Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

The greatest sandbags in Victoria

chris

3-Apr-2003
11:46:46 PM

How about Dispatched? Not only is it hard, but it's scary, exposed, runout and in an awesome position, with great climbing. Maybe it's a three star sandbag!

kieranl

6-Apr-2003
9:33:57 PM

Despatched, this is a tough one but I don't think it's a real sandbag. It's probably at the tough end of 23. It's a route that you have to flash because the hard moves aren't next to the gear and the lower-off leaves you way out from the rock in all dimensions.

Robin

24-Apr-2003
6:11:59 PM

Cut Throat Crack (18) at Big Hill is a great sandbag. We jumped on it for a warm up and got pumped stuipid. I think it is closer to 20. Anyone else done it? I also think that Vertigo at Tenneriffe is damn hard for 23, but Bob Cowan and Co. confirmed the grade.

burroughs

25-Apr-2003
9:46:04 PM

just a question guys. In NSW the hardest bushwalk is graded 6...that means hands on rock, trees etc. can climbs really be under this level?

kieranl

30-Apr-2003
9:06:37 PM

I wouldn't argue with Cut Throat Crack at 20. I haven't done Vertigo so can't comment on that.

kieranl

1-May-2003
10:42:19 PM

Burroughs,
Ever done the first pitch of Lawrence at Araps? It's harder than 6 and is a shocking bushwalk and a worse climb.
Kieran

Peter

4-Aug-2003
10:47:44 PM

I thought the grading systems were organised around the hardest move, how sustained that grade was over the climb, sounds to me like the Aus system goes something like this "Shit that was hard" "Bloody oath mate, we better make that one a 28".

This is possibly why the lower graded climbs bare no resemblence to thier rating.(Sorry guys some words I cant spell, but I can add big numbers together OK)


..::- Chris -::..

5-Aug-2003
9:53:08 AM

On 4/08/2003 Peter wrote:
>I thought the grading systems were organised around the hardest move, how
>sustained that grade was over the climb, sounds to me like the Aus system
>goes something like this "Shit that was hard" "Bloody oath mate,
>we better make that one a 28".

This is actually an interesting statement!! What goes into a grade ?? Perhaps that's why we get so many different opinions here ?? I always was under the impression that it was more than the Crux + Sustainuity of the climb, I also have found in my experience that the gear and i suppose, the exposure of the route adds to the grade. Perfect example is (Kachoong) put 12 bolts on the climb and move the gully up 40 meters, would it still be 21 or 20 ?? or would it be more like 18/19 even though the moves, crux etc would be exactly the same??

I would be keen to here from people developing new routes (trad or sport) if they account a gear factor or exposure factor into their grades ?? I'm not saying I disagree with pumping the grade up a notch or two for a climb that runs on 2 rp's, I'm just interested to see if other people share my view on this??


nmonteith

5-Aug-2003
12:10:00 PM

I would only ever consider pumping a route up a single grade if the pro was really desperate. I give a grade for the single hardest move in the route. If it has 20 in a row then so be it. That is the way the Australian grading system is supposed to work. Exposure, danger and endurance should not be factored into the grade.


..::- Chris -::..

5-Aug-2003
1:12:57 PM

I see your point however that is why there can be a huge difference is grades, a person might be able to solve a 2 meter boulder problem (grade 25 move) in the middle of a 40 meter climb (grade 16) but doing 40 meters of grade 25 moves I would have thought would have made the climb a great deal harder (ie doing hard moves whilst your pumped) Hence why alot of the hardest climbs i've ticked are fantastic one move wonders or as we like to call em "Give me's"..... I'm not sure that you can compare the two, but generally i suppose thats why we give a climb 3 stars as well ?? Do you think we should have a danger rating ?? ie e6 ?? etc etc or should we let the author of the guide book your reading be the barer of news on the gear ?? (perhaps they have never climbed the route ??)


nmonteith

5-Aug-2003
1:18:02 PM

This has been covered in this previous post i believe...

http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=DisplayTopic&ForumID=1&MessageID=1685&Replies=37&PagePos=40&Sort=LastMessage

