High Sierra Topix

Hard to ignore when you are trying to reinvent a system.

rlown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:01 pm Hard to ignore when you are trying to reinvent a system.

You live a tortured life.

Actually life is pretty good.

Please stay on the subject matter gentlemen.

Russ,

You have made your opinion known on this subject, please move on, I don’t want the thread derailed. Some HST members may find this thread, and it’s goal, useful. So, let’s allow those members the courtesy. Thank you.

Boys boys... It sure is hard to keep one's sanity, when snowed in, raging with cabin fever. But yea, let's bicker about the topic, not each other. What I want to know is who is buying the make-up round of drinks?! You drive me to drink.. ..and I'll pay for the gas.

Ed

maverick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:32 pm Russ,

You have made your opinion known on this subject, please move on, I don’t want the thread derailed. Some HST members may find this thread, and it’s goal, useful. So, let’s allow those members the courtesy. Thank you.

Agreed (ugh, I hate agreeing with Mav).

I agree with you Russ. If it takes 10 pages of a thread to figure out what the rating system should be, it is probably an overly complicated system. The Sierra Club/Phil Bates tried to put out a more finely graded scramble ratings a while back, almost no one uses them.

But I said that on the 3rd post of the thread. And maybe the exercise of talking about this rating system is useful for some people. Let 'em talk.

The vast majority of the 10 pages aren't actually constructive conversation, this entire 10th page is a decent example of that lol. That said I think it's in a lot better place than when it's started, which is the point of putting it up for constructive criticism.

It's actually a bit simpler than the existing YDS system for Class 5, which is widely used and is broken into three different axis.

You have the difficulty of movement / technique required (5.7, 5.10d, etc), then fall risk in relation to aid placement (G, PG, PG13, R, X), and then roman numerals for pitch length (grades I - VII). So you have 5.10a PG13 IV in existing YDS.

Here you have Classes 1-4 for technique movement required with a 2.5 added to disambiguate a lot of overlap/confusion, a simpler version of existing YDS for exposure (just PG/R/X), then four new modifiers for terrain types - collapsing, skidding, loose, bushbashing (the latter which isn't critical in the Sierra). So you could have a 4 PG (something semi-technical but short), or a 2 S X (king col).

My main issue with the SPS scrambler system is that it pushes everything together instead of breaking into different axis - something can be 2.1 vs 2.2 for a variety of reasons, and some 2.2's are actually easier and safer than 2.1's just longer. I posted a thread on it here but it doesn't seem to exist anymore, or at least isn't showing up after trying a few different searches.

Of course it remains if enough people find it useful enough to bother for less-technical terrain than Class 5.

You have put in a lot of work on this. I think numbers in general turn off a lot of people. "Class 1,2,3 etc." has been around for years. Perhaps just adding a short descriptive word for more details for these lower level ratings may be better received. A lot of backpackers are NOT climbers. Ratings become standard when used a lot in many guidebooks and internet sources. I am not sure how a new system, no matter how much better it would be, can be implemented. I am not against this refinement, just wonder how to get agreement and implementation.

Wandering Daisy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 4:19 pm You have put in a lot of work on this. I think numbers in general turn off a lot of people. "Class 1,2,3 etc." has been around for years. Perhaps just adding a short descriptive word for more details for these lower level ratings may be better received. A lot of backpackers are NOT climbers. Ratings become standard when used a lot in many guidebooks and internet sources. I am not sure how a new system, no matter how much better it would be, can be implemented. I am not against this refinement, just wonder how to get agreement and implementation.

I like the old system too, but that's because I know it. I used to climb a little bit but used the system a lot for crossing passes. Thats means for me class 2 or class 3 cross country passes to get to good backcountry fishing lakes.

Texan

Thanks for your thoughts Wandering Daisy - it's something that I've been refining over time and using in my head. It's a decent amount of work, but spread out over time. I've collected a new batch of photos and will be swapping some old ones and adding new ones at some point, though that thumbnails page also needs to be properly laid out at some point.

I actually am thinking of doing it as a shorthand and a longhand version - each number or letter has a phrase next to it that can be added together. At the related thoughts page I've put up a section called "unpacking ratings" where I've thought of this (Gogd brought up a similar point in PMs a while back). It could be done somewhat robotically by finding and replacing terms or by making it more conversational. In digital format this would be done with tooltips I imagine - you'd see "2 X, 3 R" hover or tap it and get "Some fatally exposed uneven ground and exposed simple climbing" etc.

It'd be useful (when not in a table or chart of passes etc) to unpack the acronyms into "human readable" language. At this point I don't think this needs to be formalized as long as all the longhand terms are used.

Ursula
Class 2 X, 3 R - Some fatally exposed uneven ground and exposed simple climbing

Class 2 X, 3 R - Uneven ground fatally exposed and simple climbing exposed

Vernon
Class 2 L, 2 R, 2.5 - Uneven ground loose, uneven ground exposed, short mantles/drops over rock

Class 2 L, 2 R, 2.5 - Uneven ground, sometimes loose or exposed with some short mantles/drops over rock

Texan's story is sort of what I was going for - he has familiarity with YDS already, so seeing 2 X or 3 PG might make some intuitive sense even if he didn't read the legend or learn the (I've tried to keep them limited) abbreviations. That said it is a bit off-putting for someone that just goes on a trip or two a year and won't put in the time that, say, a climber does into understanding the nuances of Class 5.

It's still WIP - I actually just took out the bit about scrambling out of 2.5 as it seems too hard to draw the line between it and simple Class 3 (and Class 3 is meant to be simple). So the talus chute before the crack on Valor would just be 3 now and 2.5 is reserved for mantles and drops which seems nice and clear cut to me - this would cover the chockstone on Finger Col, large talus on Observation/Pilot Knob, the ledges on the upper part of Cirque Pass on the Palisade side (not the Class 4 garbage everyone seems to end up on below that), etc.

I'll run it by some other communities once it firms up and try and get a reaction - this forum seemed a good place to kick the tires and form it up. Other than that it'd be to start using it. I'm not sure there'd be a retrospective pass here, since each pass is sort of owned by the person that originally wrote it up, let alone consensus to use it.

We've been taking advantage of the extra water to do some backpacking in Needles (taking care with the crust!) and have found it maps really well in my head at least. We're both comfortable with 2 X, 3 R, and 4 PG with packs, my partner is getting more comfortable doing down 2 L, S is annoying but fine outside exposure, B we routefind around if possible, and she's still a hard pass on C while I'll do it with some caution depending. A lot of people will draw the line at 2 X and do 2 R with caution - and I think that's great! It seems more useful than just smushing everything together into a single rating (ala YDS, pure movie rating system, or SPS scrambler) even if there's going to be some differences in whether something truly should be this or that. I put up some of my thoughts on the thread here on the related page as well re: SPS scrambler in case it got deleted or lost here that expand on that a bit.