[matosan]

If you are interested in getting involved in a discussion regarding the creation/modification of a ski descent rating system please check out the following forum topic:

http://www.telemarkskier.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001521

The basic idea is that it would be nice to have a standardized rating for North America so that it's easier when moving from area to area. It also seems like a good rating system could provide more information for folks considering doing a particular backcountry route. Much of the discussion is around the S system used by Lou Dawson and Andrew McLane. Lou is currently updating the S system.

Check it out and consider contributing if your have any ideas on the subject.

[Eric O]

Thanks for the link. I voted against the entire ratings concept, in the spirit that describing descents verbally is fine and distilling all the variables down to a simple number/letter grade does more harm than good. I hope that other people will chime in with the same sentiment before we get another magazine-fueled push for the attachment of ratings to ski descents.

Also, no offense intended to the sparsely-visited website, but there aren't many people participating there, which detracts from the ratification of the topic under discussion. I'm not saying it should happen "here" either, with this place being primarily freeheelers. My point is more that regardless of what website hosts a ratings-system discussion, I think it's likely that the general backcountry skiing public will tend to greet the "agreed upon" results by ignoring them.

[yugi]

And why not just use what seems to be a completely standardised S rating system as it has been used in Europe for years? It’s not as if mountains all over the world are any different! Damn. And to think the ISO is in the town I live next to. Poor guys. I know a bit about their challenges, I used to ski regularly with the DG, one of my powder hound mentors, as a kid.

The main difference between the S system as it has been developed and is in use in europe and the way Andrew describes it is that that Andrew has simply omitted the bumping up and down of grades (as of S4) to take into account exposure in his descriptions. For example a 40 degree pitch is an S4. A 40 degree pitch with a cliff bar in it that you need to jump or a huge cliff below (exposure) gets bumped up to a S5. In other words it describes difficulty and not merely the angle.

I believe it is a very good rating system as it describes what a skier is ale to do. For example I know a girl who joins for a lot of tours is perfectly able to do S4’s but completely unable to do S5’s, exactly as described the way we use it in Europe.

Eric, I disagree. It is a very practical way to summarize the difficulty of a slope. By all means one can still go on to describe more about it. And of course the quality of snow makes all the difference. As in: S5 on blue ice will definitely kill you whereas on perfect snow it is quite doable. But that much is quite obvious I should think.

[dynasaur]

I agree with Eric O--I vote against the concept. I used to rock climb all the time. One thing I did not like about that sport is that it was virtually, if not entirely, impossible to discuss a climb without discussing its difficulty. The quality of a climb is secondary to its difficulty. So the emphasis becomes on achieving somthing rather than the quality of the experience. I find skiing to be substantially different in this respect and am afraid that the ratings system will change this for the worse.

[bakerdog]

Hey, that is a good point dynasaur. But, given yugi's observation that snow conditions make all the difference in the world, i don't see skiing grades ever getting to the level of exactitude that you see with rock climbing.

I also think the qualitative difference between the sports is likely to prevent that from happening. With sport climbs, it is all about difficulty, in the same way that track and field is all about running the fastest or throwing the farthest, etc.... It feels great, therefore, to climb a route at a harder grade than you have previously. Skiing (at least in the way I do it, what AT and Lou do is maybe a different sport) seems more like trad climbing, where its more about enjoying the moment and difficulty is secondary. Otherwise, we'd be all about skiing ice and not powder.

[AT Apostle]

I’m a big fan of the rating system.

- I don’t see it ever really catching on in the lower grades as it’s not all that relevant. A fluffy powder is a fluffy powder slope, whether it’s 25 degrees or 32. But, for a rating system to be valid, it has to cover the entire spectrum and thus easy terrain is included, even if it’s not very useful. It’s like the difference between a 5.2 rock climb and a 5.4. How many ways can you slice easy and who really cares? But even in the lower catagories, ratings can be very useful. For instance, saying that the Exum ridge has a few 5.6 moves in it gives you an excellent reference in regard to your ability. Some might think it's easy, some might think it's hard, but both can understand the significance of it.

- I really like Lou’s proposed new system as it’s open ended. Personally, I see that as one of the biggest problems with the current system. S1 through S3 are so mild as to hardly be worth rating (see above) and S7 is defined as almost impossible, so the bulk of ski mountaineering ratings get mashed into the S4, 5 and 6 category, and even within that, most of them are in the 4 & 5 grouping.

- As with climbing, the verbal aspect of describing a slope will never go away. Where I see ratings being important is that they create a cross-state, cross-country and around the world common language. For people who are interested in new challenges, this is important. A verbal description of the Bloody Couloir by someone who has been skiing for three years and has a serious Red Bull addiction might make it sound like the most death defying line in the world. Conversely, a tabbaci chewin’ Jackson Hole local might describe skiing The Grand Teton as “Pretty darn exciting.” (pfffft). In reality, one is in a completely different realm than the other and ratings would make that obvious.

