Do we need a better system for grading trail/backcountry difficulty?

S

ski0

Active member
I've been living in Squamish BC the last few months and I am really starting to get into rock climbing - Its a really kickass offseason activity. Anyway, one of the great things about climbing is that all established climbing routes are graded based on their difficulty using the Yosemite decimal system (ex. 5.10a). The first number refers to the "class" of the climb (from simple scrambling to technical free climb), and the second number and letter refer to the difficulty of the climb.The first person to send the climb suggests the difficulty of the route, and then as other members of the community send it, the rating can be confirmed or contested.

I think that the ski and snowboard community could really benefit from having a similar type of system - especially in a backcountry setting. Yes, I know its a different sport and that the difficulty is based heavily on snow conditions .... but STILL - it could be hugely beneficial for backcountry safety and route selection for those who are not as familiar with the terrain. Here in the sea to sky area, the backcountry terrain is nearly endless. Even the stuff accessed from whistler/blackcomb backcountry gates is very extensive. However, it is really hard to tell exactly how challenging a lot of those backcountry chutes, couloirs and bowls are.

How exposed are they? What is the entrance like? How steep? In what conditions can they be skiied safely? Are there cliffs or other hazards that are difficult to spot? Avalanche susceptibility? Ect.

TLDR; I think we should have a more extensive grading system - similar to YDS - for backcountry zones/routes.
 
Getting caught up in an area that's out of my comfort zone is what's forced me to progress so would it be safer? Yes, but at the same time I like the mystery aspect to it
 
13017968:Display_Screen said:
Getting caught up in an area that's out of my comfort zone is what's forced me to progress so would it be safer? Yes, but at the same time I like the mystery aspect to it
Click to expand...

Ya I get what you mean, but there will always be the exploring/mystery aspect of the backcountry. You also wouldn't NEED to look at a website or guidebook that had this information, it would just be there if you want it. At the very least you could look up the route after skiing and say, "damn that line was a 5.11d, that was fucking badass!"

There are also a lot of people who have had serious injuries or died getting caught up in areas beyond there comfort zone, especially with hidden cliffs/trees/rock features.
 
This already exists, in Europe at least. It's so dependent on conditions though, and breeds a culture about bragging about grades amongst a certain crowd.

Stick to actual descriptions of routes and listen to people you trust.
 
13017976:ski0 said:
Ya I get what you mean, but there will always be the exploring/mystery aspect of the backcountry. You also wouldn't NEED to look at a website or guidebook that had this information, it would just be there if you want it. At the very least you could look up the route after skiing and say, "damn that line was a 5.11d, that was fucking badass!"

There are also a lot of people who have had serious injuries or died getting caught up in areas beyond there comfort zone, especially with hidden cliffs/trees/rock features.
Click to expand...

But what if you thought something you just skied was really badass and it was actually mellow... Id be devastated:(
 
i like where your head is at but the thing about skiing is it's so ridiculously dependent on conditions. the same line could be drastically easier or more difficult/dangerous a few hours later, nevermind days weeks or months later
 
13018006:RubberSoul said:
i like where your head is at but the thing about skiing is it's so ridiculously dependent on conditions. the same line could be drastically easier or more difficult/dangerous a few hours later, nevermind days weeks or months later
Click to expand...

this. so much this. also..if you arent a logical enough skier to know what terrain your dropping into and its difficulty level, you shouldnt be skiing it in the first place.
 
13018016:baaangthat said:
this. so much this. also..if you arent a logical enough skier to know what terrain your dropping into and its difficulty level, you shouldnt be skiing it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Dude, knowing the conditions of the snow is not logic, it takes years of practice to get good at.
 
you guys are right snow conditions are the most important thing. a grading system would have to work alongside a good understanding of the snow.
 
you just cant.

Terrain changes with snowfall, weather and avalanche conditions. The other problem is that BC has wide opened mountains while Europe has couloirs. BC offers so many more options of lines. Seriously, 40cm to your left can be the difference of easy and extreme riding.

you have to evaluate your terrain. You have Simple, difficult and complex terrain to rate your ascent/descent. They mostly depend on how many possible avalanche slopes are in a certain area.

Then you have to evaluate your snow conditions, this will give you an idea of the snowpack. You must track your weather; riding in thick fog sucks.

So, difficulty and safety are a combination of many ratings that will determine the accessibility of a mountain or section of mountain.
 
Most experienced skiers don't pay attention to trail difficulty ratings anyway. I certainly don't. I choose where I ski visually. Plus there are basically an infinite number of lines in any given spot, whereas there are often only a handful up a rock face.
 
I think the only thing that is necessary is making a universal system... Even in Europe its not all the same. A basic system to grade trails and back country and then to make it universal would be best.
 
