UKC

Heard at the weekend and now reported in http://www.climbonline.co.uk/news.htm that Dave Birkett has repeated John Dunne's E10 Breathless at Great Gable.

Very impressive! It doesn't say what grade he thought it was.

In reply to Ian Patterson: 'The climbing is merely E8 to the good hold' - I like it.

In reply to Ian Patterson:

Excellent news. I was just wondering the other day when any of Dunne's testpieces would get repeated. And lo, there one goes.

We really need some comment from Davey B about it....

In reply to Fiend:

Probably unlikely I guess - Dave Birkett was at Kilnsey on Saturday (not just a trad man!) and I was talking to a guy I know who mentioned that he'd repeated it. I asked what he thought of grade and it appears at as man of few words he didn't say much at all.

In reply to Fiend:

It'll be interesting, certainly. Hadn't he tried the line before ? I thought they were his pegs ?

In reply to GrahamD:

Surely, if this is a trad route then all the gear should be placed on the lead. Hence, if you don't place the pitons on lead then it isn't a trad lead.

In reply to James G:

Mince.

In reply to James G: Twot

In reply to James G:
I don't think he's claimed an onsight has he?

In reply to James G:Somewhere an AndyF is sighing.

In reply to James G:

I think gnarly mountain routes on marginal pegs is about as traditional as it gets !

In reply to James G:

I think he did place them on lead

In reply to Ian Patterson:

I cannot believe that this thread is degenerating into the usual did he place the gear.... is it an onsight..... it's not a real trad lead if he didn't etc. etc.

Those of you reducing it to this level are the saddest bunch of losers I've ever come across.

In reply to tb: See my thread....

Andy F

In reply to tb:
Re-read the thread. Only one person made a comment along those lines (and I suspect that was tongue-in-cheek).

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

And the converstion was then merrily entered into by you, Graham D, Tyler, James G.

Now they may have been defending him but any response other than piss off simply helps to incubate this sort of trivial crap

In reply to Andy_F:
In all honesty although pedantic it is still valid to ask about the style of lead for the climb. It does not require one to have led E10 (or above VS !!!) to understand that preplacing gear and knowing the state of that gear before leading and also where and when the gear comes is not nearly as hard a climb as a pure onsight, where this uncertainty will make the lead much more impressive.

This is not taking anything away from the ascent as E10 is a truely impressive grade to be climbing whether onsight, with beta, headpoint or redpoint. Isn't the highest onsight so far in the UK, also by Dave at e8 ?

In reply to tb:
I was always taught that people only resorted to swearing after they had lost the argument

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Lost the will to live I think

In reply to Woker:

It was climbed as a headpoint. Dave had been working the route at the same time as Dunne.
I have no idea whether the gear was in situ or not when Dave led the route. I will ask him when I next see him, if I remember.
Very few people (Dave is one) have onsighted mountain E8s. To expect the onsight of a possible E10 seems niaf at the moment.

In reply to tb:

Isn't that one of the prerequisites for attempting an onsight of Breathless

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

No its a prerequisite for trying Breathless in any way shape or form!

In reply to Ian Patterson:

[Warning: stupid question coming up]

How come these E10s get such quick repeats while an E6 like Ray’s Roof gets 2 repeats in quarter of a century despite everyone trying it?

In reply to Witkacy:
Probably because rays roof takes a pretty perverse sort of person to want to do it, whereas the E10s require Balls of steel and mind control to match, along with being able to climb like a bastard

In reply to Witkacy:

In this particular case I imagine it’s because we Brits are children when it comes to offwidth roof cracks. If Ray’s Roof was in Yosemite, Utah or Veudawoo it would be a popular solo party piece for local crackmeisters.

In reply to tb:


And now your good self.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

I think that's a good point. Do you also think that there is an element of if I can do an E10 I'll do that rather than an E6 for which I won't get the same recognition.

BTW before anyone jumps on my back I'm not having a pop. It's just natural for us Humans to want to achieve at the highest level we are capable of and E10 is evidently higher than E6. I know if I was vaguely capable of climbing E10 I'd want to do all the other E10s rather than the rarely climbed lower grades

In reply to James G:


Um, no.

