open all | close all

---

Stuck in someone's frames?
Free yourself!

Grading/Alpine

General

Character of alpine climbing

On mountains climbers are faced with varied conditions and often several types of climbing are encountered. Usually this means that while properly geared up climbers are sufficiently equipped for most foreseeable challenges, they seldom are ideally equipped for any type of climbing. Heavier clothing, footwear and perhaps most notably a backpack all limit technical ability. Climbers also typically must face the challenges when already feeling tired due the physical effort of the approach and climb itself, altitude etc.

In the mountains climbing mostly takes place with no previous knowledge of the route. Furthermore, while some mountain routes are equipped with bolts and other fixed gear, mostly climbers are to place protection themselves. This is made more difficult because limited size of rack and often less than perfect quality of rock and snow/ice. On moderately difficult snow and ice realiable protection is often especially difficult to arrange. While deadmen and snow stakes offer satisfactory protection on consolidated snow, they are often too consuming to place on the whole length of the route. Besides, due to greater length of mountain routes often healthy runouts, and sometimes simulclimbing and soloing the easier parts, are necessary for a party to be able to cover the route in a reasonable time.

Falling off at the sports crag is often relatively safe as routes are normally vertical or overhanging, thus when falling, the climber will only catch the air. On the mountains, however, routes often are not totally vertical which greatly increases the risk of a falling climber to hurt himself. Furthermore, uncontrolled nature of many falls on the mountains together with backpack dramatically increases risk of a fall to turn into upside down affair. Add together greater risk to hurt oneself when falling, greater length of the fall and poorer quality of protection and you should realise that taking a leader fall in the mountains is generally a really bad idea.

Conditions

It is impossible to exaggerate the impact conditions have on the route. Changing conditions can radically change the difficulty (usually for the more difficult) and character of a route. John Biggar, the author of "The Andes - a guide for Climbers" illustrates this by example of normal route of Illimani. He says he'd rate it AD in the 1992 conditions, F in 1995 and PD in 1996. Consensus grade is PD/AD. Unusually warm conditions in the European Alps during the summer 2003 generated many popular and normally straight forward glacier climbs such as Three Mont Blanc Route (PD/PD+) far more difficult and dangerous (big crevasses, vertical and overhanging steps, more like stiff D or TD than normal PD/PD+).

On rock, climbing gets much more difficult when the rock is of poor quality, dirty, wet, verglassed or all of the above. On ice and snow the difficulty and strenuousness of a route varies considerably. If ice/snow routes have a ready spur, they feel easier and far less strenuous. Also, on good firn conditions (typical in the European Alps during late winter and early summer), many classic ice climbs take much less time to complete and firn offers welcome support for the calf muscles (although reliable protection in such conditions may be problematic to arrange). In contrast, when the route features blank ice, it is typically much more strenuous and often also more difficult to climb (often easier to protect, though). If ice melts considerably, what was a straight forward ice climb in the winter may become technically difficult mixed climb on thin and poorly attached ice with bowel-emptying runouts and minimal (if any) possibilities for protection. Further still, bergschrunds typically gets more difficult to pass as snow cover diminishes. Sometimes passing the bergschrund may be significantly more difficult than the actual route itself.

Besides affecting the difficulty, melting can chance the seriousness of a route dramatically. This have turned many routes that once were pure ice routes and relatively free of objective danger into mixed affairs that are made very serious due to severe rock fall danger. Thus many classic ice routes in European Alps are nowadays reasonable only during the winter and spring. Weather patterns in the mountains are not to be forgotten, some routes are more prone to bad weather than others. Any route feels much harder in snow storm.

It is important not to forgert that gradings are typically gven assuming the conditions are good for the route in question. It is quite possible that many ice/snow routes must then be climbed outside the traditional (summer) season.

Technical difficulty

To be able to give more information about the technical difficulty and character of the route, many grading systems utilise technical grade of appropriate type of climbing (or several) together with overall alpine grade. Don't be fooled by the numbers though, crag (especially sport) climbing grades are of no significance in the mountains. Climbs graded similarly are supposed to be absolutely as difficult whether they locate in the mountains or in the crag. However, climbs located in the mountains most certainly will feell harder. If you just manage to redpoint a well trained sport climb rated VII at sea level when wearing rock climbing shoes, you definitely won't stand a slightest change doing a route with same level of technical difficulty in the mountains placing your own gear and wearing heavier clothing, footwear and pack.

