastern Grit the most climbed rock in the world and sticking to one of the most popular areas I'd say classic HVS on a top-rope could be anything from F6a+ (Chequers, Crack) to F3+ (Sunset Slab) in direct contradiction to the F5a to F5c range displayed in the table (yet the tech range of 4b to 5c would suggest 5.6/7 to 5.10b ie easy F4 to F6a) . Definitions are hidden in the small print and labels are wrong....and you see nothing wrong with the table ... like I said its like the conservative madness of the old definitive guide defence back in force, that ironically Rockfax did so much to shake up. UK adjectival grade bands at my grades are pretty wide in the range of sports equivalent even on a top-rope and more so onsight.

In reply to Offwidth:
Not done either route but as mentioned the table can't really account for large amounts of objective danger in a route or the oddities of gritstone hvs crack sandbags. Plenty out there think chequers should be E1 including your self I note

In reply to Jamesmoly:

Is the answer:there's no such thing as a 6a+ crack?

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Rockfax grades Rockfax tables and there are other examples at the F6a end for grit cracks in Rockfax and if its a top rope grade we compare to there is no objective danger. I am comparing to my guestimate of top rpoe grades but even if we are talking easy F4 to hard F6a the range for HVS is inconsistent with the table.

In reply to Offwidth:
No the rockfax bold table does account for hvs being F6a, I agree the lower end is out for routes which are very badly protected or on really poor rock or both but hey it's only supposed to be a guide. I still think btw really well protected hvs just shouldn't be f6a+ to top rope that's just plain poor grading for the hvs!

The problem with the lower end is if you put a 4a move with a death fall and no gear at all on really poor rock with scrambling either side of it (let's say multi pitch on to a crap belay) , technically that could be hvs maybe, but only worth F3. The table starts getting very hard to interpret if you include these very poorly protected routes like sunset slab.

In reply to Offwidth:


I would respectfully suggest F6b+ and F4+ respectively. Caveat: have only done the former once (uugh!) but the latter dozens of times, sans corde.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Wow that's one hell of a sandbag!

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Well, it is, isn't it?

In reply to Mick Ward:

You may be right on modern outdoor UK labels ... as most of my sports climbing was a decade back and in Spain, France. or the US (or indoors). my argument is more about the wider range for HVS on a tr than F5 to F5+. If they stated the table was for typical mid grade HVS routes I would be satisfied but that might scupper the intent for higher grades...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
No its not "one hell of a sandbag" its an easy E1 to me and many disagree and say HVS (just below half) so its a minor sandbag at best. Grit top end HVS cracks are just hard. Puppet, Masochism, Tower Crack, Terrazza Crack etc.

Straight Ahead went from Diff in '89 to VS that was one hell of a sandbag. If we want to talk hell of an HVS sandbag Magnetic North was HVS in '89.

In reply to Offwidth:

Chequer's Crack's as hard as Toy. Both top end E2 5c. Yes, it's innocuous, as you can drop gear in at will. And end up sitting on it.

Mick

P.S. Grit's grit. It's different. One day I went from pissing up Our Father to, an hour later, seconding Peapod with one point of aid - the rope.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Hah Mick!

I thought of The Toy quite a while back in this thread; specifically just after John C's contribution. Based on the respective points in my climbing career at which I was first able to climb them, and the levels at which I was generally climbing at those times, I concluded that Teck Crack is probably a definite "notch" easier than The Toy; respectively F5+ and F6a. I would put Chequer's Crack between the two, but closer to Teck; so still F5+, probably. F6a seems about right for the two cracks to the left - Beech Nut and Stiff Cheese; on paper this is slightly more generous than the 5.10a (F5+) awarded by visiting American climbers in 1982.

For the record, I first led Our Father several years after doing the same on Peapod and, despite undoubted improvement in the interim, still found it considerably harder!

In reply to Bulls Crack:


It's an idea, but it tends to pose a question: if you happen to be climbing on a type of rock that occasionally features cracks - granite, for instance - and you climb such a feature that seems a bit harder than 6a but a bit easier than 6b, and this all takes place in an area (country?) where French grades are the norm, what else are you going to grade it?

In reply to Mick Ward:

I disagree: Im pretty sure The Toy is a full grade harder than CC and has some surprising scalps amongst my mates who, helped with guidebook work and regularly onsight low to mid extremes. The large number of votes for the two routes on UKC also indicate this.

