WTF is fourth class, and how/should you protect it?

FrankPS wrote:

Helen, I thought the "Unsubscribing" comment was quite funny.  When you post on the Internet, you are vulnerable to all kinds of comments and, try as you may, you can't really stop them. Sure, you can flag comments you don't like, but that is like pushing a boulder uphill.

For the record, I did not anonymously give two thumbs up; I gave it two thumbs up out in the open!

You have previously stated that you can't afford a guide. And, when you've been advised to read a book, you've stated that you'd rather have a "live" person (on the Internet is "live"?) explain it to you. 

You work at a climbing gym, so why can't you find an experienced mentor? Even some college students might have some experience they could share with you, in person.

Missy says "hi."

Edit: As the old saying goes, "Experience is the best teacher. " While not entirely true (if that experience gets you hurt or killed), you need to get some mileage on the rocks with someone more experienced. Many of your questions will be best answered that way.

Frank, if experience is the best teacher, maybe someone experienced, oh, I dunno, maybe someone like you should come up here and take me out for my first run at trad? I'll even buy some beer some random stranger can drink on our behalf.

Don't worry, if you happened to mosey up here some decade, it would be fun to meet you, but I don't expect that would ever happen.

I am (excruciatingly slowly) getting just plain climbing partners lined up, but it is tough. Just look through the requests on MP from all over, asking for folks to teach/mentor. A whole lot of goose eggs in the replies.

And, one thing I have learned on here, years of climbing experience doesn't predict even competency sometimes. People who really know what they're talking about, with a few exceptions, tend to....not talk.

So. Glad you were amused. I wasn't. It happens, I'll live. But I do enjoy bantering with you and others on here.

Best, OLH

As always, give the pooches a scratch from me.

Peter L Scott wrote:

The question I have this far down the road. Helen did you ever do the climb and how did it go? Also do you now have a better understanding of 3rd and 4th class?

Hah! 

You missed the "when the snow melts" part. This is up a bit higher than the local ski area, and Idaho's snowmelt is only just starting. High country is still getting snow, even this weekend, when it hit 80 in Boise earlier this week.

We officially have flooding in Ketchum, Boise, and many other locales. Minorish, although into homes and businesses now, not just pastures and the greenbelt.

Reservoirs are almost full, and the big stuff is still to come.

I've been up there once, obviously, but chose to save the climb to do as a lead, or at least an attempt. :-)

Best, OLH

rgold wrote:

But if you are using a guide plate on the anchor for belaying the second on a traverse, it is  likely to fail if the rope to the second runs horizontally out from the belay stance to a protection point, so that a fall by the second produces a horizontal load on the belay.

I've read that somewhere, but have there been any real world failures or tests to show this is the case? Unless there's some interference with the belay device, shouldn't a traverse fall pull the device to the side and load it in the same configuration as if the second is falling straight down?

Kedron Silsbee wrote:

Why "to his credit"?  If historically the dividing line between 3rd and 4th class was whether "ropes and belays" were required for safety, surely exposure is a very relevant factor, no?  Ignoring the history, and just considering what distinctions are most useful, I would think that since almost any climber can easily do the moves on 3rd and 4th class, pure difficulty isn't what people would be most interested in. The useful information they're probably trying to determine from whether it's class 3 or class 4 is "do I want to climb this without a rope".  For me, this decision depends on some combination of exposure, difficulty, and rock quality, so I would want the grading system for scrambling to reflect all of those things.

Well, I've already heaped scorn on  the historical antecedents, so invoking them as a reason to include "exposure" isn't going to convince me.  The "do I want to climb this without a rope" is meaningful in its own way to each individual climber, but is worthless as a classifying criterion, because of the enormous range of difficulties climbers can and do climb without protection.  Then there is the fact that "exposure" as a term is hardly well-defined, and finally is the fact that there are utterly class 1 hiking paths that are fearfully "exposed."

"Some combination of exposure, difficulty, and rock quality" makes sense in theory, but in practice is subject to the climber variations just mentioned above, now spread over three sub-criteria rather than one.  Fifth-class climb difficulties are not given by such verbal descriptions, and for good reason.  The scrambling grade or grades should be determined by difficulty examples, because there really isn't another good way. 

I suppose one could add some kind of "exposure" rating for unroped scrambling akin to the protection ratings for fifth-class climbs, say PG, R, and X (I assume there is no such thing as G-rated scrambling).  This would distinguish between, say, scrambling up a gully and scrambling along an arete with steep dropoffs on both sides.

aikibujin wrote:

I've read that somewhere, but have there been any real world failures or tests to show this is the case? Unless there's some interference with the belay device, shouldn't a traverse fall pull the device to the side and load it in the same configuration as if the second is falling straight down?

I don't know about "real world failures," but wouldn't want to be the first. There aren't that many traversing pitches that come horizontally straight to the belay, so the circumstances for a "real world failure" are not frequent.   

