Curvaceous 

This is great climbing. I've been climbing C. Creek for 3 years and just got on the route Sun. I am not a strong climber, I want to get that straight, and I don't think I can on sight 5.11c/d. Does the grade hold strong??? 5.11b or maybe low 5.11d are my thoughts. Clear Creek seems to be rated heavy compared to the rest of the world.

I was going with 5.11c myself.

I have to go with 5.11a max. This route had one 11 move at the third "crux", but you get an awesome rest before and after it. All the ledges make for a very easy onsight. Without those, it might be harder.

I would second Chris, good route to onsight, lots of good rests, but the hard moves are straightforward. On par with Refer Madness in difficulty, although the style is vastly different.

Did this route last week. 11c/d is generous. The roof starts well, a little tricky, but ends in a "positive" sense. Certainly worth the drive down! A must do Clear Creek route! I say b or b/c.

Fun route. Lots of 10+ and 11- crux's with rests in between. I think the first little roof is harder than the large one.

You know...I was shimmying my way up Curvacous and had to tweak it over the first roof, but it wasn't until the final overhang when I finally got the lead out.

You really need to tweak it on the first roof...but it wasn't until the last overhang when I really got the led out!

Boy, I can not believe the grade inflations on some of these sport routes these days. To rate this 11c/d is a hugh ego stroke. I believe this route would maybe be rated 10+ if done in the 80's. Good comparison route would be to go do Guenese in Eldorado. Guenese is rated 11a now, I believe Erickson rated 10+ when he freed it and that is with going thru the roof on the first pitch and not utilizing the cheater belay under the roof. This is an awesome route but some of the folks out there really need a reality check on the ratings cause they sure ain't using what I know as the YDS rating system.

I agree with Bob this route a great route but not worth the rating. However, maybe the people who put this route up rated it 11c/d to discourage people from climbing it. There are some fragile flakes up there. So for those people who man up to this route they get an ego boost, while other climbers who could easily onsight this are driven away by the rating. It is kind of a good ideal for preserving the route. However, like Abraham Lincoln said "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." I think at the top there should be a little sign that tells the climber what they really just climbed. Still a three star route. A three star 10d/11a. Take it from me I onsighted this with a hang over, and vomit all over my shirt, oh-yeah don't forget a broken finger. As for CCC, it is relatively a new climbing area, people should give the place a chance. Just like Eldo in the 80's the grades were f..., so with time the grades will become more consistent. Especially with assholes like me writing their two cents!

Why not 10b? If you can onsight this, you shouldn't have too much trouble with 11c routes at Rifle. The "contributors" who seem to think they're adding to this site by whining about the good old days or about how other states (California?) are graded so much harder might better spend their time working on harder climbs. The surest sign of an over-the-hill climber is constantly referring to Eldorado Canyon as the benchmark for rock-climbing. The second-surest is complaining about overgrading at the 5.11 level. And the third-surest is posting tthose comments on this website

_ Nicely said.

This route is in the 5.10 to 11a range only to internet spraylords and the hopelessly insecure. Definitely not Rifle or Eldo 11c/d, but pretty consistent with most modern sport ratings.

Lots o' Bird turds and Rope Drag? Go do it!

Just one more comment and I will leave it at that. I would say folks who seem to get defensive about other peoples opinion and post their comments as AC seem insecure to me. That is my opinion. 11c/d should be 11 c/d whether in Eldo, Rifle, Clear Creek or Yosemite, or done in the 70's, 80's, 90's or the Millineum. That's the purpose of a standard rating system.

I'd have to agree with Rotert. That is the reasoning of standards - to create consistency. Some climbs are quite dependent upon the climbers heighth and size (say finger) - this is the only time a rating should fluctuate much beyond two letter ratings. And this coming from a relatively new climber (12 years or so on technical rock). . . . I guess that blows the "old-timers" theory into the shitter.

Here is the central issue missing from the present discussion. Grading any climb is a subjective process of refinement and consensus, and the posting of new routes in a public forum before the rotes have appeared in print allows the process of refinement and consensus to unfold in a timely manner. It is important to understand that when a new route goes in, and that is when Curvaceous got its grade, the grade applied reflects only the impression at the time. It is nearly a universal truth that running a route a few times, with different climbers, improves the ascent. The initial ascent is usually, more likely always, inefficient and done wrong. Unless one is putting in new routes, it's hard to imagine how often a line seems very difficult when done on jugs, with the difficulty melting away on the FFA. Equally often, a bollixed up sequence gets logged into the brain on jugs, and when the route is run for the FFA, the bollixed up sequence is used again!!! The mind is a damnable thing. Just recall Chris Sharma on the Mandala: he almost called V16 after the FFA, only to have it shake down to V12 when consensus finally arrived. And this from someone with all kinds of experience to back up his giving the grade. The idea that some ego thrust is at stake in giving a grade is nearly humorous at the 5.11 level. We all know climbers that can hardly tell the difference between 5.9 and 5.11. Frankly, rather than assuming the worst about the climber giving a first impression, imagine that your own ascent contributes valuable experience to the assessment of the grade. Get it out there and see how the dust settles. More often than not consensus will yield the proper grade, and not the FFA. My own occasional return to the route in question has me leaning more to 11a as well. Now it is hard to imagine why we were doing it in a more difficult way than was required, but one way this happens is to do a route with poor efficiency - but still succeed. Is there any climber out there who has not refined their moves by repeating a route only to find it easier than they first imagined? So, here is a suggestion for all of the new first ascent data posted here (or anywhere for that matter). We can give the FFA grade a "T" designation (T for tentative), for example 5.11b(T), and when the grade for the route has been finally consolidated we can dispose of the tentative designation.

Fantastic route. Fun, somewhat pumpy.

This seemed closer to 5.10c/d. Who knows?

Isn't grading more of a general guideline? I can usually onsight 11c, especially in CCC. However, this route beat me down. Maybe it's the length, or the overganging nature, or the pump I had. I did another 11c at the same crag right before and this felt harder.