UKC

Hi Folks,

I had a quick look at one of my winter ticklists earlier today and seen that Invernookie in the Northern Corries has been upgraded from III 4 to IV 5.

Before you start firing into me like a pack of wild animals, I do understand that conditions can effect grades and that loss of turf can certainly make moves harder, but I am curious to why such a jump in grade?

Would it not have made sense to keep the overall grade III but increase the technical grade? Perhaps III 5 for example.

Surely loss of turf making moves harder would yea increase the tech grade, but its still the same route in terms of location, how easy it is to escape and gear. 

I know its just a grade but I'm sure you can all imagine my surprise as a relatively novice winter climber that a route I had planned to do was now the same grade as the Seam!

It would be interesting to hear peoples thoughts on this.

I reckon it’s a fairly common first grade III4 and as such, maybe that has influenced the grade going up.

The route getting climbed out of condition, and therefore the loss of turf, is I’m sure a factor too. In proper nick, it’s not IV5, definitely easier.

The Seam is a definite jump up from Invernookie.

In your heart, you know it wasn't that hard.  

Same as when I did Smith's Route on Creagh Meagaidh, there was a little spiral path up the crux pitch.  One steep pull and the rest really was a walk.  Grade 3 instead of 6.   The easier pitch below was more awkward but still not more than 4.  

It's only the UKC grade that changed and as everyone knows that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

The SMC guidebook grade remains III4 and that's what matters.

I may have done Smith's Gully the same winter as you - 12/13? Very helpful nick, felt like an easy V. Definitely not III or IV though!  

Yea I get that UKC isn’t an official authority in grading routes but surely it should respect the original grade given at III 4 until officially upgraded. 

yea it doesn’t really matter but for a lot of people, like myself, UKC is a great resource for finding routes - for new comers to the activity this could be seen as miss leading and could put people off trying a classic route! 

The votes on the right suggest that almost no one thinks it's IV 5.

The downside of user moderation is that grades are subject to the crag moderator's whim, the plus side is that if you are a moderator, you can play God and turn punters into wads.

Might finally get my first lead on a IV 5  

Might get a shock if I tried another one tho! 

The SMC grade has changed too. It's IV,5 in the latest edition of Scottish Winter Climbs (2016?). It would be III,5 if the hard sections were well protected but the top section is actually quite serious, although maybe only tech 4 ( a team did fall off there a few years ago and end up down the corrie, amazingly with minor injuries). The tech 5 section is reasonably safe but the combination makes it IV overall. Now you might get it Grade III in the best conditions but that it happening less and less as the build-ups decrease. I accept that this year there must be a lot of snow on its east facing aspect, and given the right thaw and freeze, then it could become Grade III, but if so, just do it and take the bonus grade point.

Thanks for your input, Andy - If it has officially been upgraded to IV 5 then fair enough, who am I to argue - I'll just need to go try it and judge it for myself.

I'm sure its as serious a winter route as any, but surely you can understand my doubt when a classic III has been upgraded into the same category as routes like The Seam & Fingers Ridge!

Disappointed.

Personally I think it's just as hard as them.

When did you last do it, and did you really think it was grade III? If it was a while ago, try doing it again!

I've never done it Andy! 

Just engaging in some mild trolling above.

Almost seen it coming before you even commented! Business as usual!

I should probably just stop.

Where would the fun in that be! 

South-West Ridge (IV 5) if you want a generous tick. Three different starts at different levels of difficulty, each somewhat easier as you ascend the gully. Gear wherever you need it and plenty of it.

Had planned to do this last winter while up at the CIC for a weekend, decided to climb Castle Ridge which turned out to be brilliant - Lovely little crux section, certainly feel the drop below you! 

I climbed it back in 2006. It was my first III, 4 and I had little experience with placing trad gear. The final part felt a little scetchy but felt right for the grade retrospectively once I'd done a few more routes. It was fairly lean with no ice from memory so I skirted right at the start and moved back left. Guess it would have been harder if we'd stuck to the guidebook line that day. I'll take your word for it that it's become typically harder. Is it seriously on a par with the Seam now for difficulty though? 

