The Concept of “R Inflation”

Listening to a recent episode of the the First Ascent Podcast from Jay Knower where him and Andy Salo are discussing how they’re annoyed with this idea of “R inflation” on routes nowadays. Main points being: 

1. The R or X grade is given on a hypothetical (“If that piece of gear blows, then you’re decking.”) This point feels different than a route with a nest of shitty gear, moreso “oh there’s one nut between me and the ground, but it’s buried and has no chance of coming out. It’s R.” Beyond this, and an observation of mine when traveling elsewhere with different rock, is that sometimes routes will be given R simply if they have gear smaller than say a 0.3, even if you can sew it up with small gear. 

2. A route gets R for a much easier but run-out section. Andy makes the point of a 13a R sounds damn impressive, but maybe it’s actually a perfectly protected crux (or a long, clean fall on good gear) and the R section is a section of 5.10 low or high on the route.

Regarding the second point, Andy makes a great point that, in the Gunks, it’s common to see routes of 5.10 with a section of 5.8 R, or 5.6 with 5.4 R, so the grade given in the book or historical writings is something like “5.10 (5.8R)” to denote that it’s a well-protected 5.10 with a run-out easier section. Or it’s mentioned in the description to clearly say that the crux is well-protected but it’s R to it.

What are people’s thoughts on either of those points? I just find it interesting to mull over these conceptual questions because, as Frank Zappa said, “ultimately who gives a fuck anyway?” 

TL;DR

Haven't come across number 1 myself, but I do generally agree that danger ratings should include the likelihood of injury due to gear ripping. 

Number 2 is always a tricky one. If I'm a 5.12 climber on an 11, then a runout section of 8 likely won't bother me. If I'm a 5.10 climber on a 10, then runout 9 might freak me out. Again I think this should follow a rule of assigning danger grades by likelihood and consequence: a pumped 5.10 climber in the latter is much more likely to get hurt than the former 5.12 climber.

Honestly, this is where E-grades make a lot of sense to me. How is the route going to feel for someone climbing at that grade?

My interpretation of the grade qualifiers (i.e., PG-13, R, X) has been:

• PG-13: there is a section or sections where protection is substandard or non-existent, at which a fall could result in injury (broken bones for example). This could mean decking, it could mean hitting a ledge, or just a big ol' winger of a fall where the landing would be bad
• R: there is a runout section or sections where protection is bad/non-existent, where a fall would likely result in very serious injury or potentially death
• X: you fall on this one, you die

I could be wrong obviously, but that's my personal interpretation when I see it. I like the approach you described with how it's done in the Gunks. Part of me feels like it's overkill because if you can climb 5.10, you shouldn't really bat an eye at 5.8 runout sections but hey, more info is nice often times and that seems like a reasonable way to communicate safety information in a very concise manner. When I see a route qualifier I always read the comments or pull up a browser and go to the Opinions for the climb to try and get a feel of the legitimacy of the PG-13/R since you never know exactly why it has that qualifier, i.e., bad gear, no gear available, bad rock, loose, rock, etc etc.

At the end of the day, I think plenty of people lean more towards the purist view of - this is dangerous, you're responsible for your own safety, you figure it out. I like to climb at my limit, I take gear falls, but I also like to go home in one piece so I don't mind some extra information.

I find Devil's Lake notably inconsistent with severity grades. Sometimes this is historical; modern gear can tame routes, but the grades won't budge. If you ask Dave Groth, I believe he argues the severity grade should be reasonable to the onsight climber (contrary to the local headpointer, who might rappel with a magnifying glass and some brassies before the lead). 

Regarding the second point, Andy makes a great point that, in the Gunks, it’s common to see routes of 5.10 with a section of 5.8 R, or 5.6 with 5.4 R, so the grade given in the book or historical writings is something like “5.10 (5.8R)” to denote that it’s a well-protected 5.10 with a run-out easier section. Or it’s mentioned in the description to clearly say that the crux is well-protected but it’s R to it.

I like the use of parenthetical severity grades, e.g. 5.10 (5.8R). This could offer clear expectations to the onsight climber and resolve some issues. 

