'R' Ratings vs Self-inflicted Runouts

Often, the comments on a route will say "oh, this is R-rated due to a runout between X and Y". And someone will invariably chime in with "If you know how to place C3s/Aliens/RPs, there's a placement at spot Z". See, for example, the comments on Hair City - some say there's a runout between the bolts, some say you can tinker in some RPs (though I doubt anyone's tested those RP placements' strength).

When you end up run-out and facing an ugly fall potential, how do you judge whether it was because the route is truly R rated? Obviously there are times (perhaps the majority of my runouts) where you end up with spaced gear because you already used the right-sized piece lower down or were a bit off-route and couldn't traverse to the protectable line, but I'm talking about the rest of the time.

If a piece fits but might not hold a fall, is it R? If a route requires substantial, time consuming zig-zagging off the intended direct line to find suitable placements, is it R? If there's a placement available but it would make the route substantially harder (whether by removing a key hold or due to a strenuous placement position), is the route R?

What qualifies a route as 'R-rated' to you?

I’m not sure, but the number of routes that would retain an R rating in Eldo if you brought the kitchen sink (Totems, C3s, Ballnuts, tricams, brassies, #4 and #5 cam) would be much fewer than what is considered R-rated by most people. There is more gear out there than people bring. R-rated onsight, PG-13 Flash.

I think Hair City is R, regardless, btw. I’ve never found worthwhile placements in that section you reference. Not saying it can’t be made PG-13, but it would be silly to zig-zag as you mentioned.

To me, it’s R-rated if all of the placements are bad, or if you’re climbing on rock that is dangerously chossy, or if you’re runout above a single point of protection that is of questionable quality. Or if you’re suddenly in decking range, obviously. It’s PG-13 if I can find ballnut or C3 or brassie placements that might hold on easier terrain, or if the “no-fall” zone is short on easy terrain for the overall grade of the climb.

I think R/PG13 rating for onsights is good for safety, but also agree that if you have the time and attempts to find fiddlers, you can often reduce the severity.

For me, the R rating is not only due to a runout but the risk of injury. I've done plenty of routes that have long falls but they're clean falls on good gear and don't need an R rating. However, if there is an unprotectable 12-15 ft. vertical section right off a large ledge that would be R to me. If marginal gear is particularly hard to place onsight during difficult, sustained climbing for the grade of the route I think that deserves an R as well. I always think of the R rating as "high risk of injury" and particularly think about this as applied during an onsight or flash attempt when I grade routes, whether that means marginal gear that may not hold or potential to hit the rock at a weird angle or whatever. Weston is right on as well; historic R ratings change as new gear technology allows climbs which were dangerous during the first ascent become much more manageable. 

Having to move around to find the proper placements is, I think, less about an R/PG13 rating and more about the nature of the route. Kind of relating this to typical British climbing routes of seen and some I have done where I've used a double rope system due to how much you have to wonder back and forth. If those placements are good then it's not R rated, it's just the route. If I chose not to wonder over to get a good placement and fall later it's on me as the climber, the protection is available I just chose not to place it.

As for the other portion of your post, if I do a route without the recommended rack then that's on me and it is not R rated. I've done plenty of routes short of the gear I was supposed to have because I've been confident I can send without it, but that of course has nothing to do with the rating of the climb. If I take a 20-footer and shatter my ankle that's just me being an overconfident dumbass.

From Jim Erickson's "Rocky Heights" guidebook (circa the 80's):

"If "R" is placed after the grade of a climb, it means that there exists the possibility of a longer fall, say 20 feet, onto good protection or perhaps a shorter fall onto more dubious protection that could pull. There is a fair chance of being hurt.

If "X" is placed after the grade of a climb it implies a very serious lead. A chance of an extremely long fall, a chance of ripping several pieces of protection out, a good chance of being very hurt, etc.

These gradings will be used only in significant places compared to the route's Decimal grade, i.e. a death pitch of 5.4 on a climb rated 5.9 will not be well-documented, but, a death pitch of 5.6 on a 5.7 climb will be."

These ratings have floated all over the spectrum over the years. And how they are applied varies from area to area and between author/FAists. In my experience and application, "R" means yer probably gonna get hurt. There's a ledge fall, huge swing into corner, likelihood of truly long falls that could produce visceral damage, etc. And it's always situational. It sounds like you want a systematic way to categorize these ratings, but it really doesn't work that way. And on many climbs, there just isn't ANY pro for long enough or in the correct place to make the route physically safe. But the R rating seems to have become synonymous with "scary" nowadays instead of "objectively unsafe", making it all a little...softer

If you end up runout when you could've placed decent gear, that's your fault for making it R. The route may or may not have already been denoted with that rating, but now you've made it so

The gunks meaning of "R" seems to be as follows:

No amount of gear wizardry, for those well-versed in the craft, can render the climb safe. If you fall off the crux, you will very likely be seriously injured.

The gunks meaning of "R" does not include:

• Cruxes that are adequately protected with the smallest cams, brassies, ball nuts, and/or tricams placed on lead (see: Gravity's Rainbow).
• Cruxes with large falls over solid gear and no ledges or other obstacles that present an immediate hazard (see: Slammin').
• Unprotected sections of climbing below the grade of the route (i.e., 5.10 on a 5.12 route) (see: Bone Hard)

Exceptions that could render a route "R" include:

• Pre-placed gear that cannot be placed on lead (i.e., Nouveau Mutants)
• Low-quality rock in which it is difficult or impossible to assess placement quality
• Untested pins of unknown origin that cannot be backed up
• Pre-modified gear (i.e. filed down ball nuts) unique to a specific climb
• Mandatory bouldering pads (though only if not actually used)

R = bring your R-game to this route. 

