|
justus
Oct 19, 2004, 5:03 PM
Post #1 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2004
Posts: 52
|
Can someone set me straight on these four rating systems. Is NEI the same as WI? And what about Alaska grades? I've never heard a description of the differences before.
ANy help would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Justus
|
|
|
|
|
coylec
Oct 19, 2004, 5:14 PM
Post #2 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 2024
|
Here's a discussion of NEI v. WI ratings: Click Here.
AI is Alpine.
The Alaska system is from Boyd Everett's 1966 Paper "The Organization of an Alaskan Expedition." An RC.com Article on it can be found Here.
coylec
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Oct 19, 2004, 5:14 PM
Post #3 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
NEI == new england ice == basically WI but slight variations in the 5-6 range
WI == waterfall ice == what it says. WI1 is a walk-up, WI8 is suicidal, WI5 ~ 5.9+/5.10-
AI == alpine ice (glacial) same range as WI, different media. AI5 ~ Cerro Torre mushrooms?
Alaska == ain't never been there but it seems to focus on seriousness.
People seem to be slowly deprecating the NEI scale in favor of the WI scale as they are so similar. When I see an NEI grade, I usually just think of it as synonymous with WI and base my evaluation on that. Originally the AI, WI, and M scales were all from 1 to 8, but then people started climbing 5.13 sport routes out to free-hanging pillars and the M scale got YDS'ed (eg. 5.9 used to be the top end of that scale, then people realized there were some mighty testy 5.9's around and acqueisced to numerical absurdities like 5.10... why don't we just use hex? ;-))
I don't climb higher than a 5 on any of these scales (YDS included, if you ask some folks!) so any differences in the upper ends are lost on me. I don't think there is any NEI above grade 6 though, otherwise my ex-partner Alden would have soloed it already ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
justus
Oct 19, 2004, 5:37 PM
Post #4 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2004
Posts: 52
|
Thanks, those links were real helpful :D
Justus
|
|
|
|
|
drake
Oct 21, 2004, 2:37 PM
Post #5 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 136
|
AK (1 through 6) grades are just as Tim said, they give you an idea of seriousness. But that scale is very general and flawed. I imagine the AK grade will eventually fall by wayside and typical ratings will be the norm. Especially as the routes become more technical difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Oct 21, 2004, 2:51 PM
Post #6 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: AK (1 through 6) grades are just as Tim said, they give you an idea of seriousness. But that scale is very general and flawed. I imagine the AK grade will eventually fall by wayside and typical ratings will be the norm. Especially as the routes become more technical difficult.
Whats "flawed" about the Alaska grade scale?
Yeah, its general, but, I think its pretty good at trying to describe something as fickle as rating a long, alpine climb in Alaska. Routes are plenty difficult, technically, now.
"Typical ratings" such as...WI 4, 5.8, A1, grade V? Easier to sum it up by just saying Alaska grade 5.
I kind of reminds me of the UIAA rating used in the alps. As you go up through the ratings, you expect the technical difficulty to go up as well. Interesting, though, as folks don't seem to "go up through the ratings" but just jump on the most technically difficult climb they can (or can't!) handle, when there seems to be a lot more to it than that especially in the mountains.
Interesing, though.
I've found that NEI is typically tougher for the same "number" than WI, ie, NEI 3 is harder than WI 3. AI and Alaska grades are a bit different ballgame. I suppose AI mirrors (or attempt to mirror) WI grades. And, like I mentioned above, the Alaska grading system seems to be similar to the UIAA ratings.
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
drake
Oct 22, 2004, 5:36 PM
Post #7 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 136
|
I guess i meant flawed in being soo general. I guess flawed is a poor choice of words. What i was getting at was:
ie...SW Ridge Peak 11,300
AK grade 3
1 to 5 day route
5.8, M4
ice up to 60 degrees.
South Buttress of Denali
AK grade 3
25 days on route
ice & snow up to 60 degrees (most just a snow climb at elevation)
elevation up to 20K
I would think the committment level a little higher on such a route.