A 'trad' route simply means that the gear is either 'natural' (nuts, wires etc) and pegs for fixed gear.
Pre placing gear is quite commonplace for folks doing harder 'trad' routes.

I despise the word 'trad' which is why I put it in quotes.

As opposed to a sports route, plentifully equipped with bolts.

You can get into quibbling about bolted stances or very spaced bolts but on another thread please.

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:

DAVE. STOP IT

you'll just encourage them

In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:

Dave, as you know Mr Birkett perhaps you could ask him for us? Why doesn't he do the very rarely repeated lower grades. Is it just because he thinks they are choss or is there another reason?

In reply to Ian Patterson:

Well done Dave. Absolutely stunning line, which makes my hands go all sweaty. I know this is an old chestnut, and I've gone on about this before, but I find it hard to understand how Blind Vision, which involves climbing of a very similar difficulty to this, relatively just off the deck (the Slingshot bit, I mean), gets the same E grade. I do understand how E's work, etc, and am still left a bit baffled. In all departments, isn't Breathless more serious than BV? Similar difficulty of climbing...?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

In what way?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

I think Blind Vision would need to be a fair bit physically harder than Breathless to justify its grade, assuming the latter's as badly protected as they say. There is certainly a reasonably well-informed school which holds that BV isn't E10, but time will tell, no doubt.

Kurt: I'd be interested, yes, if it's not too much trouble. johncox@dewarhogan.co.uk is my email. Thanks very much.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Bollocks. Last sentence on wrong thread, obviously.

In reply to Dom Orsler: BV is overgraded.... grit grading at work again...

In reply to Kipper:

Welll, I thought E grades were supposed to take into account all manner of things; length, 'seriousness', remoteness (i.e. if you fall off and need immediate medical attention), sustainedness, objective danger, protection and, of course, technical difficulty in relation to all of the above. Well, the climbing on Breathless isn't a lot easier than BV; they're in a similar league from what I can judge, and if they're not, it's only because BV starts with a very hard boulder problem, which surely doesn't contribute that much to the overall seriousness, or E grade, of the route.

So, let's say they are of a similar tech grade (OK, not the same, but close).

Now consider one is short (perhaps short enough to survive a fall, certainly from the crux), at a roadside crag, not far from a hospital, with a good landing.

The other is on a remote mountainside perhaps two hours from a hospital, is sustained and over a hundred feet long and if you fall from the crux you'll probably end up with not even dental records to identify the red paste you will have become.

I know which one I'd give a higher E-grade to...

In reply to Dom Orsler:

To be honest I think it would be even more interesting to compare Breathless with things like Parthenon (sp) Shot and Equilibrium as I guess the current benchmarks for E9 and E10. What sort of sport grade is the climbing Breathless - 8b?. If totally protected 8b is E8, then runout 8b is E9, so serious injury potential 8b would be E10.

I guess we would need Dave B (or somebody in the know) to be a bit more talkative to know more.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Given that BV is about 20m from the point where a mate fell and died, despite getting to hospital in fairly quick time I'm not so quick to jump to any conclusions really.

I know, and generally agree with, your views on the UK E grades when applied to gritstone but we have four grading systems already (UK, French, V-grades and P-grades) so coming up with something new isn't really practical.

Not sure if remoteness comes into the UK grading system. It used to in the alps - then they removed it so things like the Central Pillar of Freney went from ED to TD which was a bit silly really.

Any grading system will be pulled in different directions by the variety of styles of routes around so mostly it is a matter of getting to the route, sucking your thumb, sticking it the air and seeing how the wind blows.

Bob

In reply to Bob:

Sorry to hear about your mate.

The point I was trying to make was, as we whom climb are all aware, there is a height above which you will be smashed to pieces (Breathless is way higher than this; there would be zero chance of survival), and heights at which luck comes into the equation. Many people see that point as existing around the thirty to forty foot mark, depending upon the landing. Many people have walked away from heights similar to those seen on BV, but no-one has ever fallen onto rocks from 100ft and lived.

