R/X on aid routes

Routes like https://www.mountainproject.com/route/107093819/scorched-earth and some others indicate PG13/R/X next to A4 or A5 grades.

Are PG13/R/X always about the free climbing?

Yes, there is can be free and aid climbing on a route. So for example the free climbing is 5.8 PG13 whereas the aid climbing is A4 (edit: These ratings may not necessarily apply to the route in question but in general).

Depends upon the first ascensionist. Beyer uses R/X in relationship to his aid ratings. Many people erroneously believe that aid ratings have the PG13/R/X contained within the A rating but this just isn't true unless the FAist indicates that they graded it with that in mind. Aid ratings refer to the difficulty of making the placement and the likelihood of each piece of protection holding body weight vs holding a fall, the higher the rating the longer the stretch of bodyweight only pieces and thus, the longer the fall. Long falls don't necessarily mean PG13/R/X as you can have a 100' A5 pitch where if you fall from the top you fall into 200' into space or you can have an A2 pitch where if you mess up you can fall 30' onto a ledge. One is fun and the other is no fun, you choose which is which. So really, to answer your question, it depends upon the first ascentionsit's perspective on how to use PG13/R/X (or how the person who makes the guide perceives things).

Your example is interesting in that not only did the First Ascentionst not rate anything as PG13/R/X (see original topo here) but he rated it as 5.11 (because Randy Leavitt freeclimbed the Leavittatior whereas most climbers aid it at C1 now.) Sloan's guidebook rates it as 5.7 not 5.8 and without a safety rating. I don't know why Dave Alden decided to add a safety rating to the climb, you'd have to ask him, unless it was because he was rating it under the idea that the FAist free climbed the Leavittator with big cams combined with wooden blocks, but that wouldn't make sense with his 5.8 rating so who knows)

I'm not sure what Allen Sanderson above is talking about for this route as there is no 5.8 pitch on the entire route so I doubt this non-existent pitch would be dangerous enough to warrant a PG13 rating.

Welcome to aid climbing, where standardization comes to die. 

I saw lots of Beyer routes using R/X, but figured he's off in his own world and doesn't really represent lots of other people. So it sounds like the new wave ratings (referring to http://www.bigwalls.net/climb/Ratings.html ) didn't take? I was going to ask if guidebooks make an effort to regrade old school non-trade routes with new wave grades, but lordy.

God damn do I wish that something like the bigwalls.net forum was still around. :|

Everett wrote: God damn do I wish that something like the bigwalls.net forum was still around. :|

Bigwalls.net forum was moved to Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Bigwallsforum/ Same moderators (Like me!) with a slightly larger crowd and no searchable forum database, but any info you need will get responded to. John also made the old forum static and searchable so all of the old stuff is still in there and you can easily reference the thread in a post on the FB page if you want to update or continue the conversation. Not idea by any stretch of the word but it's what we got.

Everett wrote: I saw lots of Beyer routes using R/X, but figured he's off in his own world and doesn't really represent lots of other people. So it sounds like the new wave ratings (referring to http://www.bigwalls.net/climb/Ratings.html ) didn't take? I was going to ask if guidebooks make an effort to regrade old school non-trade routes with new wave grades, but lordy.

I'm not sure what you mean about new wave ratings not taking. 

There's two things that people could mean by saying "new wave"
1. The updating of grades based upon the advent of new gear (as referenced in the linked article from John's page)
2. The holistic rating system that Bridwell attempted to bring into being where "Not too Bad (NTB), Pretty Darn Hard (PDH), Don't Fawk Up (DFU) etc

1. These updating of grades to the "New Wave" have definitely taken for any climb that has been climbed in recent years which is why we see climbs like Tribal Rite, Shield, Zodiac, etc having grades that are significantly lower than when they were put up.

2. Nope, this will never catch on, mostly because even though the A ratings are just as nebulous as PDH or NTB, the simple appearance of a measurable metric that applies to A-ratings makes most climbers (and grade chasers) feel more secure.

It's interesting as the Bridwell system was actually a bit closer to the English system of grading where the danger is given a separate grade from the technical grade. So with Bridwell's system you do have a R/X rating, except that instead of R/X you have DFU, thus you can have a PDH pitch which I would rather climb than a NTB DFU because that DFU means if you blow it, you're not going to have a good time. 

kevin deweese wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean about new wave ratings not taking. 