So how do you compare the two with "AK grade 3"?
I guess if you have the abilities to do one, you could do the other?
I guess the rating system is meant to be similar to the UIAA rating but is more specific to AK bcause of it's snowline and altitute which is different than most higher altitude peaks elsewhere in the world. I have not read Boyd Everett's 1966 paper and would probably understand better if I did so. But what about the routes on peaks that altitude in not an issue. Should the routes on those peaks have the AK grade or should they have a rating ie... V 5.9, A3, M5, AI6 ?
Whelp, now I feel like I am splitting hairs and making it more complex and the idea is to make it more simply to understand what a route's difficulties are. And then throw in constantly changing conditions (ie....chest deep sugar with a crust on top compared to hard blue ice). You are right Brian, the routes are complex and difficult to describe. I guess you are talking about the French system which does leave you wondering more anout the route.
F=easy
PD=moderate
AD=fairly hard
D=hard
TD=very hard
ED=extremely hard
It would be like saying a route is rated AK 5 (TD). Similar, eh?
But don't you find yourself wondering what makes it a 5 hense, the longer rating like 5.9, AI6.......
I agree on the WI & AI ratings. I wonder if AI is meant to describe ice on mountain route compared to ice from water falls & sweepage from area's that are warm (completely thawed) part of the year (ie...summer). I beat someone here knows.
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Oct 22, 2004, 5:53 PM
Post #8 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
The Alaska grade simply means the level of commitment...as has been said. The higher the grade, the more likely you will be screwed if you mess up or get hurt. If you think it is flawed, come climb in the AK range and see that you have your arse handed to you on a plate. Most people coming from europe and the Lower 48 don't realize the seriousness of Alaska climbing...nor the remoteness surrounding the majority of the climbs up here. This grade was initiated...well, I'll shut up...coylec gave you the link ;)
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Oct 22, 2004, 6:21 PM
Post #9 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: The Alaska grade simply means the level of commitment...as has been said. The higher the grade, the more likely you will be screwed if you mess up or get hurt. If you think it is flawed, come climb in the AK range and see that you have your arse handed to you on a plate. Most people coming from europe and the Lower 48 don't realize the seriousness of Alaska climbing...nor the remoteness surrounding the majority of the climbs up here. This grade was initiated...well, I'll shut up...coylec gave you the link ;)
Not really just level of commitment. Look at the high angle rescues in the AK range. Look at Twight's climb of the Slovak Route, where they were able to not carry sleeping bags, ditched their stove, didn't carry extra fuel, ditched their ropes...talk about NOT having to worry about being "out there"! Its smacks of being no more than "sport alpinism"... (somewhat tongue in cheek, but, somewhat not as I thought the fellers who climbed the route before they did had much better "style"). Need to brew up? Hit the rangers hut...
Daily weather reports on CB channel 19, 5 different flight services, a couple of different helicopters on hand to rescue you, fixed lines, top notch ranger rescue staff, on mountain medical tent at 14K, yeah, that's some serious commitment!
You screwed if you fall while climbing off the road on the Seward Highway...
AK grade ratings are a pretty good overall rating for both the technical level, as well as the overall difficulty of a route (not specifically tied to just an individual number rating on a single pitch).
Not that there aren't remote places in the AK range (see the 2003 AAC journal)...
All in fun (not serious, really!)...but, food for thought....
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Oct 22, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #10 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: ie...SW Ridge Peak 11,300 AK grade 3 1 to 5 day route 5.8, M4 ice up to 60 degrees. South Buttress of Denali AK grade 3 25 days on route ice & snow up to 60 degrees (most just a snow climb at elevation) elevation up to 20K I would think the committment level a little higher on such a route. So how do you compare the two with "AK grade 3"? I guess if you have the abilities to do one, you could do the other?
I guess I'd probably be inclined to call 11.300 an AK grade 4. Especially based on the equipment needs, terrain, etc.
And...the folks I know who've climbed either route, could do either route (based on what I know about their overall climbing prowess and experience).
