How low grade-wise does the appetite for sport climbing go?

At what grade do you think there stops being a reasonable community appetite for sport climbs? Is there an appetite for 5.0 sport climbs? 5.1? I've never seen a sport climb below 5.4, but I know, at least in the front range climbing community, there's appetite for sport climbs in the 5.4-5.6 range for sure. What is the minimum grade you think most folks might look for, for one reason or another?

To be clear: I'm asking what you think the climbing community's appetite for sport routes is, not your own. Consider the folks you interact with in the sport not on MP, who aren't diehards or lifers but just like to get out occasionally as well.

3rd class

Anywhere with a large guiding industry (the front range, western washington, the tetons, vegas, joshua tree, yosemite, etc to name a few) will have a large appetite for 5.0-5.8 crags.  In many of those venues, taking novices and particularly families climbing represents a significant part of the work volume and the more of these crags that exist, the easier it is for guides to try and find suitable crags for those clients.  These crags are also really popular with families, large climbing/mountaineering clubs, and boy scout type groups.  

Too easy (probably at the point that wearing a rope feels contrived for a novice, if I had to guess somewhere between 4th class and 5.0?) and people won't be interested because most will realize that they don't need the rope to climb the rock, which will make it feel less like legitimate rock climbing.

This 5.3 at Rumney has 600+ ticks surprisingly:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105888037/clip-a-dee-doo-dah

5.6 or 5.7

I'm a punter who climbs with a lot of punters. A 5.5 or two is nice but even punters want to climb a little harder

 In France some 3rd and 4th class terrain is bolted so that parents can take children on exposed ridge shambles with a length of rope stretched between family members. You see a great deal of this in ski areas and in the Aiguille Rouges.  
This is a long winded way of saying that there's practically no floor. If the bolts can be used to access interesting terrain then people will clip them.

There is certainly significant demand for lower grade sport routes. That is not the question and you allude to the problem: (for the most part) developers bolt routes for themselves not others.

This fact, the expense and workload of bolting a route dictates that those who do it prioritize their own needs/wants. Ie. No one is paying them to do it and they flip the bill so everyone is at the mercy of their priorities.

So… if you would like to see more easy sport climbs…. Why don’t you make some? 

Charlie B wrote:

There is certainly significant demand for lower grade sport routes. That is not the question and you allude to the problem: (for the most part) developers bolt routes for themselves not others.

This fact, the expense and workload of bolting a route dictates that those who do it prioritize their own needs/wants. Ie. No one is paying them to do it and they flip the bill so everyone is at the mercy of their priorities.

So… if you would like to see more easy sport climbs…. Why don’t you make some? 

Tal has developed a whole ass area. I think he is legitimately asking so he can be that person who bolts easy things for others. I think he understands what goes in to bolting a route lol. 

As for the OP question, I think 5.5/5.6 for single pitch is pretty approachable even for absolute noobs that anything below is probably too easy (unless its a really cool feature). 

As for multipitch, I think easy bolted multipitches are super cool. I'm thinking of things like front side 180 in Squamish or theater of shadows (?) at City of rocks. There is something mega satisfying about moving fast up a big ass rock with low danger and not having to worry about gear (bolted). I would honestly climb something that is mostly 4th if it was tall and cool. 

Appreciate the assist there Connor! Yeah, I’m asking because I’m working on developing a crag with low grades for various user groups and I’m trying to find the line between what makes a fun route and what is maybe too easy to bolt. I imagine a 5.4 is more likely to get climbed at a crag of 5.4-5.7, but will a 5.3 get climbed there? A 5.2? Im happy to do them if they’ll get climbed but if I can save the impact, money, and time and not do them since they’re not going to get use, then hell yeah

Edit: P.S. if you’re a COS/Denver area climber looking for easy sport routes and would like to give feedback, hit me up

I guess one thing I didn't think about when making my first reply, is I've put up two 5.3 sport climbs meant as first leads and for people completely new to climbing, and as boring as they were to put up, I get as many people thanking me for putting those up as I do for the climbs I'm actually proud of. 

