Free soloing VS rated X trad routes.

Was thinking about this earlier today. as someone who climbs in North Carolina where "ethics" are very strict and there are places where 30 meter runout is all too common. what is the difference between free soloing and a rated X trad climb. Both of which can be fatal in the event of a fall, but the latter is somehow less dangerous? I feel like easy soloing can be used as a tool for that no fall mentality. kind of whacky how if you do one you are a idiot but if you do the other you're a bad ass. Just bored and want to debate.

I don’t have any particular feelings about this but in the interest of “just wanting to debate” here are the first arguments that come to mind…

There is a difference between “will die” and “might die” that is clearly illustrated here.

There is a major difference in commitment level; if you start to run out of gas on an X rated climb you just have to get to the next placement (potentially) to get a rest opportunity. Free soloing may have no options once you have left the ground.

On the other side, a climber at a certain level of fitness may be better off soloing if they are solid with the climbing. Not spending energy carrying a rack up the wall or making placements may be enough to increase their safety. 

Austin Johnsonwrote:

Was thinking about this earlier today. as someone who climbs in North Carolina where "ethics" are very strict and there are places where 30 meter runout is all too common. what is the difference between free soloing and a rated X trad climb. Both of which can be fatal in the event of a fall, but the latter is somehow less dangerous? I feel like easy soloing can be used as a tool for that no fall mentality. kind of whacky how if you do one you are a idiot but if you do the other you're a bad ass. Just bored and want to debate.

things get x ratings usually because the FA team went ground up with a rope, found no gear etc., ran it out and called it a day. they showed up with a rope, probably envisioned others using a rope, and so it gets the x rating instead of just calling it a free solo; least it seems this way when u ask the FA’s (in NC at least)

The falls on x rated routes can be safe. Take to be or not to be, which is x rated, but if you fall off the crux, I don’t think you will die. It’s the same with no solution as well.

Dying on a Rated X route makes the body recovery much easier, which is significantly more bad ass.

These kind of conversations remind me of the aid climbing rant. If the route is x rated show us the body that proves that. Until then I will just see it as a highly committing route. I think that this applies the most in alpine climbing were people seem to be putting up tones of WI6 M7 X routes that never get repeated.

Then again I am totally off topic here and the worst I have ever done was an R route that was probably more like PG13

Having an actual body count can't be the measure. The danger is there (or not), regardless of if anyone has had to pay the price yet.

The risk rating given to a route is not really an objective measurement. It is nothing like a "percentage chance that you are seriously injured or die", but is more of an indication of when the risk is higher than normal. It has more to do with the context of a route and if (in context) it makes sense to call out a level of risk that is higher than might be expected.

In practice, the more "alpine" a route is, the higher the threshold is for calling it PG-13/R/X. There are many multi-pitch trad routes that could qualify as R or X (mandatory dangerous sections that people have been injured or died on), but that don't even get a PG-13 rating on Mountain Project. It is not that those routes are not dangerous; it is that the assumed base level of risk is very different compared to a typical single-pitch sport crag.

On an X rated route you can fall most places and not die.  Free soloing, pretty much falling anywhere will kill you.  Often the difficult parts of an X rated route are adequately protected if you use a rope, but never are when soloing.

There are X rated climbs where a “running belay” will save your life (given a diligent belayer). 

Jan Mcwrote:

Often the difficult parts of an X rated route are adequately protected if you use a rope, but never are when soloing.

If the crux isn't X, the route isn't X.  

anonymous cowardwrote:

I don’t have any particular feelings about this but in the interest of “just wanting to debate” here are the first arguments that come to mind…

There is a difference between “will die” and “might die” that is clearly illustrated here.

There is a major difference in commitment level; if you start to run out of gas on an X rated climb you just have to get to the next placement (potentially) to get a rest opportunity. Free soloing may have no options once you have left the ground.

On the other side, a climber at a certain level of fitness may be better off soloing if they are solid with the climbing. Not spending energy carrying a rack up the wall or making placements may be enough to increase their safety. 

This sums it up nicely, the difference is fuzzy. If you do the mentioned, you know the difference, if ya don’t, you’re a sport climber.

I am curious why runouts of half a ropelength are common there?  Even the Bachar-Yerian has bolts at 40' spacing where there is no natural pro.  

NC trad climber

Mike Mullendorewrote:

NC trad climber

That looks more like Colorado to me. Can't be though, such humble climbers there.

Stileswrote:

I am curious why runouts of half a ropelength are common there?  Even the Bachar-Yerian has bolts at 40' spacing where there is no natural pro.  

Go and see. Really, it’s amazing.

https://youtu.be/b5F34hWMbwc?si=VpFYPTwYPoexVUR8

Mr. Ondra weighs in on this exact discussion. 

Even if the fall isn’t survivable, there is something comforting about having a rope that makes it feel at least a little safer, even if the rope won’t do anything. I also find that the weight of the rope and rack pulling on my hips makes me climb better, somehow. I just feel more secure. 

The rope provides a degree of mental comfort.  Objective or not.

There are a lot of, innumerable alpine routes where someone can ask you to show one place on that route where you would willingly take a fall, and maybe you can count the locations on one hand.  Objectively, you are probably looking at life-altering injuries in the event of a random fall, at best.  But, you do the route.  And then some time later, you come back to climb it solo ... and, man, it just feels way, way different.  Maybe you can stay in the zone, and those days are magnificent, but I find it hard to keep my mind there.

Any time someone says it's not really R or X they should have to Go up there and take the fall to prove their down grade. 

bridgewrote:

If the crux isn't X, the route isn't X.  

I can relate to the sentiment here -- I detest hype artistry and exaggerating danger for the Gram.

 At the same time, I can think of many serious routes with a well-protected 5.11 crux but also many meters of 5.10+ DFU.

I think the best way to communicate the stakes of a route is what VZ does in his guidebook for the . Obligatory free climbing grade (no-fall-zone) goes in parentheses after the overall grade of the route.

"Routename" 5.10d (5.9R)

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106072110/cleveland-route MP gives this an X but it's likely more of an R, if you blow 5.9 moves you could easily brake something, the most runout part is only 5.4.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105979485/barber-route This route requites 5.8 climbing at a point where the fall is likely lethal and does merit the X.

Routes mentioned by John Bacher in an 80's Climbing Magazine article on the subject of using movie ratings as climbing danger ratings. The cruxes are protected and so bringing a rope definitely makes a difference. Can't find a link for the article but I was an impressionable young man at the time and I did eventually lead both of the routes. X rated does not have to mean no pro at the crux.