Joe

5-Aug-2003
2:32:59 PM

Neil,
How can you simply grade a route on the single hardest move on it. That is not the way Australian climbs are graded. Pumper routes and bouldery routes are graded accordingly. For instance the moves on serpentine are not very hard for 29, much easier than say a short bouldery 29 at Nowra. Does a grade 32 extension to a grade 32 climb = grade 32 because there are only moves of grade 32 on it? I don't think so. And then if you are going to grade routes by individual moves perhaps a boulder grade is more relevant... because endurance does not play a part in grading by your rationale.
Joe


nmonteith

5-Aug-2003
3:52:01 PM

The Ewbank system is supposed to grade only on the hardest move - most people have warped this grading system in recent years. I might add an extra grade if it feels endurancy/scary ect... Thats just the way i rate things. Other people could be very different.


phil_nev

5-Aug-2003
10:46:30 PM

I think endurance has to be factored into the equation, not to mention scariness....
Example, routes at the gallery, hardest single move is generally 2 or 3 grades less than the overall grade, but its the endurance factor that makes monky puzzle a 28, not a 26. Speak to people who have done it... Joe????, you told me the hardest moves were only about grade 25/26, yes?? Endurance is definitly a factor....

Neways, just my 2 c.

kieranl

5-Aug-2003
10:56:29 PM

Neil,
I have to disagree with you on this. Ewbank's intention was that the grade take into account all elements that contribute to the difficulty of a climb. I haven't got his original article but here is a quote from it from Bill Andrew's North Grampians Guide :
"Grading takes the following into consideration. Technical difficulty, exposure, protection and other smaller factors..."
The grade is not based on the hardest move. The grade should be based on overall difficulty and significant factors affecting the grade such as poor protection, loose rock or sustained difficulty should be mentioned in the description.
Kieran

bmblydad

5-Aug-2003
11:19:38 PM

If endurance comes into it then when someone links together 2x15+ move V10+ boulder problems through some cave to create some horrendously long thing that would be higher than anything at the you yangs if vertical should it then be given a Ewbank rating? It must surely be more like a sport climb that never got far off the ground. It requires protection as every man and his dogs splat mat are placed underneath. The difference is surely only the psychological factors and the ability to clip, the physical side must be very similar. Sorry I know this has little to with sandbags. Personally I haven't conquered the exposure thing and hope it deserves weighting in the grade.

Joe

5-Aug-2003
11:45:01 PM

I agree with Kieran. He has explained what I always believed was the intention of the Ewbank system well. Bmblydad.... interesting point... where do V grades and climbing grades meet? How is the full hollow mountain cave link up going to be graded?? V10 + V12 + V10 + V12 or something like that. I have no idea, but it will be damn hard, and for sure endurance is going to play a massive part in the overall difficulty, to suggest otherwise I think is rather silly. Same rationale for routes.
Phil, good point about the gallery. By Neil's idea of grading, I believe Monkey Puzzle would be soft 26.
Joe


nmonteith

6-Aug-2003
9:24:02 AM

I am confused. I don't beleive protection has ever been factored into the Australian grading system. Why have a death runout 24 and a safe sport 24. Both have exactly the same hard moves. Maybe we should be giving routes a Ewbank grade for overall difficulty/protection ect and a V grade for the indivual crux move. Thats how the British system works isn't it?


Rich

6-Aug-2003
9:26:02 AM

I also have read numerous times that the intention of the Ewbank grading system was to cover all aspects of the climb. i also tend to think that graders these days are not heeding this and relying on the guidebook description to warn of any issues eg runouts, endurance etc and basing the grade on the hardest move..


..::- Chris -::..

6-Aug-2003
10:42:43 AM

Rich I agree especially with allot of the re-written guide books of recent years, a good example of this is "The Ferrets Are Coming" Dec crag, in the old guide (Lou Shep) it was actually written into the description that a bonus grade was given if you led it, (and also if your were short) and thats because basically there is no protection on the crux move (to the ground ) thus making it dangerous and earning another grade. I have noticed it was downgraded in the new guide but written in with a warning description.

I think a good way of grading routes is to compare the route you are on to a classic at the grade (that has stood the test of time) and that is perhaps in the same style as the route your on...
Grade = (Crux + Sustainuity) + Protection + Exposure + Comparison ????
Listed in order of importance.......Any thoughts ???

There are 127 messages in this topic.