Which reminds me, Indian Face, anyone...?

The last guide to E grades I read did mention remoteness, etc as a contributing factor in E grades. It will surely be a factor to your 'bottle' if you're thinking about that next dodgy move, if you know you're very close to a hospital, as opposed to somewhere in the Karakoram, two days from a very dodgy 'doctor' who has never seen a shattered pelvis before...

In reply to Dom Orsler:

From my days as a scaffolder, I reckon it is the "whites of their eyes" height. If you can see the whites of the eyes of someone on the deck you are going to hurt yourself. If you can't you are going to die! Depends on your eyesight I suppose

How far did Andy Parkin fall in his bad accident? Belay ripped or similar when guiding and lowering the client. I seem to remember it was 30m or so.

All this is getting a bit macabre.

Bob

In reply to Bob:

A bit macabre, but of central importance and significance to our entire sport! There is a lot of instinct involved in deciding whether or not it is safe to fall, but it can be wrong. I once fell from a tree, a very long way into bramble bushes over a stream. I was a bit lacerated and had the crap knocked out of me, but was OK. My mate and I stood back and looked at the bow from which I'd fallen (backwards, I might add), and were both amazed at how high it was (30 - 40 ft?), which just goes to show how the landing is crucial.

I limped off home to my tea and a good bollocking from my mum about my wet and muddy clothes.

The same height onto rock? Certain death.

Many people have fallen awkwardly from fifteen feet onto rock and died.

The landing on BV is not too bad. The landing on Breathless is horrendous from anything over ten feet, and you could land on it from 50 - 100. No comparisson.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Apparently a common, if not the most common, cause of death in the home is falling down stairs!

Agreed that comparing a short(ish) gritstone route with a reasonable landing to something like Breathless where the skid mark on the slab resulting from the fall is likely to be visible from outer space is rather pointless.

Let's look at this in a slightly different way: two bolt protected routes, one a sustained pump-fest the other a technical testpiece, yet both can be given the same grade. Now I don't know how the climbing on Breathless compares with that on BV but if we assume that BV is a grade harder then, since the E grade is simply stating how hard the route is, it is perfectly reasonable that Breathless is E10 7a and BV E10 7b. It's a bit like comparing John Gaskin's new route and something like Northern Lights at Kilnsey. (OK I know that they are given slightly different grades but I hope you can see the principle)

Bob

In reply to Bob:

Yes, I see the point you're making, but the only reason BV gets 7b instead of 6c/7a(?) is because of the bloody hard boulder problem at the bottom. You then reach a no-hands ledge rest and do the 'dangerous' bit at the top, which is 'relatively easy'. Remove the boulder problem, and what have you got? Something which would in no way compare to Breathless, I'd guess. So we're saying that throwing in a boulder problem at the bottom of this route bumps it up to E10...?

Does this mean that, if getting off the deck on Breathless involved an 8B boulder problem, then you stood as long as you wanted on a pinacle, chatting with your belayer before starting the route proper, that it could go from E10 to E11? I'm sure most people who are well-acquainted with high mountain crags would view that as proposterous, but it's what has been done with BV.

All this said, I was impressed at the way Adrian posted his justification for the grade, and I want to be clear that I am not passing judgement on the absolute grade of either route. I'm in no way qualified to do that. I am merely suggesting that Breathless, in my view, gievn what I can see, is a far more serious route, overall, than BV, in many ways, not just danger and pro, etc.

In reply to Bob:

And, FYI, by far the most common cause of death in the home is heart attack, but I see where you're coming from. You mean the most common fatal accident, right?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

The old idea I thought was that the E grade gave an indication of how many people could do a route (or fancied trying; compound the two into do a route). I'd have thought adding a 7b boulder problem to the start of a hard route would affect that. It might well have prevented Dunne from doing the first ascent of Breathless for instance.

In reply to John Gillott: Also, isn't the boulder problem start slightly more serious than most boulder problems. JM top roped it for the FA?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Yes, as in not related to an existing medical condition.

