The Chief wrote:The bottom line, regardless of "steepness", . . ., many Alpine route ratings are just general guides.
asmrz wrote:On the other hand, most Ice Couloirs in the Sierra, even in full conditions, are climbable by good, experienced weekenders. So maybe we should leave the ratings as they are and enjoy the (re) discovery.
Both of these nicely capture the essence of alpine ice climbing as I've experienced it thus far. A downside to a rating system based on steepness, but that just adds to the fun! (and my conservatism on what I expect to be 'easy' versus more 'interesting'). That is also why I do care about more accurate measurements as, say, Feather Couloir as I've heard has sustained sections closer to 60 degrees while the Right North Couloir of North Peak is much less steep, however, technically both are rated AI2. So given nice hard ice conditions in both couloirs, this year I'd want to go play on Feather instead of North Peak for a more challenging & exciting ice climb!
The Chief wrote:which you btw are in fact mistaken that the AI/WI rating are soley "based on steepness"
Normally I hate to use wikipedia as a source, but this is more convenient than scanning pages from guidebooks.
Grade systems for ice and mixed climbingI've seen basically this set of definitions in every printed source I've read for ice climbing technique and guides for California, Utah, Colorado, & the Canadian Rockies. So I think the community consensus of the ratings' meanings is pretty close to this.
A summary:
WI2 -
low-angled (60 degree consistent ice), with good technique can be easily climbed with one ice axe. Grades beyond this generally require the use of two ice tools.
WI3 -
generally sustained in the 60-70 degree range with occasional near-vertical steps up to 4 metres (Cascade Waterfall, Banff; This House of Sky, Ghost River)
WI4 -
near-vertical steps of up to 10 metres, generally sustained climbing requiring placing protection screws from strenuous stances (Professor's Falls, Banff; Weeping Wall Left, Icefields Parkway, Banff; Silk Tassle, Yoho; Moonlight & Snowline, Kananskis)
WI5 -
near-vertical or vertical steps of up to 20 metres, sustained climbing requiring placing multiple protection screws from strenuous stances with few good rests (Carlsberg Column, Field; The Sorcerer, Ghost River; Bourgeau Left Hand, Banff)
WI6 -
vertical climbing for the entire pitch (e.g. 30–60 metres) with no rests. Requires excellent technique and/or a high level of fitness (The Terminator, Banff; Nemesis, Kootenay Park; Whiteman Falls, Kananaskis Country; Riptide, Banff)
WI6+ -
vertical or overhanging with no rests, and highly technical WI6 (French Maid, Yoho; French Reality, Kootenay Park)
WI7 -
sustained and overhanging with no rests. Extremely rare, near-mythical, and widely accepted testpiece examples of this grade don't exist in the Canadian Rockies. Note that many routes (e.g. Sea of Vapours, Banff; Riptide, Icefield Parkway, Banff) have been assigned WI7- to WI7+ but have been subsequently downgraded in latter years as they don't meet the strict criteria of steepness. In fact some local ice climbers have argued for Sea of Vapours
Dang, I can't find much relation between ice ratings and steepness anywhere here, not even on the lower end of the scale that most people climb at. Oh well . . . :-/
Oh wait, there is a little. The "+" sections I left out build on these and then add statements that really clarify difficulties other than steepness, like WI5+ = Technical WI5.
The Chief wrote:As Alois mentioned, Jeff Lowe first introduced a new rating system for Alpine and Water Ice back in the 70's which he shares in his first book, "The Ice Experience".
Thanks for the interesting historical info! Frankly I'd prefer a system more like what Lowe was proposing, but since that was in over 40 years ago and virtually every published ice climbing guide or technique book uses almost identical definitions to the wikipedia page, I'd say that sadly community consensus has lumped around a rating based (almost) solely on steepness.