Sean,
I should have known that the first response to my little list will be from someone who is probably the best of Sierra scramblers of the present day, and almost surely, the fastest one. I would bet anyone, that all of the climbs you commented on, were done by you without a rope and with only passing reference to a greater or lower difficulty. But bro, this little list was not meant for you, as appreciated as your notes are....

Cheers, Alois.

BTW Simkin, this is what Steve Larson, a very experienced climber and mountaineer says on the Summitpost page you mentioned, about the North Pal route in question

"On the right (west) side of the notch there is a steep wall with a crack/chimney system. Opinions differ on the difficulty of this section. Estimates range from Class 4 (old school) to 5.6 (grade inflation?). One thing is for sure, it will feel harder in mountaineering boots, and even harder if wet. Plan accordingly."

In a wonderful , even handed language, Steve tells you exactly what to expect.


If you read The guide book to High Sierra (any edition), the route is rated class 4.

Go do it and report on it for us. You'll find fifth class terrain on that section of the route. You don't need to trust me on this...

asmrz wrote:I think I gave you some routes in the Sierra that have one rating in the Guide Books, but are a bit harder in the field.

Right, which isn't what I was asking about.

asmrz wrote:BTW Have you climbed any of them? How can you debate the issue if you didn't ??

Because we're not debating what you seem to think we're debating. I asked you a specific question (twice) about your claim of class-3 routes supposedly requiring class-5+ moves. It peaked my interest because when I make my way out there, it's for solo class-3/4 scrambles, and ending up in class-5 terrain isn't something that interests me. In any case, if you misspoke, it's all good. I certainly wasn't attempting to debate that some routes may be harder than their ratings, or that climbing skills are a good thing to have before attempting Sierra scrambles.

I gave you at least three examples of Sierra routes that are rated class 3 in in the High Sierra Guide by Secor. Those that I listed have moves much harder than class 3 and none of them can be by-passed. They are not the only ones, but we could debate this for ever. What have I not responded to? Please ask the question some other way and I will try to respond. I really don't understand what you are asking. You can PM me if you want to explain this more...

asmrz wrote:to anticipate and overcome some difficulties as they come up (as the OP seem to experienced)

We had already figured out the reason for the discrepancy of the ratings: the upper portion of the glacier had melted or slid down since the Summitpost page was created 13 years ago. Albeit it took three pages of senseless prattling before we got to it.

asmrz wrote:stick to hikes.

Please come closer and repeat what you said.

This post is not responsive to the topic, but it seemed as good a place to post it as any given the discussion. I'll move this post to a new topic if that is better.

I'm a beginner and would like to venture into the Sierra Nevada next summer. I have a difficult time finding good options because: (1) my schedule limits me to day hikes (I have a hard time convincing my wife to let me leave for even that space of time, and her criticism is on the mark given our two young children); (2) I would like to be able to stay at high altitude the night before the climb to help acclimatize; and (3) I lack the experience to do any technical climbs, class 4, or even, probably, class 3; and (4) don't have the fitness for hikes like those in Bub Burd's Sierra Challenge (hopefully some day though!) and am not that athletic in general, so things are harder for me than the would be for others. Now, I've found some possibility for next year (Trail Peak or perhaps Cirque Peak) and I'm not looking for specific suggestions, but rather to better understand the class system as it applies to climbs in the Sierra Nevada.

Most websites and books define class two to include the "occasional use" of hands, and class three to require constant use of hands. Class 4 is supposed to be actual climbing, and with my background I would need a rope. My limited experience suggests that guidebooks such as Secor use class two to mean "constant" use of hands and not "occasional" use of hands. Is this correct? If so, what does class 3 mean? What is the difference between class 2 and class 3 in the Sierra? What is the difference between class 3 and class 4 in the Sierra?

I went to Agassiz last year and the class two rating for the West Slope seemed off to me. The route truly seemed class three to because I had to use my hands for the entire route. I'm wondering if this is because the ratings in Secor are for more advanced climbers, or if the route is truly class 2 and I just was off route or don't understand the ratings system correctly. I don't think I was off-route because it seemed pretty obvious which chute to go up and where to go, but I understand I may not always have been in the ideal place on the route. I expected a log difficult slog up talus, which I got, but not sustained class three moves. I eventually turned back just about 300 feet from the summit (after what was probably the hardest part) which was sadly the right call due to the time of day and my conditioning.

Agassiz aside, and as I look for other options (with my schedule only allowing about one climb per year) what should I think when I read about class two ratings? Should I assume Secor class 2 ratings are really class three?

Sorry for the somewhat rambling post, but the basic question is: How can I tell if a route is truly class two based on the available literature? Or is that simply not possible given all the subjectivity involved in rating routes and the fact that the routes have evidently been designated by highly-experienced climbers?

Thanks.