I've climbed a bunch of IV in the Cairngorms the last few weeks and repeated Invernookie. To be honest IV 5 seems about right in comparison.

The Seam is more butch but solid and safe. Invernookie is quite sketchy. And getting harder as the turf decreases.

I think the IV,5 is only if you go straight up the crack from near the base; otherwise III is probably fair.

Interesting to hear - certainly wasn’t IV 5 when I did it.......

It certainly wasn't IV,5 when I did it either. Nowhere near it. 

It was my second winter climb, I tied myself in knots with axe leashes all the way up and became increasingly edgy and furious. On the top pitch I somehow managed to kneel on my axe and was unable to extricate it (nor my hand from its leash). In all the lovely expanse of the corrie - almost empty in those days - I was imprisoned by the very equipment that made the climb possible, like some sort of bondage fetishist caught out by the dangerous look in the eyes of a more experienced lover. I genuinely thought I might die, swinging back down, handcuffed and naked, into the corner below the belay, Incandescent with fear and rage, I swore violently at two lovely, innocent, smiling strangers (so sorry) who happened to be looking down from above. And then, quite suddenly, it was all over.

And Matt, if you're out there - so calm and comfortable, and apologising to those strangers for me - I have never quite forgiven you for witnessing this utter humiliation. Put me off winter for life.

Best and worst sex I ever had. 

More like IX,8.

Do you mean the slanting big hex one cutting diagonally back left from just up the gully onto the ridge proper (BIG step up) or starting lower, from the very base of the ridge, where I don't remember much of a crack, just thin moves? 

Starting at the base. There is a bit of a crack (so gear) but thin moves, yes.

I'd tend to agree, otherwise III (4)

I can't actually find a newer version of the SMC Scottish Winter Climbs guidebook on the SMC website. I only own the 2008 version, plus the 2007 Cairngorms guide. There's no mention of Invernookie in the SMC updates either. It was graded III,4 in Simon Richardson's 2016 Chasing the Ephemeral guide as well in case that was the guidebook you were referring to? Is there a new SMC guide in the pipeline or am I missing something?

As Andy has pointed out, the grade has changed in the latest book, and the grade changing on UKC is to reflect the latest guidebook grade.

Which latest guidebook though? The last Scottish Winter Climbs guide was 2008 according to the SMC website. The last Cairngorms guide was 2007. The Cicerone Cairngorms guide was 2011. Chasing the Ephemeral from 2016 says III,4. 

Do you think there'd be a market for T-shirts printed with "Just Say no to Grade Creep"?

The SMC have updated and republished a new version of Scottish Winter Climbs in 2016 which I'm assuming is the one Andy and Martin are referring to in regards to Invernookie being upgraded.

https://www.facebook.com/SMCGuidebooks/posts/1587409327985852 

Yes, that's the one. Not a new edition as such, more a reprint with corrections and some  grade/star changes.

Aha excellent!

Here's a topic for debate then. If winter routes are getting upgraded due to loss of turf or general changed in typical climate, should the III,4 logbook entry not remain in the logbook as a climb that's no longer climbable at that grade since 2017 (publishing date)? As would happen if a route lost its hold and became harder. I know with turf it's more of a gradual process but on the other hand a lot of people climbed the route when it was a recognised III,4. It would also reset the voting graphs. Just a thought. 

Grades change, although not that often, and are especially unpredictable in winter. We've never created new entries for routes unless there has been a drastic change, ie. the route has now collapsed and there now exists an entirely new route.

Creating an entry for Invernookie post turf destruction isn't necessary, it just clogs up the crag page and creates confusion. Obviously if you did climb it 30 years ago and there was loads of turf and you then decided to log it on UKC then the grade might not reflect exactly what you climbed on the day, this case will be very rare in the general. I like reading back on comments and seeing what conditions people did routes in, usually there is some good information in there. It's part of the history of the route.

You looked so relaxed and composed Jason. I still have the photos to prove it...

Blimey ! That sounds like an adventure ! Great description too !

