Hey guys,
So i came across this article of a fairly new route put up that was given a suggested rating of WI 7+.
See article here ---> http://www.climbing.com/news/hotflashes/new_austrian_ice_route_given_wi7/

As i have only climbed the occasional WI5 (with relatively fat ice) i cant really fathom what a 7+ would even feel like. To my understanding a WI 5 is very steep and sustained with generally good ice where as a 6 would be steep and sustained (with fewer rests?) but with poorer quality ice thus making the route more commiting and harder to protect.

As these higher grades are suggested do you believe them to be more of an indicator of what to expect on a climb rather than its actual degree of technical climbing difficulty? (ice conditions / quality of protection / avalanche and falling rock danger ??) I am just curious as to hear people's thoughts on these ratings and what they actually mean. The ice can only be so steep... what about these routes justifys their proposed ratings?

I apologize if this topic has been covered but was unable to find any quality discussions with the search function.

`Matt

I'm no expert, but here's a decent summary:

http://www.summitpost.org/custom-object ... #chapter_5

the ice can only be so steep

It can be overhung, detached, fragile, thin...

I think at the higher ratings the biggest factor is lack of protection. Raises the pucker factor significantly.

In the photo, the leader has placed rock gear. As long as we're armchair-quipping, does that still qualify as a "pure ice climb"?

great page. I will have give it a read when i have some time. Thanks for the link nartreb!
`matt

nartreb wrote:In the photo, the leader has placed rock gear. As long as we're armchair-quipping, does that still qualify as a "pure ice climb"?

Most all "real" WI7 will be married to an M grade.

nartreb wrote:I'm no expert, but here's a decent summary:

http://www.summitpost.org/custom-object ... #chapter_5

the ice can only be so steep

It can be overhung, detached, fragile, thin...

I think at the higher ratings the biggest factor is lack of protection. Raises the pucker factor significantly.

In the photo, the leader has placed rock gear. As long as we're armchair-quipping, does that still qualify as a "pure ice climb"?

I'm no expert as I don't climb mixed stuff, but I would think that rock gear would not affect it's status as a "pure ice climb." Making actual movements on rock would make it a mixed climb, but protecting ice with rock gear would seem to still be ice climbing to me. From an armchair, of course.....

House graded M-16 as WI7+ A2.

The Reality Bath

I'm no expert as I don't climb mixed stuff, but I would think that rock gear would not affect it's status as a "pure ice climb." Making actual movements on rock would make it a mixed climb, but protecting ice with rock gear would seem to still be ice climbing to me. From an armchair, of course.....

I basically agree with this, but it raises the problem of defining "actual movements on rock". Take the photo, for example. Given the position of the rock gear, doesn't it seem likely the leader grabbed rock with his hands or tools while doing the traverse from the foreground?