It would appear that BV could probably be given something like E8 to come into line with general grading. (Pure supposition on my part you understand) We already have routes that are graded E1 6c: Desperate move to get off ground then easy (4c/5a) but bold climbing above. So doing the same for BV is reasonable.

Bob

In reply to richard bradley @ work:

"JM top roped it for the FA"

Yeah, but what's he ever done on grit?






...I'll get me coat.

In reply to Bob:

Pure supposition on mine as well of course! But even for someone who can do 7b, I wouldn't have thought the rest of BV could be called 'easy' in the same way as your E1 6c analogy. The novelty of BV seems to be consistently hard climbing, but with a big break in the middle. More like giving an extra E point to succeeding on a two pitch route neither of whose pitches in isolation would warrant the grade

In reply to John Gillott:

I thought Adrian said the top section was relatively easy? A guy was taling to him on his thread who said he'd done the top, which he found quite straightforward, and was ready to start working the bottom, to which Adrian replied "congratulations; you've done the easy bit". His words, not mine! If the top is 'easy', and is the only really dangerous bit (the bottom is a boulder proble, even if you call it a highball), E10 is looking a bit stretched...?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Ah, you follow these things better than me. I did read the original account and seem to remember 6c being given, and quite tricky at that. What's more, 6c with a goodish fall. To me, that doesn't put it in the same league as HVD 5b or E1 6c. On those routes you boulder the start then do the rest without thinking about it, which is why the adjectival grades are unsatisfactory.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Might be rather macabre...



But you guys certainly describe it with style, LOL.



As for Blind Vision, Adrian's own justification that he posted for giving it E10 was that while the top wall was 'only' E9 6c, and the boulder problem start wasn't very serious (one presumes he used several mats as per Mo's ascent), that it would be very rare to find someone who could do both parts hence a higher grade.

Utterly unconvincing to me. The adjectival grade is normally for how serious the route is and I don't see why this should be an exception. There's obvious counter examples, e.g. Incursion Direct at Stanage North - bold E1 5a/b slab, with a 6a boulder problem start. By AB's wrong reasoning, since it would be rarer to find an E1 leader who could do the start than one would couldn't the grade should go up. But it blatantly doesn't, the seriousness of the route is still E1.

In reply to Fiend:

Agreed!

In reply to Dom Orsler: Erm... what about E for effort?

Just Wondered.

Andy F

In reply to Fiend: i heard the top wall had some gear? - why E9 then?

In reply to Anonymous: On the subject of Breathless, what is the mighty pie-eating first ascentionist actually doing these days?

If his website is to be believed, he's trapped in some terrible Groundhog Day scenario where every year he goes to Joshua Tree in January, works on a new route in Wales for 10 days without getting to the top crux and signs a new sponsorship deal with Mountain Equipment on the 20th April....

In reply to Anonymous:

Gear is small and uncertain and the climbing precarious and sustained from what I remember.

In reply to Fiend: Incursion is a good example. I tried it and could not get the start. There again I'm only a VS climber!

In reply to andy farnell:

Absolutely! If E was for effort, Breathless would get about E13 and BV E7.

God, I hope Adrian doesn't read this. Listen to me, E9-meister that I am (not).

In reply to andy farnell:

What about it?

E is for Everything, not Effort, not Extinction but Everything.

Bob

In reply to Bob: The point being you can give high E grades for lots of effort in a 'safe' situation.

Andy F

In reply to Bob:

Andys reply to your message does not even justify a reply, what do you think? Ignore him as he has no idea about E grades and what they mean after his last statement.

It left me breathless

In reply to andy farnell:

If E was for effort, extinction, exhilaration, etc, I still think Breathless would outgun BV, any day.

In reply to andy farnell:

I love the way this thread has become a kind of boys own discussion like "If The Alien had a fight with The Predator, who would win?"

My fault entirely. Sorry about that, but it is fun...