Then you go to Keyhole Canyon and find 5.6 with two bolts and 60+ ft of slab with potential to smack into at least one ledge and that gets a friendly PG13. 

To me those ratings are just like YDS ratings, they depend on the area. I would not hope on a R rated route in a brand new area I was not familiar with.

I thought "R" was for recommended...

And "X" for excellent.

nbrownwrote:

I thought "R" was for recommended...

And "X" for excellent.

Seemed to work at Whiteside Mountain...

Derek DeBruinwrote:

Seemed to work at Whiteside Mountain...

Yeah buddy. I have an old Boulderdash article recounting a similar story... about a trip up a dangerous Looking Glass route I should send you. Pretty hilarious. 

I thought PG-13 meant a fall will end your season; R meant a fall will end your climbing career; and X meant a fall will end your life.

I could safely (relatively) aid  “edge of fright” in the splatte or “reading Raymond Chandler” in the woo. Doesn’t mean either is totally safe once you’ve added in the strain of actually free climbing the thing. I’ve sent both and definitely wanted more gear.

If you headpoint or rap a route to suss out the gear, it’s totally fine to say that it’s not nearly as dangerous as it is to on-site. Duh.

My personal R is when I don’t bring the right gear or enough of it but I keep going anyway. I do this most often sport climbing, don’t judge, most days I’m happy I remembered to wear pants. Can’t blame the route for my mistake.

Andy Eiterwrote:

I thought PG-13 meant a fall will end your season; R meant a fall will end your climbing career; and X meant a fall will end your life.

I think it’s subjective. Look at Jules Verne. A fall will likely not even end your day, unless you’re too shaken up. But holy damn it’s a long way from that last piece.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsionwrote:

I think it’s subjective. Look at Jules Verne. A fall will likely not even end your day, unless you’re too shaken up. But holy damn it’s a long way from that last piece.

Haven’t multiple people been seriously injured on that pitch?

Andy Eiterwrote:

I thought PG-13 meant a fall will end your season; R meant a fall will end your climbing career; and X meant a fall will end your life.

I usually think of it this way as well. Though my perception of what size fall will create a season, career, or life injury has changed over the years. There are many route here in the PNW that are 7-15 pitches many of which are run out 5.6-5.7 slab with 30-50 feet between pro.  If you fell on these it would be a very bad day and would more than likely end a career but they feel like a pg13 and not an R. 

Andy Eiterwrote:

I thought PG-13 meant a fall will end your season; R meant a fall will end your climbing career; and X meant a fall will end your life.

I have a similar interpretation. PG-13 less severe injury (lacerations, sprains, maybe minor fracture). R guaranteed hospital visit. X death.

Edit: what is this PG and G crap? Normal bolt spacing and over bolted?

I think, as with any evaluation of risk, there has to be some sort of balancing between probability and outcome. A 30’ runout of 5.7 would be R/X for me but maybe only PG-13, or not even that, for a much better climber. The outcome of a fall might be the same for me and a good climber, but the probability of it happening to me makes it riskier for me. 

That’s not to say a climb’s safety rating should reflect the danger posed to the least competent climber. But I would say the difficulty of the climb relative to the difficulty of the section of dangerous climbing should be a factor.

E.g., a dangerous runout 5.4 section of 5.10 is less deserving of a high danger rating than a dangerous runout section of 5.4 on a 5.4.

Any climber on that section of either climb would be about as likely to fall and the consequences would be about the same. However, a climber that is more likely to fall on the 5.4 section of a 5.10, is less likely to even attempt the 5.10 or make it high enough off the ground to experience that section.

All this to say, I am justified in giving that one 1-star 5.4 climb on which I freaked out an R rating. 

For me, if I haven't climbed it before, I consider most multipitch routes where I normally climb to be r rated. I can't count the number of times I've looked down at my last piece of gear on a "not r rated" climb and thought to my self, "I'll likely be seriously injured if I fall here." Not necessarily because of the run out, but sometimes there's just no gear on ledgy terrain and it's easy so it doesn't get that r rating.

Interesting discussion.  When I started climbing, "R" referred to "runout", with the implication that longer runouts carried a higher risk of injury during a fall.  People began referring to some routes as "X", meaning "fall = death".  Here's one way to look at it:   If you die falling off an R rated route, you're a statistical outlier.  If you live after falling on an X rated route, you're a statistical outlier.  Here's another:  R = appendage injuries likely/ guaranteed, ranging from minor sprains (you were lucky) to compound fractures and bad concussions (you weren't lucky).  X = medical trauma guaranteed, aka life threatening injuries to three or more bodily systems.  If you live, you'll wish you hadn't.

I should note something here:  A free fall of 35' is basically guaranteed to kill a worker, according to OSHA.  That's a sobering statistic, given that I ran it out 20' between gear on almost every route I ever did in my first ten years of climbing.  

I think the idea that "it's R rated if an experienced, geared up climber can't find a placement for pro, on the route" is reasonable.  Therefore, self-inflicted R ratings don't really count:  At that point, I think you have to kind of own it, and say, "yeah, it was a great route but I dropped my #7 stopper and turned that one pitch into an R-rated freak show".  Freak-out doesn't count, but a less able/ experienced climber is both more likely to freak out and fall (or freak out, and fall as a result of freak out).  Remember what makes a good climber "a strong broad back and a strong narrow mind".