Many guidebooks give degree of steepness on snow and ice sections as inclination angle. While this appears to be simple enough figure, in real world this seems not to be the case. In some cases there may well be short sections with greater inclinations, especially at the bergschrund. Be especially aware of long routes, on which only average angle is given. On some routes, the inclination may well be uniform for, say 1000m. On the other hand, a route with average angle of 55° for 1000m may have even long significantly steeper sections. Another consideration is the meaning of a degree. Many people, especially less experienced, tend to overrate the steepness. It is, for example, not seldom one hears the north flank of Col du Mont Maudit (part of Three Mont Blanc route) to be of steepness "near vertical" or "at least 60°". The reality is somewhere around 45°. Average angle of 60° is already steep for big ice routes, for example, Cornuau-Davaille (on North Face of Les Droites) has average inclination of 60° (and has several long sections that are far steeper graded at IV/AI4+ with overall difficulty at ED). On genuinely steep group, ice grading system is often used as it is much better able to communicate the difficulty.

Technical grades can also tell whole lot about the seriousness of a route. If the level of technical difficulties of a given route is low in comparison with other routes of similar alpine grade, there's a good reason to assume that the route is large scale or serious (propably both). Conversely, when a route features high technical difficulties in relation to routes having similar alpine grade, it can be assumed that the route is short, unserious or has a short crux that is considerably more difficult than the rest of the route (or misgraded).

Ice grading system in itself tells a whole lot about the character of the climb, in many cases way more than the actual alpine grade. For example, classic ice routes Cordier Couloir on Aiguille Verte and Goulotte Chèré on Mont Blanc du Tacul are both graded D+. Albeit both ice routes, they are totally different in nature. Goulotte Chèré is a modern classic and in many ways resembles closely ice fall climbing. It is very easily accessible from Aiguille du Midi telepherique and free of objective danger (save for climber-generated ice fall dangfer). It is also equipped with bolts facilitating easy retreat if need be. Descent is also easy either by rappelling from the bolts or continuing to the top on Mont Blanc du Tacul and walking down along the normal route (PD). The climb has altitude gain of 350m with WI4 (uncharacteristically steep for a climb graded D+) crux while mostly being WI3 and has easier sections. Cordier Couloir, on the other hand, is totally different kind of undertaking. It is nowhere near as steep but climbs up a 1000 meter face with average angle of 55° (AI1). It is heavily endangered by seracs and retreat is difficult and descent is everything but trivial as it involves descending Whymper Couloir (AD+/D), Moine Ridge (AD) or South Pillar of Grande Rocheuse (AD), all of which are 900m routes. If full ice grade is given, the nature of these undertakings is made clear, since Goulotte Chèré is II/WI4 while Cordier Couloir is V/AI1.

Comparing alpine grades

Comparing alpine grades between different grading systems is a classic example of comparing apples and oranges. The grade of different systems take into consideration different factors. Even when the factors considered might be same, their weight in the grade may not be, thus direct translation from one system into another is not possible.

There are especially big differences how different systems compare shorter but technically demanding routes to much longer but technically easier routes. Many grading systems give more emphasis to overall seriousness and scale of the climb than is the case with French adjectival systems. For example, while International French Adjectival System and G-rade system are mostly quite closely related, there are some notable exceptions. For example Ruta Normal on Aconcagua (6960m) has a very modest grade of F in French Adjectival system. This very same grade is given to straight forward and relatively small scale ascents like Glittertind in Norway (2464m). On the other hand, the G-grade of Aconcagua Ruta Normal is G5 while G-grade of Glittertind is G1 (mostly hike with some scrambling). Routes in the European Alps with a grade G5 are typically technically far more difficult than Aconcagua (I, 40°). For example well-known Hörnli Ridge on Matterhorn is also G5 and has technical difficulties up to III, A0 (International French Adjectival Grade AD-). The Russian system gives by far most emphasis on the altitude and sheer scale of the climb. Because of this, some climbers consider it to be the only system capable of communicating the demands of big climbs.

In the description part of grading systems, approximation of grades in other systems are derived from sample routes and various other sources. These are marked in parethesis after the descripton of the grade and denoted with "~". Once again, there are routes that just don't follow this pattern. Several routes have been graded with many systems, when alternative grades are known, they are given together with appropriate technical grades in order to give a more complete picture what is to be expected.