In reply to Ian Parsons:

The Toy, F6a? yeah right!? Why dont you get back under that bridge.

In reply to Offwidth:


My God; are you still up as well?

Actually, I would; but it's a gritstone bridge, so I keep banging my head on the top. This relates to something that somebody suggested earlier - Stevo, I think, but I've rather lost track: that short routes get pretty harsh French grades. This in turn can be linked to something that somebody else pointed out - you, possibly: that low-angle/slabby/"technical" routes also tend to get harsh French grades. I think that this points to a second fundamental difference between UK technical and French grades. The first, as we all know, is that UK tech attempts to grade the hardest move while the French grade applies to a whole section (or pitch) between usable recovery positions. Secondly, though, the UK grade tends to concentrate on - and place a premium on - the "technical" difficulty; clue - "UK technical grade". The French grade, on the other hand, tries to quantify the physical effort required/expended - which isn't always quite the same thing. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who, when fit, happily romped up the various 6bs and 6cs in the middle of Styx Wall at Buoux - non-technical pocket-pulling on a vertical/slightly overhanging wall - only to be brought to a very abrupt halt on more modestly graded and easier angled fare further right. The climbing suddenly required the ability and trust to stand up, and keep standing up, on barely adequate footholds and little else - and I was found wanting; it required technique and finesse rather than effort, hence the low grade. This would also explain why a route like Hairless Heart - if The Grit List is in any way authoritative - attracts the relatively modest grade of F6a. As for short routes; I guess that however hard the individual moves may be, it's all over too quickly (assuming success!) for the French grade - for overall effort - actually to fully reflect the technical difficulty.

Ok - I'm going back under now; I'll wear a helmet.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Something tells me this would be my experience if I tried it! 6b+ climbing is ridiculous for an HVS.

In reply to Jamesmoly: The Toy, Chequers Crack are seared in my memory and I haven't been near them for 20 years (deliberately?) . They are full value for the grade and I don't know what they'd get as a sport grade. Certainly comparing them to Sunset Slab shows the full span of what HVS can mean just on one crag .

Ian - I'd agree on Hairless Heart at 6a as on a top rope it's thin but not that tricky. The aforementioned crack routes require a lot more technique I think

Also - Buoux slab- what a shock to the system that was. Nice long runouts too - who said sport wasn't scary. I remember going there for the first time just as the original aces came out. They felt really good, but were black, and the start of the slab was usually around the end of the tree cover so the heat would make your feet swell, adding pain to the combination of hard and scary climbing.

Here's a quote i sometimes use, but with the word model swapped out
'All grades are wrong - some are still useful'

In reply to Ian Parsons:
I was always told some of those 'easy' routes at Buoux had legendary sandbag status. I'd give Hairless Heart something pretty low in the F6s: the E5 equivalent of Sunset Slab, again showing the large range of sport grades across a top-roped UK adjectival grade. Seems easy ..... but it hardly gets queues for the onsight..

In reply to Offwidth:

They do. A couple of years ago, my climbing partner went back and spent a month at Buoux. Despite being a F7c/+ climber elsewhere (and being extremely capable generally), he struggled on some of the F6b slabs. (Yes, 6b!) And this wasn't having the odd bad day which, of course, we all have. He had ample leisure to contemplate ridiculously sandbag grades and, in some case, ridiculously runout bolting.

Some of the 6bs at Siurana have harder (certainly more vicious) cruxes than any moves on 7bs at Montsant.

So, just because the French started French grades and just because they started bolting routes for subsequent ascentionists (rather than the FA - and good for them) doesn't mean they always got it right. Nobody always gets it right.

Mick

In reply to Ian Parsons:


After my pathetic (lack of) effort on Peapod and bored by my incessant whingings, Paul Mitchell nonchalantly soloed Insanity. Aye, the things climbing partners do - just to make you feel better!

Mick

P.S. I wonder how many of Paul's critics on here would be happy soloing Insanity, on a dark, frowning Curbar day.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Sound chap, Paul - with a very cryptic sense of humour!

In reply to Offwidth:


Oddly I seconded the Toy cleanly on my first go, including getting all of my mate's runners out, a number of which he had fallen onto. I failed on CC, although some years back - haven't summed up the courage to go an try again.