The X Rating?

So, I've always assumed that a route with an X rating means that if you fall there is a very high likelihood that you will either hit a ledge or the ground. This is even if you use all of the available protection.

My question is this, I recently climbed a route in Penitente Canyon Tanks for the Hueco and found the 2nd bolt to be in major groundfall territory. Yes, the climbing to that bolt is pretty easy but should that matter? Holds do break and perfect storms do happen. I may have not chosen to climb this route had I known this prior to getting above the committing first bolt.

Do you choose not to rate a route X even if there is groundfall potential just because the climbing is easy? Just curious and what I'm missing. I know plenty of R rated routes that are R during the easy sections Hair City being a good example of this. Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me?

Like this? (5.7 X)

mountainproject.com/v/color…

I agree with you . . . if you could deck, it shouldn't matter whether the climbing is "easy" or not. "Easy" is relative.

I'm fairly certain that if you fall off of an easy cliff and deck, the same thing happens to you as would from falling off of a hard cliff. X is X.

There is a gray area, though. Take routes like Intifada for example. You may not deck, but how many people can survive a looong zipper?

This recent thread will probably have some opinions...

mountainproject.com/v/trad_…

I agree with your notion that it doesn't matter how hard the climb is if you hit that ground... that being said, the convention seems to be to ignore run outs if they are substantially easier than the crux of a climb.

Take Icarus/Yellow Spur in Eldo for example. Icarus gets a 5.6R rating because of the run out on the final, exposed, arete pitch. Yellow Spur shares that final run out, however, it is rated 5.9 (no R). The thinking being that if you have climbed the rest of Yellow Spur, than the last section of 5.6 shouldn't bother you. Personally, I'd like to know about any long section without pro, regardless of difficulty...

However, reading the beta does address this concern, and on a sport climb, it should be pretty obvious if the 2nd bolt is in ground fall territory...

caughtinside wrote:Hard to say... the second bolts on most sport routes are in groundfall territory. And if it's waaaay up there, that should be apparent from the ground.

This was one of those bolts where looking up at the route you think to yourself "that must be bolt 3 that I can see"

I do agree that most 2nd clips are groundfall if you blow it but this thing is 30' off the deck.

It seems to me that the difficulty at the dangerous section, combined with how dangerous it is, has something to do with it. Most of the R routes that I'm familiar with either have the potential for some big but (probably) not deadly whippers on climbing close to the difficulty of the rating of the climb, or a potentially deadly fall on climbing much easier than the rating of climb.

An example of the first is Ten Karat Gold, at Suicide, it's rated 5.10a R, and there is some 5.9 climbing way out from the bolt which would result in a long fall, but probably not a ground fall. It would be bad, and you'd be likely to sustain an injury.

An example of the second would be Clam Chowder, also at Suicide. It's rated 5.9 R. The first pitch is essentially a freesolo, with no bolts until the anchors. If you fell from anywhere high up you may die. But the difficulty is only about 5.0 once you get into the no-fall zone. And since you should be capable of climbing 5.9 to be on this route, you have no business falling on 5.0, although like you said, things happen. Now, if there were a 5.9 move close to the anchors . . . you'd probably see 5.9 X.

I haven't climbed anything rated X, but it should have a potentially deadly fall on climbing at the crux.

I'm no expert, that's just my observation.

Cheers,
Cory

Cory wrote: I haven't climbed anything rated X, but it should have a potentially deadly fall on climbing at the crux. I'm no expert, that's just my observation. Cheers, Cory

This may be what I'm missing.

Cory wrote:It seems to me that the difficulty at the dangerous section, combined with how dangerous it is, has something to do with it. Most of the R routes that I'm familiar with either have the potential for some big but (probably) not deadly whippers on climbing close to the difficulty of the rating of the climb, or a potentially deadly fall on climbing much easier than the rating of climb. An example of the first is Ten Karat Gold, at Suicide, it's rated 5.10a R, and there is some 5.9 climbing way out from the bolt which would result in a long fall, but probably not a ground fall. It would be bad, and you'd be likely to sustain an injury. An example of the second would be Clam Chowder, also at Suicide. It's rated 5.9 R. The first pitch is essentially a freesolo, with no bolts until the anchors. If you fell from anywhere high up you may die. But the difficulty is only about 5.0 once you get into the no-fall zone. And since you should be capable of climbing 5.9 to be on this route, you have no business falling on 5.0, although like you said, things happen. Now, if there were a 5.9 move close to the anchors . . . you'd probably see 5.9 X. I haven't climbed anything rated X, but it should have a potentially deadly fall on climbing at the crux. I'm no expert, that's just my observation. Cheers, Cory

The above statement is about the most sensible explanation I've heard. With regard to ratings in general including 3rd/4th class, 5 point whatever, R, X and so forth I think that what beta you get from a guide book or any other source can never really be trusted. You have to try to evaluate and assess the hazards before you're completely committed and be prepared to bail if you get in over your head. Of course, in practice that it isn't always easy.