Most grading systems used to grade alpine climbs try to combine a bunch of factors affecting the seriousness and difficulty of a climb into one grade. This is a very difficult task as climbs to be found in an alpine setting come in widest range of flavours. To make things even more difficult, conditions can greatly affect the difficulty and/or seriousness of a given route between (and within) seasons. When choosing an alpine route, make sure to have enough reserves in terms of technical difficulty.

Aforementioned complexity of the factors makes grading a difficult task. Unfortunately it also makes it somewhat subjective, so beware of surprises. If you read several guidebooks, you'll propably find out, that a certain route might have slightly different grade in different books.

International French Adjectival System

1) Commitment

Roman number running from I to VII is used to present the character of the route. It is determined by a number of factors such as:

• length of the route
• length and difficulty of approach and descent
• how sustained the route is
• the number of difficult pitches
• how exposed the route is
• frequency of ascents
• possibilitites to bail
• in-situ gear
• altitude
• objective hazards

2) Overall technical difficulty

The system uses letters derived from French adjective to indicate overall difficulty of the route. Cotations "+" and "-" are sometimes used to indicate minor differences. There are two variations of the grading system may vary at the extreme end. Some use ED-, ED, ED+, ABO- and ABO to refine grading of the extreme routes whereas another way is to add a number after ED making ED grade open ended to classify such routes. The interralation with these cotation are roughly: ED- = ED1, ED = ED2, ED+ = ED3, ABO- = ED4 and ABO = ED5. This part of the grade is often used alone.

Note that this is a climbing grading system, thus it does not begin with no difficulties at all. So F does not mean a nice walk in the park. For instance, routes marked as PD may already have crevassed glaciers, rock climbing with long sections of UIAA II (short sections may be harder) and long sections of 35-45° snow/ice slopes (with short sections up around 50°).

3) Technical difficulty

To give better idea of the difficulties found on a route, sometimes technical rock and/or ice grade is used to give impression on the technical difficulties of hardest moves/pitches. When these technical difficulties are indicated, the conditions are supposed to be good (for example the rock is supposed to be dry). If in-situ climbing aid exist (such as fixed ropes), the grading expects them to be used unless the contrary is explicitly stated (sometimes all-free grades are given separately).

For rock parts, either UIAA scale (Roman numbers) or French sport grade (Arabic numbers are used). The same value does not mean equal difficulties, although the systems are roughly identical up to around grade 4. In France it is a common practice that the longer the route, the less severe is the rating. Thus if the pitch would get a technical grade 6a at low-altitude crag, the same pitch high in the mountains would be graded a bit higher.

For snow and ice sections, inclination angle is typically used to indicate the difficulty (mostly maximum inclination, sometimes average). For genuinely steep climbs (usually around 60°or more), ice climbing grade, most commonly WI-grade but sometimes Scottish grade, might be used.

For mixed parts, sometimes WI-grade system is used (M-grade). However, it is more common to use normal rock grade, even though it might not tell that much about the actual difficulty.

Complete grade

In complex situations the whole alpine grade combined with approproriate technical grades can lead to pretty algeabric cotations like: D+ IV/AI3 M3 R III+ & A0 (VI+). This kind of cotations tell a whole lot about the route. First of all, since there are technical difficulties on both ice and rock, the route is obviously a mixed one. Furthermore, the order of these cotations tell that the crux is on ice/mixed terrain, has both alpine ice up to technical grade 3 and mixed terrain up to grade 3. Its also has long run-outs, possibly due the thin nature of the ice. The commitment ice grade IV is rathar hard for a climb of technical difficulty of the grade three, so it suggeststs that the climb may be remote, large scale or have some objective hazards (or quite possibly all of the mentioned). Rock part is up to UIAA III+ when using in situ gear (A0) and up to VI+ if climbed completely free. This all adds up to give a overall alpine grade D+.

Few considerations

One should always keep in mind that gradings are given supposing the conditions are good. The conditions can (and do) greatly affect the difficulty and seriousness of a route. Rock routes may feel several grades harder when the rock is wet, and even relatively moderate ice climbs can be very hard (or even impossible) and objectively hazardous when out of condition.

Although ocerall difficulty grade takes several factors into account, the technical difficulties have most impact on the grade. For example the NNE ridge of Aiguille de l'M (a relatively short (180m), well-protected rock climb with IV+, mostly III-IV-, at low-altitude and free from serious objective hazards) and the mega-classic Brenva Spur in the awesome East Face of Mont-Blanc (900m for the technical part, total of 1400m featuring mixed climbing with difficulties up to 50°, possibly more at the serac barrier, on snow/ice and III on rock and involves serious objective hazards due to seracs) receive the same rating: D- (Unfortunately Brenva Spur in it's classic form has been destroyd in a rock fall).