Would be interesting to see how it really does fair compare to routes of a similar grade in its new less turfy condition! 

Perhaps SMC would add into the route description "IV 5 but not as IV 5 as any other IV 5"

Just kidding, haven't even climbed it yet - It's still on the cards! 

There are 2 entries for Parthian Shot (or there were last time I looked)

Nearby Belhaven sounded desperate at V,6 before it got upgraded due to lack of turf. Definitely worth VI from what people tell me, although haven't climbed it personally.

You got me! Ok, that is an exception! There's so little holds on that route that losing one is just about equivalent to the route falling down!

Am I right in thinking it was originally IV?

You might find it gets upgraded next time round!

Yes it was originally IV. As was Jailbreak and Procrastination (both now VII). There were those who thought routes in the Norries should never be more than IV.

So was Belhaven IV on principle because it is short and in the Northern Corries or because it wasn't considered hard enough to be V?

This wont come as a surprise to anyone but I don't think Belhaven is VI6. I did it in 2008 and again in 2016 and it never felt any harder than Savage Slit. The top pitch is very good though.

I did Belhaven about 15 years ago and V seemed fair then and definitely significantly harder than Savage Slit which I've done three times and it never really felt worth V; the IV it was given when I first did it seems fairer.

I climbed it about 20 years ago in good conditions and can't remember any significant turf then.. all rock scratching or neve.  I do remember my first discovery of proper frozen turf placements later that year as being an absolute delight and later again discussing where all the turf went on routes like Invernookie with Cubby. I have supported the ethical stance of only climbing properly frozen turf routes ever since.

Unfortunately, the turf still declines even when climbed frozen. Little chunks break off and there's no fault in anyone.

Could be a bit of both (wasn't me). Routes in the Norries were considered short.

Maybe I need recalibrated?

wasn't the old rule that routes had to be 500 ft or longer to be considered V ? Not sure when it changed but think that was in some of the earlier SMC guides I bought (late 70s) and I have a vague recollection of routes being given IV/V when hard but 'too short'a little later

Probably just conditions

Sure, but it goes much faster if not frozen and even back then in the 90's when winters seemed better too many climbers were impatient.

I see that Savage Slit is V 6 now -- when I started I read in several places that it was *the* benchmark V 5. I thought it wasn't a turfy route, do you know what happened to cause the increase?

If by benchmark it means "defining the bottom end of the grade" then that might be fair, but if it means "typical of the grade" then I can't agree.

Grade creep?

My understanding is that when the two-tier system came in, Savage Slit was referred to (or came to be thought of) as a 'benchmark' example of V,6. So I'm doubtful it was ever given V,5. Unfortunately it's rather a poor 'benchmark' since fairly easy and you could make a good case for solid IV,5 for it. Not done it yet, but I somewhat doubt I'll think the same about Belhaven.

I don't remember it ever getting that grade in a guide book or anyone suggesting that. It wouldn't really make any sense for it to have that grade. Are you sure you're not misremembering?

Are there quite a few other upgrades?  Doctor's Choice, original summer route, finger's ridge?  Not got my guidebook to check.

invernookie was my first III 4 in 2008.  

Maybe I did! Thanks Michael and Gordon for the replies too.

Comes to us all... 

I did notice that Original Route is now a IV 6 which doesn't seem particularly honest. Even the top grooves done devoid of ice don't really warrant tech 6 in my admittedly limited experience.

Yes, it's true. But it didn't really work as a route could have 500ft of Grade I and a hard pitch, as against 400ft of sustained climbing.

Some of these seem over the top. Original Summer Route is not tech 6, and I still think of Fingers Ridge as an easy IV,4. I'm sure there could be as many downgrades as upgrades (and not just for the sake of it) if folk were a bit stricter.

Are all the upgrades in Coire An t-Sneachda?

Or are they just the ones people have mentioned in this thread? 

Just curious and don't have a copy of the 2016 guidebook to check. 

Third Man in Lochain is now V,6. 