DavidH wrote:So, I've always assumed that a route with an X rating means that if you fall there is a very high likelihood that you will either hit a ledge or the ground. This is even if you use all of the available protection. My question is this, I recently climbed a route in Penitente Canyon Tanks for the Hueco and found the 2nd bolt to be in major groundfall territory. Yes, the climbing to that bolt is pretty easy but should that matter? Holds do break and perfect storms do happen. I may have not chosen to climb this route had I known this prior to getting above the committing first bolt. Do you choose not to rate a route X even if there is groundfall potential just because the climbing is easy? Just curious and what I'm missing. I know plenty of R rated routes that are R during the easy sections Hair City being a good example of this. Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me?

I really don't know what the best way to grade things is but I am always prepared to either run it out or down climb. I can't see the whole route so there is no guarantee that the gear will be good. You should treat all routes with the same amount of respect. You can just as easily die on a PG route.

As far as what the guidebooks should say, I think I agree with pretty much everyone else in saying that if the run-out is on climbing 2 number grades easier than the crux then there doesn't need to be an R or X. Many people are going to run these sections out anyways, even it there is gear.

If we put an R or X next to every climb with a run-out, half the climbs in NC would have one.

I agree with your notion that it doesn't matter how hard the climb is if you hit that ground... that being said, the convention seems to be to ignore run outs if they are substantially easier than the crux of a climb. Take Icarus/Yellow Spur in Eldo for example. Icarus gets a 5.6R rating because of the run out on the final, exposed, arete pitch. Yellow Spur shares that final run out, however, it is rated 5.9 (no R). The thinking being that if you have climbed the rest of Yellow Spur, than the last section of 5.6 shouldn't bother you. Personally, I'd like to know about any long section without pro, regardless of difficulty... However, reading the beta does address this concern, and on a sport climb, it should be pretty obvious if the 2nd bolt is in ground fall
territory..."

So basically every 60's-70's era first ascent route on the Ten Pins area in the Needles of SD was/is an R or 'X rating. Had to be tough pinching up those crystals for 40 ft. runouts with no bolts in place.

The Adirondack Rock guide book sets a pretty good example for protection ratings. The use ratings like 5.10 G (5.7 R) Meaning all the 5.10 climbing is well protected but there is a long run out on 5.7 climbing.

A rating like this helps out a lot of people, especially those who just aren't comfortable on long run outs, my .02

i really like the dual rating system ie 5.10a (5.7R) sort of thing. rossiter used it on one of his rocky mountain nat park guides, which is really useful for that setting as it also gives an indication for time, as most people will climb an R or X rated pitch more slowly than a G rated pitch. i wish it would have caught on more, but i haven't seen it used very much.

Mitch Hoffman wrote:The Adirondack Rock guide book sets a pretty good example for protection ratings. The use ratings like 5.10 G (5.7 R) Meaning all the 5.10 climbing is well protected but there is a long run out on 5.7 climbing. A rating like this helps out a lot of people, especially those who just aren't comfortable on long run outs, my .02

Yeah, that system is definitely the ideal. The standard for R or X ratings is largely dictated by what the pro is like around the crux, or at the least around substantially difficult climbing.

You can definitely see that even sport climbing was never intended to be brainlessly safe; even places that were rap bolted up to the early 90s or so (Smith Rock, City of Rocks, Endless Wall at the NRG) have plenty of routes that would be considered "run-out" by today's standards. I think that the earlier mentality was that if you are on a 5.11 climb, you should be comfortable doing 5.10a moves 15 feet above a bolt.

That said, if you really think about it, MOST climbs have miniscule sections that are "don't fall" zones, little mini-X ratings if you will. How many sport climbs can you think of on which you would be comfortable falling while clipping the 2nd or 3rd bolt?

To reply to the original thread:

I don't think that hitting the ground necessarily results in an X. I've understood X to mean "possible death." Hitting the ground from a high second bolt may not necessarily result in death, thus an X may not be warranted. You may break a leg when you hit the ground but you probably won't die, thus a climb would get an R.

On a completely random sidenote I love that route. I remember those bolts being a bit runout and you definitely could hit the ground from right at the clips but that happens frequently on 2nd and 3rd bolts. Almost decked from the 3rd bolt a few years ago and it wasn't that runout at all.

Killis Howard wrote: For all the bellyaching you hear about sketch routes, they really do provide a satisfying challenge. Leading a hard, scary route onsight is about as cathartic an experience as you can get. Treasure the routes that really let you know whether you measure up or not.

I totally agree with this and I'm by no means advocating 100% safety in all routes there is always an element of risk, I think people who want that experience should be able to enjoy it.

My point is more to the fact that in this area routes are not even close to runout even on easier terrain. If I'm in the SPlatte climbing a "sport" (loose term for the area) route I know what I'm getting myself into and I can prepare mentally for that situation. When I'm in an area where every route I've climbed has been 2-3 moves and clip I'm expecting that every route will be similar to this. Yep probably my fault for making this assumption.

Yes, generally 2nd and even 3rd bolt terrain can be in grounfall terrain but typically a competent belayer knows how to handle this issue. The 2nd bolt on this route is WAY further out than anything I have experienced in any other area thus my need for insight for further clarification.

My assumption about X routes was incorrect prior to this and I appreciate some of the insight this thread has provided.