[trackhead]

Ratings for skiing are similar not to rock climbing but more similar to ice climbing.

WI5 on a cold, brittle day sucks. But the same pitch on a 35 degree, plastic ice day, can make WI5 seem much easier. Same for 'M' ratings on mixed routes. The ice is a changing element that will dictate the difficulty to some extent.

Same with skiing. For example, the NW couloir of the Pfeifferhorn could be nice soft neve, or bullet proof ice. That would completely change the feeling and difficulty.

I don't like M ratings with mixed routes, and I don't like S ratings with ski descents. Just give me the following:

How steep?
How long?
Cliffs or raps?

Then I can judge how difficult it may be based on CURRENT conditions.

[AT Apostle]

[trackhead]

[dana]

S ratings work for me. But a guidebook whose total description of a route is a 2-digit S rating is completely useless and uninteresting. But knowing the approximate max pitch is an important objective measure to factor into a tour. Average pitch can also be significant: A 42 degree S4 that stays that pitch for 2k' can be more challenging/interesting than an S5 with a 150' section at 47 degrees with an average pitch of 30 degrees. But that's what route descriptions are for. Calling it an S4++ or S5-- is just pointless. But for tour planning, if you know you need to be able to ski a narrow 150' section of 47 degrees can be important, even if the rest of the tour is a cake walk.

One can get really lost in the minutae of ratings systems and endless pissin' matches over the precision of rating if you parse it too finely. Damned if I know if a rock climb is a 5.1 or a 5.2, but I know if I found it interesting/fun, eh? With skiing it's even more so.

[trackhead]

As with rock climbing and the higher grades, do we have to wait for a second descent before it can truly be rated.

Skier A rates it a 6+, but this has rating has not yet been confirmed by a second descent.

[Rob]

Most times you condense something you will lose information. Condensing a long description ( 2000 ft 40 degrees with short 10 ft 50 degree section above cliffs ) to a short rating (S4+) loses the details. The question is if the condensed format still contains enough information to be useful, or what purpose the condensing serves. It seems great for indexing ski routes or resume writing. But, for me, lacks enough information to be the deciding point for doing a route or not. The mountaineering ratings are a barrage of different formats that all must be assembled. 5.10 R, M4, WI 5, new wave A3, Grade V, might all be needed to describe a route and even then only most basically. At that point I almost give up and just say it's a climb. I guess it's still useful though.

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?

The rating seems useful for an index, resume, guide book, or bar room bragging rights. I'm undecided how useful it is to me. I've never seen a ski route topo (other than a line drawn on a photo), but perhaps those will start coming out too, completely annotated by ski texture marks and turn sequences. For me the deciding factors are angle and exposure (of of course snow conditions which can't be factored into the rating). Rate that if you can...I guess

[Gwen]

[AltaPowderDaze]

the rating system is nice to have. as long as people realize that it is basically a subjective guideline from which to make decisions before you commit,then everything goes fine. when people take the ratings too seriously or not serious enough is when things go bad. even current conditions are subjective to the skiers ability and thought process at the time they are there. i know i can make turns on steep boilerplate but i don't want to make a habit out of doing it above a cliff. that's where common sense and how the group feels about their ability on that day comes into play.

i don't care much about steepness until there is a no fall involved (cliff) or the conditions suck (avy or snow quality). the current rating tells me all i need to know to make certain decisions given the current conditions. the only thing lacking is exposure danger and that is given in the descriptions where applicable. ---yeah, i know exposure is supposedly built into the rating system by the +/- but in reality it seems more like the slope angle is given more consideration here. if the +/- wasn't used for angles it would be a great way to distinguish no fall (+), gradual runout no obstacles (-), or expect the usual obstacles (no modifier).

[AT Apostle]

A key point that seems to be missed here is that ski ratings are most useful for comparing ski descents to each other, not necessarily describing a particular ski descent in detail.

For example, in the Wasatch range, if you've skied Alta's Main Baldy chutes, you have a general idea of how that particular type of slope feels. One day you are looking across the valley and see the South Face of Mt. Superior. While it may look much longer, steeper and more exposed than Main Baldy, in reality it is only a bit harder. If you are comfortable skiing Main Baldy, then the South Face of Superior might be a good next step if you are looking for something like that. Or, knowing that the Y-Couloir has the exact same rating as Main Baldy might be useful information if you are sick of skiing Main Baldy and want to branch out.

In the above example, if you understand that a rating system goes from 1 to 7, the following ratings would be very useful based on your experience...

Chickadee Chutes - 1
Baldy Chutes - 4
Y-Couloir - 4
Superior - 4+