I concur. Rating schemes work fine for rock routes where you have many climbers over time refining a route rating. These ratings work for rock because the rock is pretty static.
So, if I climbed a 5.14 in my local gym, I can now go climb The Nose on El Cap, another 5.14?
Rock rating have the exact same issue. They assume good conditions and that the ratings be taken in context. If you went straight from the gym to El Cap with six quickdraws and a pair of shorts, it would be your own ignorance that is at fault, not the rating system.
I can see a ski rating: S4.b+, Aided, Grade III. In order to decide if I could do it I would need to read on. "S4" because of a long or short section of 45 degrees? b+ for exposure because of mandatory turns above a cliff band--with only moderate chance of death otherwise it might be higher? "Aided" because of raps or belays? "Grade III" because of the moderate effort?
That's actually close to the way it is (or at least the way I did it), although for most practical purposes everything but the S grade gets dropped because aiding and multiday routes are the exception, not the norm.
Joined: 16 Dec 2004 Posts: 125 Location: Washington State
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 12:14 am Post subject:
This is a good topic.
A rating would be nice and make a good comparision, that is all. I take it at face value. Nothing more. In a way, I find the experience of finding out for myself that much more rewarding. Beta is great, but too much is a crutch. In this respect knowing a route is S5- tells me enough, a map tells me some more, and finally skiing it tells me everything else I need to know.
just for comparison purposes can you explain why superior is rated above the Y and baldy chutes are the same as the Y? this may be the subjective part but the Y seemed to me like an all around tougher experience than superior has been. i have skied them both in nasty conditions and good conditions but superior seems much more mellow and safer to me.
Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 1566 Location: over the bars
Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:13 am Post subject:
one difficult thing i see with the whole rating system is that slope angle and exposure can depend on the quantity of snow on/in the slope. how can a rating system account for this? i don't ice climb (intentionally atleast), but conceptionally, that ratings system makes some sense.
i am not aware of one, but is there a ratings system in canyoneering? a rating system for canyoneering seems analogous to steep skiing, with many fluctuating elements that would totally alter the experience, like water temps, the quantity of water in a pothole, etc.
This is a good discussion and I appreciate the different perspectives. This thread has brought to light why I do much more skiing now than climbing. Ok, age has something do with it but only in an academic sense.
After climbing for many years, both rock and lots of alpine it became kinda sterile and I drifted away from it. Part of that came from the pervasive mechanical aspects of the climbing world with the well developed ratings systems, and topos from every angle, all the highly specific training and the excessive focus on body weight and percent body fat. I now see that what has been really bothering me about climbing is all the information overload on routes which has sucked the adventure out of the endeavour.
Skiing both at the resort and in BC keeps that sense of discovery remains alive for me and that's why I am more drawn to it now rather than climbing. I guess I am rebelling at detailed skiing slope classification because I fear it deflating the adventure discovery quotient out of sport for me like it has out of climbing for me.
This past weekend at the ttips gathering at Tobacco Flats (sounds like several highland clans getting together) I did a day of BC near Mt Morrison. Never been there before so it was new for me. Also, I was out with a bunch of good folks I had never been out with on a trip. So the tour was full of discovery. I am pretty observant and was reading the terrain as we advanced up the drainage. It was fun for me because everything was a first time experience. I didn't know much about it before hand even though I had scanned the map some. As we progressed I could see that there was very little unskiable terrain. Tons of possibilities and that undercurrent of exploration got my juices flowing. For me the crux descent was the run down the skier's right Hippie Chute. I knew a little bit from reports from folks who did it the day before but I defintiely did not have it mentally wired or rehearsed. So every turn down the run ended up being a fresh discovery and it just added to the overall adventure. This discovery of the momment made the tour for me. I wasn't blind about the chute but I surely wasn't overloaded with rating info that colored or minimized by experience. I don't want to loose the discovery experience and that's why my gut is against detailed skiing slope ratings. Something that equates to the system used in resorts would be OK, however as I defintely don't want to waste my time on mellow terrain unless avy hazzards force me there. Give me enough info to make a decision to do it or not but not too much where I am following a rehearsed script with no suprises or things to work out dynamically. _________________ I hope I can be in a binder one day...
it's the swiss alpine club rating system. I used bablefish to translate from german, so it's a bit messed up, but you'll get the point.
What you are looking at is the overall difficulty of an outing which takes into account
a. Length of itinerary including the approach and ascent
b. Remoteness
c. Altitude
d. Length of technical descent
e. Exposure, consequences of a fall
f. Complexity of rescue
g. Objective dangers, including; seracs, crevasses, rock fall, and other dangers that not only present real problems but can effect ones mental state.
The S rating is for spot ratings of parts of slopes. As in : “The first 50m is S5 and the rest of the slope S4”.