In reply to Dom Orsler:

They do have a life of their own don't they? (Threads that is)

Bob

In reply to Fiend:
Surely if you have an E9 6c with one 7b move at the bottom it would be E10 as given. Before people tell me not to comment on anything above VDiff, we still use the same grading system for all trad routes, and E-grades do take in to account the technial difficulty of the route. If you did a new route with absolutely no protection above a 200m drop but with no moves above 4a, you most certainly would not give it E10 would you?
It seems most adjectival grades cover a range of technical grades before it gets too hard and the adjectival is bumped up for the same (or less!) seriousness (eg. VS 4a-5a, E2 5a-6a or something along those lines? - correct me if Im wrong). Therefore if it was decided that a 7b move was too hard for an E9, it would be made an E10. Isn't this right?

In reply to SidH:

Just to complicate things further, how can the top section of this be E9 6c, when you compare it to Indian Face? Indian Face has unprotected 6c climbing above a 100ft death fall. BV has the same grade of climbing, with some protection above a fall you might walk away from. Surely they can't both be E9? Same tech grade, VERY different situations. One is wrong.

In reply to Peter Walker:
I sort of asked him this recently at Ilkley although I didn't quite use the same wording. He's still pysched for big routes but has an elbow injury. He's also busy with business, especially the new wall in central Manchester.

In reply to Jonathan T: Cheers for that; regardless of what one thinks of the veracity of his claims, the mags are a lot duller without Big JD.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

But isn't there "easy 6c" and then "hard 6c"?

In reply to sutty:

This is only partly true. I know they are related to V grades and French grades in some arcane fashion

From what I recall, E grades were once used to indicate the approximate difficulty of a route, linked to the effort and extinction factors. Both of these factors together, or even seperately could precipitate a higher than average E grade if the climb was deemed sufficiantly enriched in either effort or extinction values.

For example a climb with lots of hard, sustained and technical climbing in a position of relative safety with little danger of hospitalisation can be given a high E grade (e.g. Loaded at Ilkley); or a climb with less in the way of technical difficulties (i.e. Supercalabrese at Gogarth) but sustained and serious with the high risk of terminal concequences should the leader make a mistake could both get the same E point score (if that is the correct terminology).

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

See http://www.aqvi55.dsl.pipex.com/climb/uk_grades.htm

Bob

In reply to Bob: A most informative and expalanitory Site.

Still agrees with my previous statements thought

Andy F

In reply to TobyA:


lol - show me an easy 6c and you'll make my decade

of course, 6c on indian face is easy cos it's more or less a slab, right?

In reply to Dom Orsler:
But would it not also depend how many 6c moves there were? Maybe BV is 6c almost every move? You may be right of course, I have no knowledge of the climbs we are talking about other than what has been said on this thread.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

A lot of grading seems to me to follow mystisism rather than logic, especially in the high extreme grades which have evolved into a real non-linear mess. A lot of it at the top end seems to come down to the width of the 6c technical grade (so why not narrow it!). Trouble is at E9 not too many people are going to get a look in to sort out the obvious contradictions. This is all a shame really, as the idea behind the system is excellent. It would be nice to start again, say for instance: split 6b, 6c and 7a in half and throw away a couple of notches on the extreme chart.

In reply to SidH:

A boulder problem start doesn't usually bump the adjectival grade up, witness all the HVS 5cs etc on grit. Or Incursion Direct as I mentioned before.

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree with getting the upper technical grades into narrower bands. Most of the problem stems from the early 1980's when people were afraid to give a hard technical route a big grade. So you ended up with routes being given 5c that are now top end 6a or even 6b! The 6a grade was even worse: some of the Lakes E4 6a's from the time have only had a handful of ascents - on one there were moves harder than on any UK6b I have done!

We can only hope that the bands at higher levels are about the same width as those at lower difficulties. I don't see any point in reducing the Extreme grades as they were meant from the outset to be open-ended, again if the breadth of difficulty of an E9 is about the same as that of an E1 or E2 then there is no real problem.

Bob

In reply to Fiend:

To an extent yes, on the assumption that an HVS leader can pull off a 5c bouldery move. Of course some people don't like this, and if we are honest there are plenty of HVS 5b/cs around that your average HVS leader will find pretty hard indeed. I recall you complaining about Mating Toads, for example.