If you're thinking of putting up a 5.2 or 5.3 I would say don't put up lots of those, but they're amazing for new leaders and people will 100% appreciate you putting them up. 

My nearest crag has 182 routes on MP. But every single time I go there, even if there's only one other car, someone is climbing one of the three 5.4s. The eight 5.5s and three 5.6s are the most polished routes there -- for most of them the crux is between the first and second bolt due to the footholds being glassy-smooth. 

There is definitely a need for low-grade, well-protected sport routes.

Those 5.4s are the only ones within a 4-hour drive, with around a thousand other routes in every direction except due west.

I have taken a few first time climbers out and definitely would put them on whatever the lowest graded climb at a crag was. If I ever encountered a 5.1 I would be excited to use it as an introductory climb for the friend who tagged along or the person who is afraid of heights. That being said I’d probably only go that low if the area is already dedicated to novice routes, otherwise ~5.4 feels like the low end of token “first leader” routes.

Evidence for well loved 5.3s:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105888037/clip-a-dee-doo-dah

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105932996/the-wimpy-gilman-ridge

I have bouldered Clippity Doo Da several times. It's a worthy route and a great spot for new leaders. The standard/tree rout @ Deer Leap in killington VT is a 5.4 trad climb that is steep and exposed but with big holds. Its not a good first lead as the gear is tricky and sparse but its  a great TR fpr new climbers and kids.  Old Ladies route in Seneca is another good trad beginner route. They call it 5.1 but its probobly 5.3

Us Canadian non-ice climbers are always back to 5.3 after a long winter.  

Cody Morris wrote:

~5.4 feels like the low end of token “first leader” routes.

Another vote for the 5.4 level, I've always looked for something about that level for any newbies and kids I've taken out for their first time. Also great for multipitch training/gear dialing/spring jitters to have 3 in a row.

Well, if 5.4 is the lowest grade of interest, shouldn't we just call them 5.0 and regrade the whole spectrum? Grade inflation has gone way too far already. With modern gear/rubber/shoes/chalk, a 5.4 of today is the same as 5.0 when YDS was first proposed.

Patrik wrote:

Well, if 5.4 is the lowest grade of interest, shouldn't we just call them 5.0 and regrade the whole spectrum? Grade inflation has gone way too far already. With modern gear/rubber/shoes/chalk, a 5.4 of today is the same as 5.0 when YDS was first proposed.

Suggested numerous times in the past with the same amount of zero-traction.

Andy R wrote:

This 5.3 at Rumney has 600+ ticks surprisingly:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105888037/clip-a-dee-doo-dah

my older climbing (ultimate gumby) friend was so excited to take me on an epic route, clip-a-dee-doo-dah. After literally walking to the 3rd bolt without touching the rock with my hands i was very disappointed and learned another valuable lesson about this dude. His idea of epic is, do as little to nothing as possible and talk up a huge game.

first and only rant about this rant. thanks for listening lol 

Patrik wrote:

Well, if 5.4 is the lowest grade of interest, shouldn't we just call them 5.0 and regrade the whole spectrum? Grade inflation has gone way too far already. With modern gear/rubber/shoes/chalk, a 5.4 of today is the same as 5.0 when YDS was first proposed.

Because that's not the point? 5.4 can be different from 5.0 in some ways depending on whoever graded it.

5.0 could be a blocky staircase but still need a rope otherwise you'd die if you fell off for whatever reason.

A bunch of gullies leading to base of a crag here are also 5.0. Resetting 5.4 to 5.0 would bump them all to 4th class, which they are not

The Feathers, one of the most popular crags at Frenchman Coulee, AKA Vantage, has a 5.0, two 5.1's, and two 5.4's. All of those climbs get plenty of traffic, just like the rest of the climbs at that crag.

I'd also argue that there are more established 5.0 - 5.5 sport climbs out there than are actually designated as being those grades... Grade inflation seems to have caused this weird almost unspoken convention that sport climbs start at 5.6. Not to sound like an old curmudgeon, but I blame the myriad of climbing gyms that have very soft grades.