You find an explanation in english here. Though they also omit the part where a slope less than 45deg can be described as S5 if wickedly exposed.
It is a rating for sections of slopes. They are based on good snow conditions.
S1 roads
S2 gentle slopes
S3 wide slopes up to 35°
S4 up to 45°, if not exposed, less for narrow passages
S5 45° to 50° or more if not exposed. As of 40° if heavy exposure.
S6 over 50° if exposed (as often is), otherwise over 55° for short unexposed sections
S7 passages of over 60° or rock bands to jump in very steep exposed terrain
These ratings are used to describe a short steeper section or an exposed passage on an overall easier descent. Which is why I am surprised that the US adaptations I have seen do not mention the exposure adjustments.
We tend to use overall ratings to describe a complete descent and describe problem or steeper sections using the S ratings. These are almost always described along with the length of the problem section and whether the rating is due to exposure.
For example:
I mentioned a girl who joins for a lot of tours. She is a proficient skier and she’ll probably be in featured in some upcoming issues of Powder and National Geographic Adventure. However, as of a horrendous accident in an exposed couloir in La Grave where she broke her back, smashed her head open, completely blew apart both knees and spent 6 months in the hospital, she has no confidence on exposed stuff (understandably). She knows that I know her abilities and what she can’t do so often asks me for advice before going on a tour she hasn’t done yet. She can easily ski over 50° but needs to helped across something that is 40° over heavy exposure. So I know that her limits lie somewhere within S5, depending on whether the rating is given due to steepness or due to radical exposure. If it is something I haven’t done before but we are told there is a 50m S5 section over exposure at the top I can bring her and make sure we have 2 30m ropes in the party to belay her.
After climbing for many years, both rock and lots of alpine it became kinda sterile and I drifted away from it. Part of that came from the pervasive mechanical aspects of the climbing world with the well developed ratings systems,
(snipped)
Skiing both at the resort and in BC keeps that sense of discovery remains alive for me and that's why I am more drawn to it now rather than climbing.
Aren't all of the resort runs named, documented to the nth degree, given a rating (circle, square, diamond, dbl diamond), skied by a few million people, printed on maps and distributed on the resort website? To me, they seem like the ultimate rated ski runs.
In the case of the Hippie Chute which you mentioned, I don't understand how/why knowing beforehand that it was an S3 or some other rating would diminish your experience. If anything, the fact that it had been named already seems more offensive to me. What if I don't like Hippies and thought that War Bonnett was a better name? What if I wanted to pretend like it had never been skied?
just for comparison purposes can you explain why superior is rated above the Y and baldy chutes are the same as the Y? this may be the subjective part but the Y seemed to me like an all around tougher experience than superior has been. i have skied them both in nasty conditions and good conditions but superior seems much more mellow and safer to me.
To me, Baldy is short but steep with some nasty crash potential. The Y is much longer but not as steep and wider. They seem to take about the same skill level to ski, which is why I would rate them the same.
Route finding on Superior is a bit trickier, there are some steep sections and narrow sections and in general it just seems a bit harder than the Y or Main.
just for comparison purposes can you explain why superior is rated above the Y and baldy chutes are the same as the Y? this may be the subjective part but the Y seemed to me like an all around tougher experience than superior has been. i have skied them both in nasty conditions and good conditions but superior seems much more mellow and safer to me.
To me, Baldy is short but steep with some nasty crash potential. The Y is much longer but not as steep and wider. They seem to take about the same skill level to ski, which is why I would rate them the same.
i guess i've never noticed the steepness in any of the baldy chutes but i definitly take note of it when i'm in the Y. the Y seems 40* top to the apron and there are no real safe zones top stop in, only better places than others. i have i can imagine a fall in there turning out much like a pinball game. to me this would be the exact reason you are trying to expand the rating system in the 40-45 range.
At Apostle: I will agree that resorts are rated, sometimes to an excess--they have to be so to help manage all the skiers. I just ignore it for the most part and I could do the same with BC ski run ratings. All I am saying is I want just enough information when doing something new that helps me make a reasonable decision on gear, prep, time required, potential fun and associated safety factor. The rest I want to experience while I am doing it not before hand. That is my bias. I am not an extreme skier seeking near death experience on every run nor do I am I compelled to have first tracks on runs that have never been skied. But I am a good solid skier that enjoys challenging terrain and doing it at speed. From my trad climber perspective I got much more out of an on-site lead at a lower difficulty than working a pitch for hours to get the moves wired on something harder. My aesthetic is constant motion.
As far as names go, it doesn't bother me so much as it gives insight into the mind of the first folks who climbed it or skied it. Then skiing it becomes a shared experience. I bristle somewhat at the more scatological or profane names folks give routes and runs occasionally. Mostly, because I am embarrassed for them that they didn't employ more imagination when they named the climb or run. _________________ I hope I can be in a binder one day...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
