Grading & severity of Berg climbing

Please don't climb in the Berg Ghaznavid!
We would miss your hike reports!

Bigsnake wrote: Please don't climb in the Berg Ghaznavid!
We would miss your hike reports!

I'll take that as a compliment

As they say - everyone dies, but not everyone truly lives. I have certain goals I want to achieve in the Berg (and in other ranges around the world), and I need to climb to be able to do them.

A recommendation I could give to any hiker would be to join a climbing gym or hit a crag and do some easy climbing (even if you just do it 2 or 3 times). Being able to climb really easy rock routes well - even if only up to about grade 10 on top rope - helps so much on difficult scrambling in the Berg.

I agree with Ghaz on this. I've done a bit of trad with Mcsa up to grades 16/18 and it definitely improved my skills for more "adventurous" hikes and opens up the possibilities of doing basic mountaineering routes.

I recommend doing it on quite a formal course as there are lots of specific technical things to learn.

PS. It's also a great idea to a 7 to 10m piece of rope or cord with you if you get into a sticky spot on a hike.

mnt_tiska wrote:

intrepid wrote: I wonder what "E" stands for then, in that definition of the grading system..."Eish, look how run-out I am"...."Eloquent pulling on grass"?

Intrepid's joke reminds me that the pommies grade a route using two descriptors, one for the technical moves and one for 'dangerous/run-out/poor gear/high risk of decking' - the latter reflecting the consequences if you fall off.

So you can have:
an easy technical route that is run-out/has poor gear etc and is therefore dangerous (lots of standard routes in the Berg qualify)
a hard technical route that is run-out/has poor gear and is therefore dangerous (many of the newer routes in the Berg qualify)
an easy technical route that is well protected (scarce in the Berg)
a hard technical route that is well protected (not sure this exists in the Berg?)

It makes the grading system more complicated but would, in my view, be quite useful for some berg routes. At the moment one has to read between the lines of the RD to figure out the danger.

I think a grading system like that is far more helpful. Also adding a "scariness indicator" may help Even easy moves can become much more difficult psychologically when you don't have gear in and you have a "beautiful view" below your foot. Apparently the grade 20 route "Fallout" at Monteseel would have been closer to a 24 if the crux sequence wasn't on the ground. We may all like to deny it, but tricky moves high up are definitely much harder. Proof of this - why is a route so much easier to second or on top rope?

Isn't there a system used on US trad for bad pro, I think its something like 5.# XD for basically no gear, vs 5.# PG for bad pro, but not terrible. I remember something about this from that video "The Sharp End" - that guy who did the aid climbing at Yosemite and he fell, 2 of his 3 gear placements popped and only the last 1 held.

Ghaz, your comments on 'Fallout' at Monties offer the first explanation I have come across in a few decades as to why I found that 20 to be a real dog.

mnt_tiska wrote: Ghaz, your comments on 'Fallout' at Monties offer the first explanation I have come across in a few decades as to why I found that 20 to be a real dog.

On the odd side, on top rope I was able to do the first 2 moves of that crux sequence (with great difficulty though). I couldn't get the 3rd move with the left leg wide and parallel to the ground pushing up and pulling on a sloping crimp. I guess it proves what many people have told me about my climbing - I climb below my potential ability because I over-think everything. Could explain why I climb better when I am really tired...

If you guys have several days at your disposal, there are some in-depth "discussions" on the UK grading system over at the UKC forums (www.ukclimbing.com). Just search "grades" or "E-grades" and brace yourself for some conflict.

Never having climbed on routes graded using the British system before, I can't comment based on experience, but it does seem to be a brilliant system. The combination of the technical grade and the severity grade can give info on the hardest individual move, how sustained the route is, how bold the climbing is and how difficult the pro might be to place. Most importantly, it gives you a better idea of your overall likelihood of getting up the thing!

Here's a great blog post about a seriously terrifying incident (and subsequent ascent 13 years later) James McHaffie had on one of the UK's most infamous routes, The Indian Face: www.jamesmchaffie.com/1/post/2013/07/the-indian-face.html

Stijn wrote: Most importantly, it gives you a better idea of your overall likelihood of getting up the thing!

That is definitely the reason I completely agree about this point. The reality is that I would not be prepared to do a pitch like Monk's Cowl Standard Route pitch 2 without a back and front belay. If I didn't know better I may have considered leading this route as a possibility.

I'm sure a fair number of Berg routes have been covered between everyone on this forum, we already have great writeups on passes - and now also great photo threads on a few of them as well. It would be awesome if the climbers on the forum could do writeups on the routes they have done - the one Intrepid did on the kaNtuba Fang was great and roughly what I had in mind. A description of exposure, pro, what gear to carry, good gear spots for a stance etc would be greatly useful.

Maybe for a start just a list of each climbing route done with an idea of what they feel the grade is vs actual grade (perhaps a grade on the number system so that its more specific), info on pro and exposure.

E.g. my current list - North Sterkhorn has a standard route so I'll count it as climbing

North Sterkhorn standard route (C). C is about right for main pitch, probably about a 6. Exposure is minimal. No gear necessary, but one possible large hex/cam placement half way up main pitch. Wormhole could be protected by 2 large joined slings, but this is uneccesary as this is probably about grade B/4 and has no exposure whatsoever. Top scramble is about a 3 and is not exposed.

I'm not sure I'd classify the standard route up Sterkhorn's northern summit as a climbing route. The short scramble at the top does not come close in terms of number of moves required and the amount of exposure when compared to the unroped scrambling needed to get up other peaks, such as those in the Cederberg in the Cape. I definitely don't think it warrants hauling a rope and gear up the steep lower slopes to protect it!

But then again I guess that's what will always make grades such a subjective and controversial topic; everybody has a different risk threshold and often as ones abilities grow one loses perspective of how someone of a lower ability may perceive what you deem acceptable risk.

mykitchin wrote: I'm not sure I'd classify the standard route up Sterkhorn's northern summit as a climbing route. The short scramble at the top does not come close in terms of number of moves required and the amount of exposure when compared to the unroped scrambling needed to get up other peaks, such as those in the Cederberg in the Cape. I definitely don't think it warrants hauling a rope and gear up the steep lower slopes to protect it!

I agree that a rope would be unnecessary - hence the rating of no exposure and low technical difficulties. But it is vaguely protectable if the team are worried.

Remember that grade 2 climbing is something like walking up boulders, so technically many Berg scree fields fall within the scope of really easy climbing. Cathedral and Sterkhorn are both rated C grades (6's), but you would start only usually start roping up if exposed or somewhere around grade D/7 (or around E/10 if your are Intrepid, or you know maybe at I3/30 if you are Alex Honnold).

Some passes have rated climbing - I believe the summit of Injisuthi Pass is a D, I don't know Xeni pass' rating but it sounds like a C, and Hilton Pass has its 3 waterfalls (something like F3/G1s, but avoidable by a usually roped incredibly exposed grass ridge.