In reply to Stefan Kruger:
> In order for this to 'fit perfectly' the gap between HVS and E1 must previously have been TWICE the size of ANY other gap in the scale for your new & 'improved' scale to be linear.
Firstly it fits perfectly not necessarily in the linear aspect, more in that it doesn't try to replace the system and fits "linguistically". Less tangible concepts perhaps but ones that give it more neatness and appeal. Secondly the system doesn't have to be linear with perfectly equal gaps.
> The same grading arguments will arise at any gap in the scale.
Well, I can only find so many ways to say the same thing, but they don't - at least not nearly to the same extent.
> A random example: Archangel -- is it bold E3 or soft E4? Or is it E3.5?
Indeed a very random example because I have never seen nor heard anyone arguing about it before.
> The fact that there might be more widely published grading anomalies around the HVS/E1 mark is simply because they get more press in that this is the range where the majority operates.
Again, I can only find so many ways to say the same thing, but as I've said before that is in itself a good reason to cater to the masses and give climbers more information around that standard.
> The only way they can be resolved is to have 100 people climb them and take a vote, aka consensus. It builds with time.
Splendid. Well as soon as all the HVS and E1 grades settle down universally accepted grades (which they would if they were given E0 but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this entirely hypothetical speculation), that will be great. But it's not going to happen. How many arguing climbers and how many years does it take??
> But for the borderline routes (which, incidently, your proposed scheme will generate more of. Twice as many, in fact)
No it won't. The whole point is to resolve borderline cases - the gap between HVS and E0 and E0 and E1 would be sufficiently small to remove any problems. See previous replies.
In reply to Carless:
> I must say I admire your stamina supporting E0 in the face of plenty of good reasons not to have it
When I see a good reason I will acknowledge it.
> The VS-HVS-E1-E2 system has been around for ages, everyone knows it - why complicate it further?
Equally: Why add sport grades for sport routes? Why subdivide Extreme into E-numbers? Why add British Tech Grades? Why replace BTGs in bouldering with up to 3 other grades? Why have P-grades in Yorkshire? Why have Rockfax symbols?
E0 is merely another small improvement to a grading system which has been continually improved. Nevertheless it seems to be generating a lot of hostility for such an incremental improvement.
> There are just as many discussions about all grade barriers, not just HVS-E1.
See previous replies - evidence points the other way.
In reply to Nick:
> The whole issue of whether or not there is an overly big gap between HVS and E1 is one that will always be argued about, and never resolved. I think the gap is more noticable, becouse of the psycological leap...
Which, as I've said, is in itself a good reason to cater to climbers around that standard.