To give an example at the Lake: Stool Pigeon, well-protected 5.11- crux with a runout 5.8 start, is given an R rating. Peter's Project, well-protected 5.7 start with a runout 5.5 slab higher up, is considered a very safe lead. Those feel a little inconsistent. Another factor often neglected is falling on 5.6 and under is considerably more dangerous, due to the lower-angle rock and/or ledges. I didn't really feel comfortable falling on gear until I was leading 5.10. 

Alternatively, the next iteration of the Devils Lake guidebook could adopt the British grading system! 

I think severity grades have historically been applied inconsistently in the US.  I think it is also worth mentioning that changes in protection (offset nuts, brassies, totems, ball nuts, big bros, etc.) also may make historically hard-to-protect route easy-to-protect.  

I also like parenthetical severity grades, in cases where the crux is well protected, but easier parts of the route are not.  

Yeah, the gear just keeps getting better and better and better, and the grades go up. By as much 3 grades in some cases.?????????????

And it is all drowning in a vast, deep sea of beta.

Cosmic Hotdog wrote:

if you can climb 5.10, you shouldn't really bat an eye at 5.8 runout sections 

Maybe I’m just a weenie, but I violently disagree. I can climb 5.10 (on a good day) but I am fairly squeamish about runouts at any grade. I’ll do them if I have to but I would definitely want to know if there’s runout 5.8 terrain, and it might well put me off the route.

I’m probably OK without an R rating if the runout is around 5.6 or below, assuming the route is otherwise a couple of grades higher. But the best way seems to be the Gunks parenthetical system, which strikes me as superior to the British system, which has its own ambiguities. 

(All that said, I obviously endorse always reading the route description.)

Alex C wrote:

Maybe I’m just a weenie, but I violently disagree. I can climb 5.10 (on a good day) but I am fairly squeamish about runouts at any grade. I’ll do them if I have to but I would definitely want to know if there’s runout 5.8 terrain, and it might well put me off the route.

I’m probably OK without an R rating if the runout is around 5.6 or below, assuming the route is otherwise a couple of grades higher. But the best way seems to be the Gunks parenthetical system, which strikes me as superior to the British system, which has its own ambiguities.

(All that said, I obviously endorse always reading the route description.)

Totally fair, yeah man - that might be too close grade wise to feel good about. It's very subjective and my statement was too broad and assuming. I should have clarified because if 5.10a is someone's limit, 5.8R is reasonably going to give someone pause. If 5.10d is their limit, maybe it's a different story but maybe not. All depends on the person and their risk tolerance

I was always under the impression that impression that an R route meant there was not sufficient gear at the crux and a fall would likely result in an injury.

X routes always meant that the gear is bad enough that a fall could likely end in death.

There are a ton of routes and I’m thinking multi pitch here that have runout pitches but the crux may be safe. As long as the guidebook tells you which pitches are runout than everyone can decide what they feel good about.

There are also places where the route is only safe if you can figure out and find the tricky gear. I haven’t climbed in the Gunks much so I can’t speak for that area but my home area of eldorado has a ton of routes with tricky gear and if you miss a crucial piece you can be in big trouble. Some areas take a lot more skill to fiddle in the gear than others.

I’ve worked on some lines that meet a lot of the scenarios you described…

Scenario 1; Arms Bazaar at bell buttress in Boulder canyon is 5.12a R..  the gear at the 5.12 crux is a very specific placement that is bomber. If you place it incorrectly, or place some other gear instead, a few have paid the price and ended up in the hospital.

Scenario 2; Neurosurgeon at river wall in Lyons CO is 5.12a R… the R is the 40ft 5.9 run out to the top on crumbly rock. You blow it you probably die.

Also, on a  trip to the gunks last month I experienced the safety rating mentioned first hand on Outerspace Direct. It’s a 5.10b pg13; it starts off with a 40ft 5.8 traverse with zero gear well off the deck. If you blew those moves, you’re in the same scenario as the R rated routes above..

In all of these experiences I was thankful there was a safety rating attached so I knew to approach the route differently than I would otherwise. If the price you’d pay is getting mangled, I think the R rating regardless of what section is rated such, is keeping people out of the hospital, and still warrants some respect! Seems like an ego trip to be annoyed people are claiming ascents with R ratings.. but also an ego trip to be overly proud of climbing an R rated line?

Ultimately we’re spending our free time doing  a super arbitrary thing that contributes to the greater good in no way. 

