Distinguishing between protection ratings R and X

Check out "Bag of Stems", 5.7R. I've climbed it, totally doable and fun on top rope (one of our few chimneys). Otherwise it's a free solo. Also a tricky top rope to set up.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/111665137/bag-of-stems

Best, OLH

Tradiban wrote: I prefer the more modern "movie ratings" for climbs. (PG-13, R, X) "X" isn't the only rating that means death, you can and people have died on easy "PG" 5.6 routes (See Goran Kropp). The movie rating system works better because one mans "R" is another man's "X" and these movie ratings don't really have any distinguishing characteristic that changes it from one rating to another. These ratings are just like difficulty ratings, they are vague guidelines to help people seek and get on routes that are suitable for themselves. To answer your question directly Mark, there is no once characteristic to distinguish "R" from "X", only that "X" is generally more serious than "R". For clarification and because there are many guidebooks and people who still use the more old school definition of "R" and "X", "R" is run-out with good potential for injury and "X" is run-out with suspect gear placements and if placements pull good potential for serious injury or death. Hope that helps ;)

Requoting myself so y'all don't have to bicker ;)

Ryan Swanson wrote:

At 8 years.  Luckily this thread is only 7 years, 11 months old so I'll let it pass

Ha!  Hey, at least I wasn’t the one to revive it.

My ethic is:
G = safe
PG = safe, if you place gear and are ready for the route.
PG13 = safe, but if you blow a key placement or fall before the 2nd or 3rd bolt (or whatever), you are likely to get hurt but not die. These dangerous places are not the physical crux.
R = If you blow something, not the crux, you are going to get really messed up. Probably not something you will walk your self out of.
X = R, but if you blow the crux your're screwed.

Of course this would all evaporate as a problem if everyone came to their senses and switched to using the British grading system for trad........

...until you clip something on your way down or flip upside down.

Carter Smith wrote: My ethic is:
G = safe
PG = safe, if you place gear and are ready for the route.
PG13 = safe, but if you blow a key placement or fall before the 2nd or 3rd bolt (or whatever), you are likely to get hurt but not die. These dangerous places are not the physical crux.
R = If you blow something, not the crux, you are going to get really messed up. Probably not something you will walk your self out of.
X = R, but if you blow the crux your're screwed.

You clearly don't climb around where I live. PG13 could mean anywhere on the route, seen climbs where the crux was a runout at the end where falling would be hitting ledge 20-30ft below you. Heck we have PG13 route with 60ft runout on slab (I like to call it mini snake hike) to the first gear placement, followed by the crux, than another 30ft friction runout to the finish afterward.

X for us means you are free soloing with death if you fall at least 50% of the climb.

ViperScale . wrote: X for us means you are free soloing with death if you fall at least 50% of the climb.

That's funny right there...... ;)

David Coley wrote: Of course this would all evaporate as a problem if everyone came to their senses and switched to using the British grading system for trad........

I agree. Just like the rest of Europe...

In my opinion, PG-13 means runout in which a fall would be long but without much injury potential. R means sparse pro in which a fall would likely result in injury. X means little to no pro in which a fall would likely result in serious injury or death.  

The difficulty grade should not be taken into consideration.  If the climb is 5.10, but the first 40ft. is 5.6 without pro, the climb is 5.10X.  This is no different that difficulty grades. If a climb is 100ft. of 5.5 slab, but ramps up to one 5.11 move somewhere along the way, the climb should be graded 5.11.  

If you're reading a description that is giving you a letter grade to begin with, the description will likely tell you what part of the climb receives the safety rating and the difficulty through the dangerous section.  I've climbed some fantastic "5.10R" climbs that were only dangerous through a much easier section.  I don't usually climb R or X rated climbs unless I know what part receives the safety rating, either from a written description or from my own inspection.

David Coley wrote: Of course this would all evaporate as a problem if everyone came to their senses and switched to using the British grading system for trad........

That's a hard no from me. I like being able to have a separate safety rating of the route so it can be straight and to the point for knowing what I am getting into.  Since the tech grade only gives the single hardest move, a super safe but really steep and sustained route will have the same grade combo (say E4 5c) as a horribly bold route. In one day I think I had an E4 5c I never had to lead above my feet, an E3 5c where I could've had serious air but would have been a safe fall (at worst ankle issues), and an E3 5c that I was pretty sure if I fell I would've pendulum'd into a ledge with serious (though probably non fatal) consequence. This is really a pain for steep face routes where it is both hard to read how good pro is and how good holds are.  It also makes it really hard to judge whether a route would feel acceptable to solo, since there is no part of the grade that inherently reflects the overall difficulty of the actual climbing itself. This is probably hard British trad climbers tend to say what the French grade is as well for their route.  I'd also say that the tech grades become pretty meaninglessly broad at higher levels. 