The guide plates work by having the load strand pinch the brake strand, and this no longer happens (or at least the effect is greatly diminished)  if the plate is lifted to the side.  After all, that's how you lower someone!

rgold wrote:

I don't know about "real world failures," but wouldn't want to be the first. There aren't that many traversing pitches that come horizontally straight to the belay, so the circumstances for a "real world failure" are not frequent.   

The guide plates work by having the load strand pinch the brake strand, and this no longer happens (or at least the effect is greatly diminished)  if the plate is lifted to the side.  After all, that's how you lower someone!

Well, you lower someone by pulling the ATC guide into a horizontal position while the loaded climber's strand is still pulling straight down. It's not the sideways orientation of the device but the fact that you're making device and rope perpendicular rather than parallel that allows the release. I can't see any mechanical reason that the device wouldn't work the same way in any orientation, so long as there was nothing obstructing the device from being pulled into the same direction as the load on the rope. You can even have the load strand and device oriented straight up, as when using the device to ascend rope. (not in a position to search right now, but I believe BD even provides instructions for doing this with the ATC guide?)

Or maybe there's another factor I'm missing here - can I ask, in the absence of tests or documented failures, where your certainty comes from that the brake strand won't be pinched or the effect at least greatly diminished? 

This is getting way more complicated than need be.

I propose a new updated easy to use system;

• Class 1; Regular walking on semi flat surfaces like the sidewalk between your passat or bicycle and the gym door.
• Class 2; Well manicured trail from the asphalt wilderness parking lot your passat is in to The base of anything that resembles a mountain. 
• Class 3; Same trail as class 2 but where it gets steep heading up the mountain and your heart does that poundy thing in your ears. Skree may be involved. 
• Class 4; Scrambling, some hands required but no need for a rope. Blocks, ledges, gullies, Skree all may be involved. If you can't do this without getting hurt stay off class 5 

If you are uncomfortable doing anything below 5 unroped feel free to rope up. I recommend old school standing hip belays.

;) JB

Sorry Helen, for some reason I thought this was an old post that got revived. I hope you'll understand, old age and stuff. I am guessing your getting a grasp of what 4th class is. To all beginners and anyone for that matter, if you feel like you need a belay ask. If your partner scoffs at that, demand a belay.

That's a lesson I learned when I was teaching my wife how to climb 28 years ago. When she would ask for a belay on an approach or descent I would say come on you can do it. I would be irritated and frustrated. After this happened a number of times she sat me down and taught me a thing or two about looking out for someone you care about. Now if she said she was nervous about a flight of steps, I'd bust out the rope. Throw in a hip belay with a smile on my face and tell her "On belay"

Old lady H wrote:

Do you have any idea how discouraging some of you are to beginners, or, even just to those seeking to learn more?

I get it, what you are saying here, but there is that whole 'LMGTFY' (Let Me Google That For You) thing too:
https://www.google.com/search?rls=aso&client=gmail&q=what%20is%204th%20class%20climbing&authuser=0

Number one match is:
http://www.safeclimbing.org/about_overview.htm

So yeah, no need for answers to be rude, but also no need to ask the crowd to write up what some fairly reputable sources have already set out in detail before checking in on that.

Rgold,

Thanks, that's good to know. I have on a very few occasions had the device in auto locking mode with the climbers rope running somewhat less than vertical, and treated it as an assisted braking rather than autolocking situation, so to speak, with my hand on the brake strand in braking position. Though it always locked up just fine, as you said it's a rare situation and therefore a very small sample size, and I've never seen anything definitive either way. 

Tony B wrote:

I get it, what you are saying here, but there is that whole 'LMGTFY' (Let Me Google That For You) thing too:
https://www.google.com/search?rls=aso&client=gmail&q=what%20is%204th%20class%20climbing&authuser=0

Number one match is:
http://www.safeclimbing.org/about_overview.htm

So yeah, no need for answers to be rude, but also no need to ask the crowd to write up what some fairly reputable sources have already set out in detail before checking in on that.

Actually, this is an interesting case, because if you check enough of the "fairly reputable sources," you discover that they may not all agree on the details.  Asking here might get you some perspective you'd miss with google.

In any case, I would have thought "the crowd" is perfectly capable of taking care of itself, and doesn't need to be protected from requests for information, which it can always refuse by simply not responding.  And why are people who object to their time being wasted with questions already known wasting their time posting complaints about such questions being asked? Obviously, the time they seem to protective of doesn't actually matter, or they'd be off discussing something of real interest to them somewhere else.  

I think the reality is that there seems to be a bit of ultimately pitiful fun in shaming people who don't know answers that you do know.  A chance to lord a shred of superiority over someone.  We live in contentious and mean-spirited times that sometimes celebrate humiliation and view concern and empathy as a snowflake trait, so I don't think we can expect a whole lot in terms of common decency when it comes to internet behavior.  The forum instructions say "don't be a jerk," but that actually means "don't be an exceptionally out-of-line massively abusive jerk." Ordinary snarkiness just comes with the territory and is now pretty much as American as apple pie.  To quote an expert: sad!