Ryan Enright wrote: In all of these experiences I was thankful there was a safety rating attached so I knew to approach the route differently than I would otherwise. 

I can think of a few places where so much of the climbing is R rated that the guidebook authors decided to eschew the rating all together. It's simply the expectation of the area. Every route is dangerous, and the few that do have R ratings, should really make you reconsider. 

nbrown wrote:

I can think of a few places where so much of the climbing is R rated that the guidebook authors decided to eschew the rating all together. It's simply the expectation of the area. Every route is dangerous, and the few that do have R ratings, should really make you reconsider. 

Yeah I guess that’s the other thing we aren’t talking about… climbing is inherently dangerous and people have died on 5.8 sport routes by mishandling anchor cleaning etc etc. Like you said, it’s nice to know when a route is inherently more risky or dangerous than what we are used to accepting.

Dan Mydans wrote:

I was always under the impression that impression that an R route meant there was not sufficient gear at the crux and a fall would likely result in an injury.

X routes always meant that the gear is bad enough that a fall could likely end in death.

There are a ton of routes and I’m thinking multi pitch here that have runout pitches but the crux may be safe. As long as the guidebook tells you which pitches are runout than everyone can decide what they feel good about.

There are also places where the route is only safe if you can figure out and find the tricky gear. I haven’t climbed in the Gunks much so I can’t speak for that area but my home area of eldorado has a ton of routes with tricky gear and if you miss a crucial piece you can be in big trouble. Some areas take a lot more skill to fiddle in the gear than others.

That is what I also understood the system to mean as well. PG13, to me, has meant poorly protected climbing a bit lower than the represented grade (i.e. 10c climbing on an 11a route) but wouldn't represent a runout on easier terrain (5.9 on a 5.11 route).  I've also seen PG13 represent tricky gear that is absolutely necessary to safety on route, which I found an interesting way to indicate some form of danger on a pitch.

As for the small gear represented in R or PG13 grade, I could see that in certain rock types. I've taken a big fall onto a grey c3 in granite and felt fine on it. I wouldn't even bring a piece that small to most sandstone crags around the Utah desert. 

At least for well documented routes, an R grade, for me, simply means I really need to do my homework before deciding to attempt it. I need to do some reading, or as much direct inspection as I can to ascertain if it's an unprotected section of low difficulty climbing, or that the rock is poor quality, or if it's just sparsely protectable/completely unprotectable. I also need to be more willing to bail, downclimb, etc. if I get out of my depth than I might on a well bolted sport route. I think the idea that you should be able to know everything you need to from a few letters and numbers right after then name of the route is overrated, and honestly not really possible. Even with British trad grades, there's a spectrum from "hard climbing but well protected" to "easier climbing but very high consequence" that all fall in the same E grade and isn't 100% apparent just from looking at the rating.

Natalie Blackburn wrote:

At least for well documented routes, an R grade, for me, simply means I really need to do my homework before deciding to attempt it.

This seems like it should be the goal. And got me thinking of moderate NorCal routes without a danger grade, but with runouts, that I’ve done in the past year. Should they have a danger grade? I dunno, but here they are:

- Corrugation Corner (5.7): the last pitch is mostly easy 5.5 “dike hiking,” but with almost no protection. Could be scary for a 5.7 climber. And you really want to test those dikes before committing (they do occasionally break apparently). I haven’t done Surrealistic Pillar, but I think the same applies. Under the Gunks system, I think they would be 5.7 (5.5 R)?

- After Seven (5.8): there’s a little 5.8 face runout, probably not R, but maybe PG13 because a fall would be a nasty swing on smallish gear. One commenter on MP says he got seriously injured there. (For historical reasons, probably will never get a danger grade.)

- Shagadelic and the Boltway (5.8): both well-bolted by Tuolumne standards, but still have 20-25 runouts between bolts. If you thought of them as “sport routes” — which admittedly you probably shouldn’t — I guess they would be PG13.

- Bull Dozier (5.7): the direct start is an unprotected 5.6 slab for like 30 feet. Headier than I expected, though I guess you can go around it. Still, PG13?

A related question is about the variance in the seriousness of consensus R-rated routes. Some say Fantasia (5.9 R) at the Leap should be X, after last year’s death. The nearby Scimitar (5.9 R) is apparently pretty chill by comparison.

Just food for thought!