StartingOver

Very good post and very good questions.

I think you have it just right. Ratings are not consistent at any level and class 2, 3 and 4 are not exceptions. Not sure if Secor is guilty of anything, after all he just took most of the hundreds of ratings from the previous generations (Roper, Smatko and others).

There are some people here on Summitpost, who wrote route descriptions for the rest of us. By that I mean they climbed the route in question, they knew the problematic spots (if any) and wrote about them. But this is not very consistent throughout the route ratings here. Some route pages were created by people who never climbed the route they wrote about. You need to read a lot of material and sometimes, need to talk to people who climbed the route you want to do. And even then, you might run into harder terrain. Unfortunately, that is what mountaineering is about. Dealing with a lot of troubles that we didn't anticipate when we set out on our outing. Guide books have very varying language. Sometimes we know right away where the route is, but most of the time, it takes some judgement which needs to be learned. Going off route happens quite a bit, either because the description in the guide book is not clear or we miss-understood it.

Looking at it from your point of view, I would be conservative in my trips at the start, but would try very hard to get better at mountaineering. That is the only solution (in my view). If a climb says sustained class 3, it does not hurt at all to bring along a short rope, harness and a few stoppers. These things can make the rough spots much easier and safer. Meeting a bit more experienced partner is also a good way to make things safer.

Hope this help even a tiny bit.

Regarding what class 2,3,4 mean, there are many interpretations. I learned the progression from the Rock Climbing Section people of the Sierra Club in the seventies.

Class 1 steep trail in the mountains

Class 2 off trail travel in the mountains, no use of hands except for steadying your self here and there. No danger of injury if you stumble or slip

Class 3 steep terrain where use of both hands is needed. Slip or fall might result in a short fall resulting in broken bone or bones, but would not be (always) fatal

Class 4 like climbing up a solid, steel ladder on a high rise building. Knowledge of technical climbing is required, steady nerves required, slip is 100% fatal. Some people carry and might use rope and hardware.

Class 5 Technical, roped climbing. Climbing techniques required. The so called easy fifth can be scrambled (unroped) by only fairly competent people.

BTW In the High Sierra, most of the easier climbs were done in 1920,30 and 40s by people who today have legendary status and who (absolutely) had legendary capability. Their ratings are what we today debate. It takes years and very astute guide book writers to change the ones that are really off the charts, but, most of the ratings were carried over from those pioneering days and sometimes, they don't match the terrain well. That's mountaineering!!

StartingOver wrote:I went to Agassiz last year and the class two rating for the West Slope seemed off to me. The route truly seemed class three to because I had to use my hands for the entire route. I'm wondering if this is because the ratings in Secor are for more advanced climbers, or if the route is truly class 2 and I just was off route or don't understand the ratings system correctly. I don't think I was off-route because it seemed pretty obvious which chute to go up and where to go, but I understand I may not always have been in the ideal place on the route. I expected a log difficult slog up talus, which I got, but not sustained class three moves. I eventually turned back just about 300 feet from the summit (after what was probably the hardest part) which was sadly the right call due to the time of day and my conditioning.

The Agassiz page here on SP states that there are class-3 options. If you took a steep chute requiring constant use of hands, that sounds like class-3 to me. Here's a picture from the page, where the red route is the talus slog and the green is a chute:



Your concerns remind me of myself over the last few years. I'm on the east coast and can only make it out there for ~7 days each August. For acclimatization, I'm not a camper so the best I can do is to stay at a hotel in Mammoth (~8000 feet). I start off with peaks in the 10-11k range and slowly get higher as the week rolls on. Like you I'm also not into the long Sierra Challenge routes -- it's just not enjoyable for me to go that far/long at these altitudes, being at sea level 358 days a year.

I also target class-3 for my climbs, and have found ratings here on SP to be pretty consistent. While researching routes, I make sure to read the Secor description, the SP description, every entry in the SP climber's log for that route, and also any Bob Burd trip reports. If anything is out of whack (like a route being rated 3 that really isn't), you'll find evidence of it there. If you see all of those sources saying class-3, then it's class-3. But keep in mind that you'll sometimes see things like "easy class-3" and "hard class-3", which is just a way of pointing out that it's a continuous scale. (Like hurricane categories -- a Cat-3 hurricane can be 111mph, or 129mph.) I suspect on Agassiz you were probably on the easy side of class-3 if anything, but some idea of how steeply you were climbing would give a good indication.

Starting over, the most important thing you gotta have for success in the Sierra is being in good shape. that means being physically prepared for the suffering, and second, being acclimatised. Without those, everything will seem hard.