Its maybe not a matter of "could do" as much as "should". As in, an alpinist working up to AK grade 3 "should" have the skills prior to attempting either route.
S Butt...eek...Mugs...
In reply to: I guess the rating system is meant to be similar to the UIAA rating but is more specific to AK bcause of it's snowline and altitute which is different than most higher altitude peaks elsewhere in the world. I have not read Boyd Everett's 1966 paper and would probably understand better if I did so. But what about the routes on peaks that altitude in not an issue. Should the routes on those peaks have the AK grade or should they have a rating ie... V 5.9, A3, M5, AI6 ?
Its a book, "Organization of an Alaskan Expedition". Thin little paperback and a good read, with a bunch of clues especially for climbing off the beatin' path. Really neat. Worth having.
I think you could still apply a "general" grade to most (if not all) of the technical peaks.
In reply to: I guess you are talking about the French system which does leave you wondering more anout the route.
Yep.
In reply to: It would be like saying a route is rated AK 5 (TD). Similar, eh?
Yep.
In reply to: But don't you find yourself wondering what makes it a 5 hense, the longer rating like 5.9, AI6.......
Sure, if I was lookin' for individual route beta especially if I was talkin' specifically to someone who'd climbed the route, I'd ask, who steep/sustained was the ice, how difficult was the rock, how bomber was the pro, could you A0 the cruxes, etc etc. But, if I was lookin' to try a peak at a certain level, I like that AK grade.
Its interesting, this grading stuff. Folks goin' to Denali for their first trip, if its someone who's been, say, rock and ice climbing for a short while but is really strong, physically, they'll poo poo the butt strut and shoot for the upper rib instead. I think they tend to be kinda foolish since they usually have no experience at any AK grade, or, similar type climbing on any other route anywhere else, but...they have to do something besides the cattle route...(in their mind, at least). Seems a high percentage of them end up either not summitting at all, on the west butt, or, heaven forbid, they fall off (still think a cargo net makes sense up there...ha ha). Little nip in the air? Yikes.
Climbing a pegged out WI 5 in Ouray, on TR (or clipping your partners preplaced screws), ain't the same as climbing in the AK range...
Anyhoo, makes for some funny stories and banter around the ol' campfire (or in this case, the warm glow of the computor screen).
Cheers!
-Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
drake
Oct 22, 2004, 10:12 PM
Post #11 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 136
|
Cgailey
I've been in the area a few times. Only have 48 days in the range and have been lucky enough not to have my ass handed to me, yet. So I would not even consider myself "experienced" in the area which, I would think would take years and a lot of routes under one's belt.
Commitment, yeah but some routes have the same rating but have less committment than others of the same grade. I guess that's where I get stumped. But you make some real good points Brian. Maybe I will be a little "educated" :wink: after my next trip. I will be putting myself in a position to have my ass handed to me.
Peak 11,300 is a good time. I've done the lowe half of the route 3 times.
Nothing more disappointing than finally getting to a WI route you've been wanting to do, only to find it as a pegboard. :(
People actually "pink point" WI routes? What's the world coming too? Always wanted to come out your way for some of those free standing classics. Maybe oneday.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Oct 22, 2004, 11:12 PM
Post #12 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
A climber could be a heck of a strong hiker, solid on WI 4 and real experienced all arround climber but not up to an M4 pitch. seems to me that the general rating is pretty usless. Its easy enough to figure the commitment level from the more detailed description. A rout with 7,000 ft verticle gain that is Vl 5.9 A2 WI 6+ M7 is obviously gonna take some sac. now calling the rout PDH (pretty dam hard) is an accurate assement but does not tell you squat about the specific set of skills you will need to stay alive up there. the same guy that can run laps on the west But @ AK3 could get stopped in his tracks by the M4 on the other AK3 that was used as an example.