I really like the Gunks strategy you mentioned and wish it was an option on MP.  Hence the first sentence of my description of Levity's End in Sequoia National Park.  The 5.10 eats gear, but there are two 5.7 pitches in a row with like 3 old bolts combined between them.  I try to use that rating system at SEKIclimbing.com when I know it applies.  Bring it to MountainProject!  

Ryan Enright wrote: Also, on a  trip to the gunks last month I experienced the safety rating mentioned first hand on Outerspace Direct. It’s a 5.10b pg13; it starts off with a 40ft 5.8 traverse with zero gear well off the deck. If you blew those moves, you’re in the same scenario as the R rated routes above..

You definitely missed some gear climbing Outer Space Direct, which I think proves another point to this argument. With a little searching you can make the climb PG 13 (due to a 6 ft pendulum swing into a bit of an edge).

As a Gunkie, I like the way that the gunks does their grading with the secondary grade giving the difficulty and risk for the worst section, however, one thing I noticed when I first came to the gunks was that 10 foot runout is still often referred to as G if the route is 5.8 or below. The other thing I like about the gunks system is that if it is protectable, it gets G even if the gear is hard to find or finicky. I think the rating system becomes to confusing if we include difficulty in finding gear, and if you are climbing high enough above the grade of the climb (Like Ryan) you can run the section out, or take the extra time trying to find the gear, and either way is relatively safe.

Alex, similarly, I was on Broken Arrow at Pinnacles NP the other week. It's 10d R, but the R is because It's got about 40' of 5.5 climbing on poor quality rock before things clean up at the first bolt. After that, bolts are reasonable and the rock is good. If you're okay soloing to that first bolt, it's fine. If you're not, you should know ahead of time.

Alex C wrote:

This seems like it should be the goal. And got me thinking of moderate NorCal routes without a danger grade, but with runouts, that I’ve done in the past year. Should they have a danger grade? I dunno, but here they are:

- Corrugation Corner (5.7): the last pitch is mostly easy 5.5 “dike hiking,” but with almost no protection. Could be scary for a 5.7 climber. And you really want to test those dikes before committing (they do occasionally break apparently). I haven’t done Surrealistic Pillar, but I think the same applies. Under the Gunks system, I think they would be 5.7 (5.5 R)?

The problem with giving Corrugation a danger rating is two-fold: The old school approach was if the unprotected climbing was at least a grade below the grade of the route, it didn't get a danger rating. On top of that, it actually is protectable even on the upper 5.5 pitch if you want to get creative slinging things and fiddling with weird gear, but even with long slings, you'll have some heinous rope drag, its easier and arguably safer to run it out. Surrealistic pillar didn't feel "R" to me, I could see an argument for PG-13 in the way it is used now but I'm not surprised at the lack of danger rating on it. And more generally for the Leap, if Corrugation and Surrealistic both get an "R", then basically everything there under 5.9 needs an "R", which kind of defeats the purpose of using the danger grade to begin with. Corrugation may be on the bold side of the grade compared to a lot of places, but at the Leap, it's pretty run-of-the-mill. Or to put it another way, if an "R" on Corrugation scares people away or makes them "more alert", that's just how they should treat most routes at the Leap, and then the actual "R" routes would sneak up on them and those people wouldn't have a good way to be alerted to the unusually high danger of those routes compared to everything else around them.

A related question is about the variance in the seriousness of consensus R-rated routes. Some say Fantasia (5.9 R) at the Leap should be X, after last year’s death. The nearby Scimitar (5.9 R) is apparently pretty chill by comparison.

I look at danger rating much like grades, they exist on a spectrum. I also believed Fantasia to be, at least, on the edge between R and X, whereas Scimitar seems to be on the less scary/dangerous side of R. I haven't climbed either of them but in talking to friends/locals who have, that was my impression. I also treat R as meaning "serious injury likely, death possible" and X as meaning "serious injury guaranteed, death likely" in a fall, which is part of why I haven't climbed either yet. I have climbed other R rated routes and tend to approach them very conservatively.

James Moffatt wrote:

......The old school approach was if the unprotected climbing was at least a grade below the grade of the route, it didn't get a danger rating......

The "old school" approach was NO danger rating. All mountaineering activities are inherently dangerous. Assessing the risk on sight and/or on site, on your own and for yourself, was an integral part of the game. On every climb.