Incursion Direct is a good example of the same point. OK, call it E1 if you like, but don't expect many E1 leaders to get up it.

In reply to John Gillott:


And the same case exists higher up the grades e.g. Not to Be Taken Away - not many E2 leaders are the going to onsight it (and even fewer HVS leaders if you believe the 1989 guide!), or Careless Torque at E7 or whatever it is. I thinks it generally accepted that routes with hard boulder problem starts are given relatively lower E grades and to be honest this seems to work imo.

In reply to Ian Patterson:

Exactly, because the tech grade is providing useful information too...

In reply to Ian Patterson:

back on the point of blind vision, my thoughts on the matter:

1. Lets assume for a minute that both the bottom and top sections are worth E9. The ledge between them is big enough not only to top and get rope and rack passed up, but also a harness, which seems to indicate to me that the route is more or less a 2 pitch route, with both pitches just lead by the same leader. Now if we take something like Embankment2 at millstone - from what i understand both pitches individually are worth E1. If the guy leads pitch 1, has a rest on top then leads pitch 2 that doesn't make it E2 now does it? Thus i don't belive E9 to E9 makes E10.

2. Slingshot is a highball problem, originally toproped well before mats were common. Has since been done with mats albeit with toproping. To give this E9 seems daft. we don't give brad pit E5 do we, or deliverance E4? I don't belive Mo gave it E9 when he did it, it just got called a boulder problem. jerry's other problem Chequers groove just next to it was worked on a rope and given 7c+ or something when done with mats. Bearing in mind jerry is not shy to give E9 (see renegade master or samson) so i think if it was really worth an E-grade he'd be the first to say. No mention of E8 or E9 there. Seems to me E9 for slingshot was just scraping to barrel to try and justify a big grade overall.

3. Finally, i've heard of people having done BV on a rope - i remember hearing comments like "the top wall is no more than E7" and slingshot is only V9/10". of course i cant substantiate this, but makes you think.

In reply to Anonymous:

I tend to agree with you about adding a grade for two pitches of the same. This is done though in some contexts, as a way of saying it takes as much effort to do two E4s in a row (say) as one E5, and there's some logic in that (more so if you were leading both pitches). After all, while you can stand on the ledge, or even the ground after a single pitch, I think most people imagine that you're going to carry on after a suitable pause, which doesn't involve going home for your tea and a good night's sleep. If, in a day, for example, you said to me: 'go off and do 3 E4s or 4 E3s', it's not obvious to me which I'd find harder.

As for BV, well I've no idea, obviously, but it seems to me that the issue isn't with giving E grades to boulder problems, but sticking boulder problems under routes. I remember some wag suggesting a grade for West Side Story followed by a walk down the valley and a solo of The Knock. What shall we say, E6 V8+ 6c?

In reply to John Gillott:

Surely the walk would be the crux for most boulderers / hard grit youths? So perhaps an Alpine grade would be more appropriate...

In reply to Fiend:

Carrying several mats of course.

I didn't want to feed you your lines, but what about the mats used on BV (as Richard mentioned above) and all the other top end routes. I'm sure I read a warning about them in one or two of he recent guides...

In reply to Bob:

If you want to keep the same number of E grades fine, just narrow the technical grades more...They do this for V grades and B grades already anyway..

In reply to TobyA:

My point exactly! The E grade is supposed to differentiate between the two. "Easy" 6c to me means well protected, not too high up, after previously easy climbing. "Hard" 6c means unprotected, a bloody long way up, after some hard work to get there. The latter would get E9, while the former a far lower E grade.

Isn't that pretty much how it is for Indian Face vs the upper section of BV, relatively speaking (I'm not suggesting the upper section is protected, etc, but you have just been able to sit on a ledge and have a cup of tea/put on a harness, and let's be honest, it's a far cry from the nauseating situation you face on IF)?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

I think you have got a bit confused here Dom old chap. The UK technical grades cover a wide range once you get to 6a and above. Also the technical grade has no concept of protection, height etc. "hard" 6c means just that: it is at the top end of the UK 6c technical scale. Just what relationship the E grade has with it depends on: protection, etc. So a hard 6c that is reasonably well protected may get the same E grade as an easy 6c that is not so well protected.