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Oct 24, 2004, 7:44 AM
Post #13 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
In reply to: In reply to: The Alaska grade simply means the level of commitment...as has been said. The higher the grade, the more likely you will be screwed if you mess up or get hurt. If you think it is flawed, come climb in the AK range and see that you have your arse handed to you on a plate. Most people coming from europe and the Lower 48 don't realize the seriousness of Alaska climbing...nor the remoteness surrounding the majority of the climbs up here. This grade was initiated...well, I'll shut up...coylec gave you the link ;) Not really just level of commitment. Look at the high angle rescues in the AK range. Look at Twight's climb of the Slovak Route, where they were able to not carry sleeping bags, ditched their stove, didn't carry extra fuel, ditched their ropes...talk about NOT having to worry about being "out there"! Its smacks of being no more than "sport alpinism"... (somewhat tongue in cheek, but, somewhat not as I thought the fellers who climbed the route before they did had much better "style"). Need to brew up? Hit the rangers hut... Daily weather reports on CB channel 19, 5 different flight services, a couple of different helicopters on hand to rescue you, fixed lines, top notch ranger rescue staff, on mountain medical tent at 14K, yeah, that's some serious commitment! You screwed if you fall while climbing off the road on the Seward Highway... AK grade ratings are a pretty good overall rating for both the technical level, as well as the overall difficulty of a route (not specifically tied to just an individual number rating on a single pitch). Not that there aren't remote places in the AK range (see the 2003 AAC journal)... All in fun (not serious, really!)...but, food for thought.... Brian in SLC
I don't know if all of these amenities are really factored in...retreat on any of the higher grade climbs is very difficult...
What I was getting at is that many people (not all) underestimate the difficulty of retreat from most of the climbs here. Sure, it takes into account difficulty, but there are all sorts of other grading systems to tell you that. Difficulty of a route adds to the commitment level. Denali is swarming with people during the climbing season, but to grade a route based on the assumption that a rescue team, other climbers, helicopters, and flights to Talkeetna are going to be there to save your butt seems pretty ridiculous to me. I agree with you, but I still believe it is the difficulty of retreat on your own that contributes to the grading system the most.
|
|
|
|
|
climbhoser
Oct 24, 2004, 7:38 PM
Post #14 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 4, 2004
Posts: 210
|
The difference between WI and AI
Water ice is just that, frozen water ice. Alpine ice is usually compacted snow. It can range from a styrofoam consistency to more or less water hard. A good example of water hard alpine ice would be the inside of a crevasse
|
|
|
|
|
drake
Oct 24, 2004, 9:02 PM
Post #15 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: Water ice is just that, frozen water ice. Alpine ice is usually compacted snow. It can range from a styrofoam consistency to more or less water hard. A good example of water hard alpine ice would be the inside of a crevasse
Sure but you did not cover, AI that snow will not stick to, because of it's steepness (AI 4, 5 and 6). Some AI could be formed under many different situations.
Freeze thaw because it definitely gets warm enough in the sun during warmer times.
Also snow melting over rock.
Ice formed in a couloir by daily slides (ie... heat generated during slide & compression.) Possible?
In 2002, while camped in the Sheldon Amp in the Ruth Gorge, we could hear water running all night. It sounded like the roar of distant water falls. It was not getting below freezing at night (this is in early May).
|
|
|
|
|
climbhoser
Oct 25, 2004, 3:39 PM
Post #16 of 16
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 4, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Actually, my post got cutoff short by a distressing dog alerting me of my wife's long awaited arrival home...
Anyway, what I've understood about it is that if it is running water that freezes it is water ice. This DOES happen high on routes in the mountains. Look, for instance, at the location of Malcolm Daly's leg busting fall onto Donini. He was climbing water ice at altitude (I forget where at, tho).
Alpine ice can and does harden from freeze thaw, and tho this is itself just water freezing there is more going on that JUST water freezing. A really good example is how Dreamweaver in RMNP comes into condition. Funny, however, is how sections where water freezes over rocks is considering still to be WI. The AI is just the well bonded and windblown styrofoam stuff in the rest of the couloir.
This is because typically, even in freeze thaw, AI will not take on water ice hardness unless combined with serious pressures, like inside of a glacier.
If it looks like frozen water, IS frozen water, then it's water ice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