It's difficult to separate out the getting harder from turf loss and grade creep. I'm not entirely convinced that losing turf always makes things harder.

The trouble is that if you upgrade something like The Third Man then other things start to look wrong as well. There's just no way it and the Overseer Direct for example can be the same grade even allowing for one being bottom end and the other being top.

Personally I would have graded Overseer Direct as V,7 but others over-ruled me. So as you say, one is top end and the other bottom end.  And whatever you think, UKC logbooks very largely agree with both as V,6.

You weren’t leading it! V.

”Crux” pitch IV, soft.

Time tempers the memory maybe!

There could be something in that. I climbed it in thick verglas not long after Hogmanay and blamed the condition of both the route and myself for finding it hard. That grade would make Sophie feel better too!

I just struggle a bit with all these upgrades, I'm not sure it removes inconsistencies so much as creates different inconsistencies.

I thought Third Man and Overseer Direct should be the same grade, and wouldn't have said the latter was that hard either. Not compared to say, Hoarmaster. 

I don't have a copy, I've only got the 2008 one as well. 

I think the upgrading of routes only seems to be happening in the ever popular areas of the Northern Corries, due to the fact they are climbed on the most out of any of Scotland's mountains. I could be entirely speculating but the upgrading of the route may also be a way of deterring people with the likes of Invernookie on their hit-list to only climb it when in perfect condition if that's the upper end of your pay grade and not a route you can just "get away with", similar to when Tower Ridge was upgraded. 

I quite often climb winter routes I find hard (I'm not very good at climbing) and have done a few relatively un-trodden climbs, especially on Skye, and even though they've been difficult for the grade I don't see the SMC or UKC upgrading them as they don't get climbed often enough to warrant one mishap from an over enthusiastic party. 

Is it not more that in popular areas the turf has reduced more, hence grade changes? Also the more a route gets done I guess the more folk there are who can complain about the grade.

I've climbed this a few times in different conditions and haven't noticed a tech 5 move, even in lean nick. Putting it up to IV,5 could get folks into a lot of trouble if they tried to equate it to routes elsewhere with the same grade.

Je Suis Prest.

This is Exactly what I’ve been trying to express - For people who climb Invernookie as there first IV,5 could potentially be set a bad example when relating this to other routes of a similar grade! 

A problem easily solved by upgrading them all. 

I’m sure the SMC could make a mint out of that! 

Maybe I’m wrong, but for the folk who have experience climbing mid to high grade winter routes, upgrading isn’t so much an issue, these climbers already tend to have experience in getting themselves out of trouble and dealing with situations that may come up.

For folk with less experience, this could be an issue, for example, if someone who climbs Invernookie as there first IV,5 finds it okay and decides to try something at the same grade (the Seam) for example could find themselves in a world of pain or worse!

Grades vary so much with conditions anyway that anyone who assumes too much about any grade may learn a hard lesson. And remember there are only about half as many winter grades as summer grades, so the difficulty inside each grade will be larger.

Don’t fully agree with that Andy, despite the fact you’ve got a life time of climbing over me! 

We could argue about winter grades endlessly, but perhaps we should all just go climbing and enjoy it for what it is, good fun! 

Absolutely. Surely the first rule of winter is to know when to back off? Either because it's out of nick, it's buried, you went the wrong way, or maybe you're just not as good as you thought you were.

I've done routes where I've thought it's perhaps been a bit pokey, I'm guessing everyone has. But unless it's a whole order of magnitude harder than the grade can be at its top end, then you really need to be honest with yourself and ask whether it was really that hard, or if it was just harder than you expected it to be. Because the two are not the same thing.

If you're going out and pushing your grade then you'll probably have a good idea about the routes you want to get on, be going for soft touches, and have done a bit of reading up to see how others found them. If you're relying on guidebook grades to tell you whether or not you'll be able to get to the top then you're probably going to come unstuck at some point because the one thing I've found guaranteed in winter is that there is zero guarantee of success. You can stack the odds in your favour, but that's as good as it gets. Know when to back off, know when to push, and use the guides as just that; a guide, not gospel.