One result is that if you are a novice, you need a thick skin.  For sure someone will try to make fun of you.  Think of it as unavoidable background static on a noisy channel.

Tony B wrote:

I get it, what you are saying here, but there is that whole 'LMGTFY' (Let Me Google That For You) thing too:
https://www.google.com/search?rls=aso&client=gmail&q=what%20is%204th%20class%20climbing&authuser=0

Number one match is:
http://www.safeclimbing.org/about_overview.htm

So yeah, no need for answers to be rude, but also no need to ask the crowd to write up what some fairly reputable sources have already set out in detail before checking in on that.

Thank you for showing there is wildly conflicting information out there. :-)

That's where this thread drifted, so I changed the title so, gee, future googlers of fourth class might find it.

My first post does not ask what fourth class is, I just say I dunno cause I don't. And I already saw what you linked to. Fuzzy as hell, has been for a long time. What class doesn't matter, I have a particular exposure difficulty coming up, and, that has also been addressed by others, rather nicely.

Thanks for chiming in on my reply to literally the first response to this thread. Page one. 

Best, Helen

EDIT TO ADD: that post was deleted, Tony, and only exists now because I quoted it in my reply. But it was the first, stupid, response.

Em, and rgold, a horizontal belay device is at least an easy thing to monkey around with, sans falls, so I will play with the angles and hand awkwardness (or not) next time I'm harnessed up.

Best, H.

definitions of class 3, 4 and low class five vary a lot not just from state to state, but also when the climb was rated. For example, at one point the east buttress of Mt Whitney was rated 4th class, now its 5.7, with 5th class moves on most of the 10 pitches. The summit block of Cathedral in Tuolumne is "4th class" as well, but I'll be damned if its more than a grade easier than  5.6, with exposure too, but since John Muir did it in the 19th century it must be under 5th class WTF

rafael wrote:

at one point the east buttress of Mt Whitney was rated 4th class, now its 5.7, with 5th class moves on most of the 10 pitches. 

then again, maybe the early climbers on whitney figured out sneaky ways around the 5th class moves? I dunno how many could be circumvented, at least the 5.7 stuff I bet

Gunkiemike wrote:

I hesitate to disagree with a European, given the much greater popularity of the Munter over there, but...

I disagree with you.  With the Munter, braking is achieved when the brake strand is alongside of the load strand.  If it's opposed to it (a la ATC braking) there is very little friction; certainly not enough to catch a FF2 fall.

Belaying with the two strands parallel hasn´t been taught (at least in Germany) for maybe 15 years, the DAV decided that climbers should learn to use the same action as for an ATC etc for all belay devices and for lead falls the opposed mode gives satisfactory results. Fortunately this means that if an unexpected fall results in a FF2 then the two strands become parallel which is indeed the stronger of the two braking modes. The braking force in either direction is more than an ATC XP.

Freedom of the Hills gives 75% of the braking power with the strands opposed compared with parallel and my tests show:-

(10mm rope, 12mm round stock HMS karabiner, 25kg hand force)

Parallel 2.76kN

Opposed 2.25kN

Compared with an ATC XP in the normal (opposed) orientation;-

High Power 2.18kN

Low power 1.46kN

Naturally in the parallel configuration the ATC produces nothing.

Here's an ATC XP question, maybe for you, Jim?

If the brake strand is not in the high friction slot, but has ridden up and over the side of the device, how much would that change the braking? At a glance, it seems like it wouldn't be any worse than a simple tube device, but what do I know?

I had the opportunity to read a paper or two, or, lots, actually, on belay devices, and your writing is by far the most informative and with the most information. Fun reading, too!

Thanks, Helen

H, for class 4 traverses (with some sort of pro every so often) a hip or butt belay is the way to go. The "orientation" of the "device" does not affect braking ability.

Someone with a slide rule and a Newton meter will probably correct me ;)

I find it amusing that someone complains in almost every one of your threads about "time wasted" 

Richard hit it on the head up-thread, the internet is just making people mean IMO.

Your topics go on for page upon page with tons of useful information flowing out of some very knowledgeable people during some meaningful discussion in and amongst the drifts. 

^^^^^^^Diagram that sentence^^^^^^^^^

JB

Old lady H wrote:

Here's an ATC XP question, maybe for you, Jim?

If the brake strand is not in the high friction slot, but has ridden up and over the side of the device, how much would that change the braking? At a glance, it seems like it wouldn't be any worse than a simple tube device, but what do I know?

I had the opportunity to read a paper or two, or, lots, actually, on belay devices, and your writing is by far the most informative and with the most information. Fun reading, too!

Thanks, Helen

The ropes just slide down into the vee grooves, can´t see how you could realistically keep them out, maybe doing something wierd rapping you could manage to hold them out but otherwise the plate just twists into the correct orientation. If you could keep them out then I guess it´s just going to be maybe a bit better than an ATC but twist the rope to hell.