There's two things that people could mean by saying "new wave"
1. The updating of grades based upon the advent of new gear (as referenced in the linked article from John's page)
2. The holistic rating system that Bridwell attempted to bring into being where "Not too Bad (NTB), Pretty Darn Hard (PDH), Don't Fawk Up (DFU) etc

1. These updating of grades to the "New Wave" have definitely taken for any climb that has been climbed in recent years which is why we see climbs like Tribal Rite, Shield, Zodiac, etc having grades that are significantly lower than when they were put up.

2. Nope, this will never catch on, mostly because even though the A ratings are just as nebulous as PDH or NTB, the simple appearance of a measurable metric that applies to A-ratings makes most climbers (and grade chasers) feel more secure.

It's interesting as the Bridwell system was actually a bit closer to the English system of grading where the danger is given a separate grade from the technical grade. So with Bridwell's system you do have a R/X rating, except that instead of R/X you have DFU, thus you can have a PDH pitch which I would rather climb than a NTB DFU because that DFU means if you blow it, you're not going to have a good time.

Aid Climbing Ratings

Based on my shaky understanding, old school was fall distance -- as you described up top, with A5 potentially being long and maybe into space and A2 being short but maybe onto a pointy stick. Also shaky understanding of new wave, as described by Middendorf, includes hazards, such as A4 having "uncertain landings far below". Honestly, as someone trying to stumble their way in, old school + danger ratings (or Bridwell's method) is much more friendly. Sort of inverted grade chasing, where I want to see what's not too far over my head.

While I was flipping through the books, I happened to stumble on this gem in the Supertopo Road to the Nose:

In the early ’90s the “new wave” rating system was introduced to wall climbs in Yosemite Valley. Although it was originally touted as being more precise than the previous A1-A5 system, it is now clear that the new wave system only brought more confusion to the ratings process. This book ignores the new wave system and reverts to the system introduced 30 years ago, with a few modifications. That said, this new system will have problems, and it is in no way the final word in aid ratings.

Death of standardization, indeed.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

Aid Climbing Ratings

Yeah we’ve all seen that video. (And we all know that Chris Kalous was joking) as the text just below the video says 

Chris Kalous gives us the low down on hard aid climbing. In case you don't get it, it's supposed to be a joke! As in funny! So laugh, and stop taking it so seriously. Freakin aid climbers. Sheesh.

The reason it’s a joke is because it’s an exploration upon a false premise of the common misunderstanding: that aid ratings are somehow connected to objective danger.
What he says about hooks is true more often than not up on trade routes. Less so on obscurities.

PG, PG13, R, X are free climbing ratings, the intention behind these distinctions is already built into aid ratings.

Healyje wrote: PG, PG13, R, X are free climbing ratings, the intention behind these distinctions is already built into aid ratings.

No. It’s not. 

Everett wrote: I saw lots of Beyer routes using R/X, but figured he's off in his own world and doesn't really represent lots of other people. 

Understatement of the year. Ha ha.

kevin deweese wrote:

No. It’s not.

Yes, it is.

Healyje wrote: Yes, it is.

agree, yes it is.

Sorry I just had to leave the simple response. But that's how I leaned it in the 90's. A1 simple placements, little danger of ledge fall. --> A5 hard aid placement and good chance of hitting something. So A1 = G rated, A4 and A5 = R/X rated

Oh man...I can't believe I got sucked into a ratings debate on a gorgeous day

Healyje wrote: Yes, it is.

There's zero free on mountainproject.com/route/1… .

Smells like I'm going to have to stick to reading trip reports and getting advice to make sure I don't get in over my head. Thanks for the tippies.

Smh 

Everett wrote:

There's zero free on mountainproject.com/route/1… .

There's zero free on the route and the only thing that says is MP is exposing the PG->X options for aid when they shouldn't be - i.e. it's a website problem unrelated to any reality/consense around aid ratings.

Apologies for stirring the pot.

From Andy Kirkpatrick's new book:

I'd say take it up on Supertopo and you'd get your answer pretty quick...

I suspect I'd get more answers, not the answer. But when one, let alone two prolific wall climbers say the same thing, I read it as: either there's a lack of consistency and I should watch my ass or there's consistency and I should watch my ass.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