My general feelings on protection grades are:
PG-13: Tricky/fiddly gear and a good belay may be required, falls may be large, but shouldn't do worse than busting ankles
R: With best possible belay, a fall would likely present serious injury.  Definite no fall zones.
X: With best possible belay, a fall would have a high chance of being fatal. Should feel ok soloing or very nearly feel ok soloing

In each case, I'd only really consider a fall at a "reasonable place" to fall from given the grade.  Not necessarily the crux, but definitely not the run out 5.6 finish to a 5.10 route (as Custer State Park got me accustomed to). Descriptions though hopefully ought to clarify such issues.  I'd also say that commitment plays an important part, if it is reasonable to back off of a crux and retreat to a safe fall zone (or back to the ground or a ledge) then that makes it less likely to be X/R.

I don't climb trad or anything but I think R is potential injury (potential if you don't have a good belayer). X means guaranteed injury with a potential of death.

Tony B wrote: R means a fall (where it would be likely) will likely end your climbing day. X means a fall (where it would be likely) will likely end your climbing year or career.

Tony has it right. Listen to him. Bonus points for keeping it simple without too much explanation. 

Daniel James wrote:

[....]

R: With best possible belay, a fall would likely present serious injury.  Definite no fall zones.
X: With best possible belay, a fall would have a high chance of being fatal. Should feel ok soloing or very nearly feel ok soloing
[....]

This is my interpretation as well. 

Daniel James wrote: In each case, I'd only really consider a fall at a "reasonable place" to fall from given the grade.  Not necessarily the crux, but definitely not the run out 5.6 finish to a 5.10 route (as Custer State Park got me accustomed to). 

This is tricky because subjectiveness comes into play.  Whether or not the R/X portion of the climb feels like a hiking trail to you, it's still objectively dangerous.  For example, a 5.14 climber can still break a hold in a 5.6 section of a climb.  If that 5.6 section of the climb is R/X, their bones will break just the same as the new leader.  You wouldn't call a solo G rated just because its 8 grades below your limit, it's still a solo, and it's still dangerous.

A climb is X if it is as dangerous as this: https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105758724/little-devil 

on stately pleasure dome is a great example of an "R" rated route.  An entire 150' 5.3 pitch with zero protection as well as a cruxy 5.7 friction slab move 20' above a small cam.  Some serious potential to get very hurt.  

Right across the way is You asked for it which is a great example of an "X" rated route.  3 pitches of 5.9-10c climbing with 4 protection bolts and 1 cam placement TOTAL.  This involves many lengthy runouts on hard 5.10 terrain. Lots of serious potential to get very hurt.

Vince Buffalini wrote:

This is tricky because subjectiveness comes into play.  Whether or not the R/X portion of the climb feels like a hiking trail to you, it's still objectively dangerous.  For example, a 5.14 climber can still break a hold in a 5.6 section of a climb.  If that 5.6 section of the climb is R/X, their bones will break just the same as the new leader.  You wouldn't call a solo G rated just because its 8 grades below your limit, it's still a solo, and it's still dangerous.

Well I guess I'd add a qualifier for whether it's chossy rock or not, which of course isn't always perfectly clear.  If it's a decent chance of hold breakage then yeah I'd still be inclined to put a safety rating on, but if the rock is typically solid then I wouldn't really be inclined to.  In most cases that level of difference you can also honestly get away with breaking a hold and not fall off, as long as you are climbing cautiously, which would naturally be the case on a runout.  

I suppose I like the R/X to tell be if I should be carefully considering if I feel up for the route, and have it be reserved for only that.  A 5.10 X where the X is 5.9/5.10 moves, I (or any other 5.10 leader) would carefully consider doing the route, but a 5.10 where an "X rated" part is 5.6, I/most other 5.10 leaders wouldn't think twice about doing it.

I will say, the talk of holds breaking off does give me an appreciation for the British grade "XS" which reflects objective hazard of excessive looseness rather than actual climb difficulty.

Tradiban wrote: I prefer the more modern "movie ratings" for climbs. (PG-13, R, X) "X" isn't the only rating that means death, you can and people have died on easy "PG" 5.6 routes (See Goran Kropp). The movie rating system works better because one mans "R" is another man's "X" and these movie ratings don't really have any distinguishing characteristic that changes it from one rating to another. These ratings are just like difficulty ratings, they are vague guidelines to help people seek and get on routes that are suitable for themselves. To answer your question directly Mark, there is no once characteristic to distinguish "R" from "X", only that "X" is generally more serious than "R". For clarification and because there are many guidebooks and people who still use the more old school definition of "R" and "X", "R" is run-out with good potential for injury and "X" is run-out with suspect gear placements and if placements pull good potential for serious injury or death. Hope that helps 

Quoting myself again so y'all don't get confused.

To paraphrase myself, ratings are vague guidelines to help you avoid getting in over your head and do not have distinguishing characteristics.

Tradiban wrote:
Quoting myself again so y'all don't get confused.

To paraphrase myself, ratings are vague guidelines to help you avoid getting in over your head and do not have distinguishing characteristics.

Always gotta dumb it down to one liners...