Second, always start off slowly. Try class 1 peaks first, like White Mountain Peak, or Alta Peak, that sort of stuff. Then move up to class 2 after you feel like you are getting stronger. Know your limit, and don't climb beyond your comfort level. Mt Agassiz from Bishop Pass is class 2 IF YOU STAY ON THE CLASS 2 ROUTE. In the Sierra it is very easy to get off the route you were trying to do, and then find yourself in a tight spot. Case and point, when I was a newbie to the Sierra, I went to Irvine and decided to traverse to Mallory. The guidebook said "class 3". I soon found myself doing some very exposed climbing that did not feel like class 3 at all. The route looked easy from the map (beware of maps measured in meters!!!) but I soon realized it was Class 3 if you moved from one side of the ridge to the other, and dropped down a bit then back up again and so on. In other words a "Class 3" route only stays class 3 for as long as you are on it!

To me the most important thing besides conditioning to bring to the Sierra is also THE RIGHT FRAME OF MIND. Being in the Sierra is such a wonderful place that only humility will get you through it in the long run. No one conquers the Sierra, but it has conquered many people. Walking with humility and reverance, being careful always, and being in tune with the Sierra are vital to longevity.
Start off slow and easy, don't bite off more than you can chew, and fall in love with it, working your way up, and you will be amazed with where you can go. every year someone bites the bullet in the Sierra, make sure it is not you. Like Clyde once said, the mountain will always be there tomorrow, be sure you can say the same thing about yourself.

Asmrz, tbaranski, and willytinwain: many thanks for your thoughts and helpful comments. Much appreciated!

On Agassiz, I took the red route -- I even printed the summitpost picture in color and took it with me, and I studied the picture at the base of Agassiz before heading up. I encountered trouble just below the section where the red route turns right. The rock seemed to be more solid on the extreme right part of this route, but maybe that also meant the route was more like class three than class two -- I don't know. I may not have had the skills to locate the part that stayed class two, but to my inexperienced eye it looked about the same except for the solidity of the rock. I ran into two more experienced climbers that day around this place and followed them up a little ways further, to the end of the place where the red line turns right and starts going straight up again, when I looked at the time and realized I was going to have to turn around.

Either way I bit off more than I could chew with Agassiz -- but i still really enjoyed the scenery and experience, and learned a lot too. You are right willytinawain, humility is going to be key for me to continue jouryeing through the Sierra.

For what it is worth, I've posted my best memory of the route I took up Agassiz. My route is in blue, and the part is in red is where the route seemed to involve sustained class three rather than class two.

A couple of thoughts on the difference between class 2 and class 3:

Generally, I find climbing ratings are inductive, not deductive, meaning that you learn how to tell class 2 from class 3 by climbing routes in each class and finding out what's different between the two. Descriptions in words of specific differences are more like hints than they are universal principles.

More specifically, whether or how often you use your hands is a factor, but it's also important how you use your hands. When I get tired in class 2 talus, I use my hands a lot because it's easier (takes less energy). Gerry Roach, in his Colorado 14ers guidebook, says that class 2 climbing typically does not require using handholds for upward movement (as opposed to balance). With class 3,on the other hand, you "are beginning to look for and use handholds for upward movement. You are now using basic climbing, not walking, movements." In other words, if you are pulling yourself up with your hands, that's a sign of class 3. Roach also says that most people can climb class 2, even relatively difficult class 2, facing downhill, while many people feel the need to face into the rock to downclimb class 3. Colorado isn't California I know, but these two distinguishing factors help me tell the difference.

Finally, for me, and a number of others I've talked to over the years, class 3 on Sierra peaks is often easier than class 2, because class 3 is often solid rock while class 2 these days seems more often than not to be scree or talus.

Thanks, fogey, that's the most helpful explanation of the difference between class two and class three I have read.

I went back and looked at my log from when I visited Mt. Agassiz from Bishop Pass, and I wrote "class 2-3" in my log, and I ascended North Palisade the day before, which is steeper, and so perhaps Mt. Agassiz may not be Class 2 from Bishop Pass after all. And also, I don't mean "humility" in the sense that you hang your head and feel like a crappy climber, but rather that each of us is just a "tiny dot" in this vast, beautiful mountain range carved by forces more powerful than anything man possesses. At least that's how I feel when I'm there.

fogey wrote:Finally, for me, and a number of others I've talked to over the years, class 3 on Sierra peaks is often easier than class 2, because class 3 is often solid rock while class 2 these days seems more often than not to be scree or talus.

Interestingly, I find Class 4 more comfortable than Class 3 in the Sierra. You generally know what you are getting into with Class 2 scree (slog) and talus (hop) slopes. Although technically easier, I find these surfaces much more mentally challenging (think long boring snow slog). I find that much of the Class 3 I've climbed in the Sierra is solid rock, but covered with dirt, gravel and other detritus that materially affects my grip, such as ledge systems. The Class 4 I've seen is generally much more solid rock but it is generally cleaner, possibly due to it being steeper or having been cleaned because the established route may be more obvious or confined.