Finally, some of the very high but technically easy mountains have a low grade (normal route of Aconcagua for example has been graded F). Due the high altitude, more remote location, and overall scale of the undertaking, this kind of climbs are way more serious than a climb with the same grade in European Alps. Also, routes on more remote areas see far less traffic than more popular routes, which adds to the seriousness of a climb (routefinding problems, anyone?). Some other systems see the situation differently. The same Ruta Normal of Aconcagua is graded G5 with the system used in Bernese Alps. The routes in the Alps that receive the same grade of G5 are typically technically much more difficult, such as Hörnligrat of Matterhorn (AD with III and A0) or Mitteleggigrat on Eiger (AD/D, IV).

Examples

In the following table I have gathered the grades used with a short explanation. Technical difficulties given in the description part give the technical difficulty of the most difficult move/pitch that are typically encountered on the route. However, short sections may well be more difficult. Bear also in mind that the difficulties faced on a particular route may change significantly because of snow and ice conditions, rock falls etc. The gradings of the routes mentioned below as examples are based on various sources, so there are no guarantees to their validity.

The most common grading system used in the European Alps is based on expanded Welzenbach scale and often referred as IFAS (for International French Adjectival System). The system is used in the Western Alps except for Bernese Alps and sometimes in the Eastern Alps. This same system is used also to grade climbs in the Andes, Himalaya and some other areas.

Traditionally the system has combined several factors affecting the difficulty and seriousness of the climb, the most important of them being:

• The technical difficulty of the route (has by far the most impact)
• The seriousness (length, quality of the rock, objective hazards, remoteness...)
• The equipment (quality, serious passages...)
• The conditions (altitude, climate...)

Currently overall commitment grade is sometimes added to complement the overall technical grade to create 2-tier system.

G-grade (Bernese Alps)

The G-grading system used in Bernese Alps is designed to indicate overall difficulty and seriousness of climbing routes (hiking routes are graded with BW1 - BW3). It consists of 20 grades, with mid-point cotated i.e. G6-7 (meaning G6,5). The grade is a product of following primary factors:

• technical difficulty
• alpine character: including altitude, creavsses, dependability of conditions, exposition.
• objective hazards
• physical demands/length of the route

The grade formed concerning the primary factors may then be rounded up or down based on the following secondary factors:

• number and length of difficult sections
• quality of rock
• in-situ gear
• protection possibilities
• retreat options
• descent options
• popularity of a route
• difficulty of route-finding

More emphasis is given on the seriousness and scale of the climb as is the case with IFAS-system. Mixed routes are typically graded harder than pure rock routes. On popular ice/snow routes the grade is given assuming there's a spur. If this is not the case, the grade could be (slightly) harder.

Alaska grade

Because of Alaska's often horrible weather conditions (severe storms, cold, altitude, and extensive cornices) Boyd Everett Jr. introduced a unique grading system to indicate the seriousness of climbs in his 1966 paper "The Organization of an Alaskan Expedition." In the Alaska system, each ascending grade incorporates all the elements of the grades that precede it. Alaska grade system emphasises overall seriousness. Factors affecting this are time required to do the route, bivouac options, length of route, technical difficulty, how sustained the route is, descent and retreat options. Thus some routes with no or little technical difficulties may get a higher grade, if speed and avalanche awareness are keys to success on the route. "+" and "-" may be used to denote slight differences in difficulty.

North American Alpine Grade

North American Alpine Grading (or NCCS) system tries to combine technical and other difficulties of a given route to a single number representing an estimate of how long a competent party will take to complete the route. Like is the case with many other alpine grading systems, this overall grade is often used together with technical grade to give more complete picture of the climb. The system is often used to grade big wall routes also on other areas.

Time required for a route is highly subjective, however. Many routes that have traditionally taken several days, or even weeks, have been completed in a day or two. For example the first ascent of the Nose on El Capitan (mega classic grade VI climb in Yosemite, California) took 45 days in 1958. The same route was completed in a day in 1975 and 4,5 hours in 1992.

Sometimes the climbs have technical rock grade for a technical grade even if the route's principal technical difficulties are on ice or snow. For example The Regular North Face of Mount Athabasca is graded III 5.4 (involved 52 degree snow/ice).

Because NCCS grades give more emphasis to the length of a climb than French adjectival system, especially grades I-III can be just about anything in a French adjectival scale.