Bob

In reply to Bob:

On the contrary, old chap. I have an intimate (experience-based) knowledge of the whole UK tech/E grade system and understand well how things diverge a bit at the higher end. That's the basis of this discussion.

While being a tad tongue in cheek, my point was, if the crux(es) in IF get 6c, and they are in the middle of fairly sustained and strenuous climbing over 100ft, then even if they are at the 'easy' end of 6c, they should contribute to a far higher E grade than do similar moves on BV.

So, let's say the BV 6c is 'hard', but the IF 6c is 'easy' (it isn't, by the way). Even if this were the case, the BV 6c (headwall) occurs after sitting for as long as you like on a ledge, and has at least some pro. Grade; E7?

Some of the IF 'easy' 6c(s) occur at certain death height with no pro. Grade; solid E9.

In reply to Dom Orsler:
I remember having a discussion about IF a long while ago, and whether its crux was in fact harder than V5.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=12802&v=1#167728
(I'd be interested if JCM still has the same opinion, or has been enlightened with regard to V grades?)

So for arguments sake lets say its crux is V5/6 with death potential, BV might get the same tech grade (6c) but its V grade might be V8/9 (which is in an entirely different league) with a bad fall potential, so maybe it warrants the same grade. As Bob said there's easy 6c and hard 6c('s), but then the E grade reflects that, which is why IF and the upper wall of BV 'could' both get E9 6c. But to follow your point I guess if IF was the same difficulty as BV upper wall then IF would get E11-ish(?)

In reply to Matt:

One of the silly things about the UK system is that it kind of infers that there is only one crux. In the 100+ feet of climbing on IF there could be numerous sections at 6c (I don't know that much about the route). Even if the whole section of the headwall on BV was 6c, it would still be as long as many boulder problems. I know the E system attempts to encompass things like sustainedness, but it seems to break down a bit at these higher levels, which is why so many of the top guys these days tend to throw in a French grade, which is a much more useful measure of a routes overall technical difficulty, then discuss separately the issues which contribute to E grade.

It is usual these days for someone to have to justify a high E grade with a description of the route, usually something like;

It would get 8b on bolts, with a high, unprotected crux which goes at about V9. The gear is good-ish until about half height, and all you can get in is a micro cam in the break out left before the top. It therefore gets E9 7a.

Why not give it E9 8b V9? OK, it's two characters longer, but it seems to mean a lot more to me.

There are a few things which strike me about this thread:

1 It's morbidity. What kind of sport has such a preoccupation with death? It is quite bizarre. I have heard many climbers anxious to deflect questions about risk. but everyone here seems to be keen to debate what kind of mess you'll make from any give height on any given surface

2. The total lack of consensus on grade. E 10 seems to mean very little to most people, it is an evocative conecept, but an absolutely meaningless way od communicating either difficulty or risk, we might as well use any other adjective: 'big;, 'nasty' etc

In reply to Dom ireland:

The morbidity was down to Dom and myself and was somewhat tongue in cheek. A bit hard to indicate in a pure text medium.

As for what E10 means? Harder than E9 which is harder than E8 which......

E10 has as much relevance and meaning to an E3 leader as does an E3 to a VS leader, so yes it will mean very little to most people. As for it being meaningless? Well what should it mean?

Bob

In reply to Dom ireland:

"What kind of sport has such a preoccupation with death?"

Base jumping
Motorcycle racing
High altitude mountaineering
Russian roulette
Mountain biking
Kayaking
Cage fighting

In short, any other sport in which a distinct possibility of being killed exists. No two ways about it, trad climbing at E8 and above is very dangerous. I'm not normally preoccupied with death, but it is part of the whole formula when discussing such hard and dangerous trad routes.

In reply to Dom Orsler:


You've got to watch out for those viscious cages. They're evil.