13019388:freestyler540 said:
you just cant.

Terrain changes with snowfall, weather and avalanche conditions. The other problem is that BC has wide opened mountains while Europe has couloirs. BC offers so many more options of lines. Seriously, 40cm to your left can be the difference of easy and extreme riding.

you have to evaluate your terrain. You have Simple, difficult and complex terrain to rate your ascent/descent. They mostly depend on how many possible avalanche slopes are in a certain area.

Then you have to evaluate your snow conditions, this will give you an idea of the snowpack. You must track your weather; riding in thick fog sucks.

So, difficulty and safety are a combination of many ratings that will determine the accessibility of a mountain or section of mountain.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, no couilours in BC. and no wide open mountains in Europe. You obviously haven't seen the crazy steeps at Rettalack or been to Pejo in Italy or Stubai. I'm sorry but your comment is really vague and isn't true
 
Even the Yosemite scale doesn't work in anything except dry conditions. A 5.7a can be a very difficult climb in the rain.

Honestly the best rating system I've ever seen is Robb Gaffney's rating system of the Squaw lines in Squallywood. Every line rated by difficulty (easy to not recommended), fun factor, and hero factor for low snow conditions, medium and high snow conditions.

But for someone who has never seen the line, you can't beat a description: steepness, mandatory drop height, chute width, no-fall zone, vert, snow conditions, etc.
 
Again,

The grading system would provide basic information such as how steep the slope is and the presence of objective hazards.

The grading system would work in conjunction with reading the snow conditions, it is not meant to replace reading the snow conditions or avalanche safety protocol.

Yes, with ideal conditions the line is gonna be much easier. The same is absolutely true of climbing.
 
There is no way this would work. As someone already mentioned above, lines change constantly throughout the season due to snowpack.

Central Couloir just outside of the Jackson Hole gates is a perfect example. At normal snowpack, only the most confident and skilled skiers would attempt to ski Central. With 160% of "normal" snowpack we had this season, HUNDREDS of people skied central over the course of probably a week.

The same goes for every other big line around Jackson. Alta Zero, Zero Space, Once is enough, etc.

Also there's already too many inexperienced, uneducated people in the backcountry. What your suggesting would only make it worse.
 
http://www.wildsnow.com/more/ski-descent-rating-system/

Though I feel that a simple, length plus max slope angle is sufficient.

Eg 50degrees 500m. Does require someone to actually measure the slope though as if you ask around locally about the steepness of classic lines you will get super varied responses even by people who have skied the lines but didn't measure. Also helps if you mention the sustained slope, some runs may have a short section of 50plus between rock bands or for a short section and the rest could be mellow 40's, others can be sustained at 55degrees for the entire run.

Here is a cool biography of swiss badass Ruedi Beglinger who now lives in a hut by the Durrand glacier running a ski/hiking lodge while he puts up hard alpine climbing routes and skis gnar. He uses a Similar rating system

[URL]http://www.selkirkexperience.com/powd_rb_resume.html[/url]
 
13019625:Holte said:
Even the Yosemite scale doesn't work in anything except dry conditions. A 5.7a can be a very difficult climb in the rain.

Honestly the best rating system I've ever seen is Robb Gaffney's rating system of the Squaw lines in Squallywood. Every line rated by difficulty (easy to not recommended), fun factor, and hero factor for low snow conditions, medium and high snow conditions.

But for someone who has never seen the line, you can't beat a description: steepness, mandatory drop height, chute width, no-fall zone, vert, snow conditions, etc.
Click to expand...

yeah, Gaffney's Numerical Assessment is pretty good, mostly because it readily admits that it is just a signpost and not to be taken at face value for a number of reasons
 
I like your idea. I'm not sure how well it could be applied to the snow scene. As others have said, conditions really change, and it's quite variable. I suppose that could be said for rock climbing as well, to a point.

I do think we need a more expanded system though. 4 geometric shapes often does not seem informative enough.

Then again, many of us never look at trail markings.
 
YDS System is good for climbing because the rock is always the same and it is specific of that climb. Even with these standards some routes are harder then others even with the same grades(Ex. I've climbed 5.10's that are harder then 5.11's). With skiing everything is constantly changing and you can choose whether to make the line harder or easier, conditions are also always changing. I think that is why such a vague system works, things are always changing and anything more specific would be inaccurate.
 
13018006:RubberSoul said:
i like where your head is at but the thing about skiing is it's so ridiculously dependent on conditions. the same line could be drastically easier or more difficult/dangerous a few hours later, nevermind days weeks or months later
Click to expand...

ya but you add the conditions into the grade you say like5.11a/b or something
 
I disagree, A guide did a break down of a bunch of BC lines around our ski area in a book. He labels a difficulty and a small description of how to approach each hike/decent.

Personally, I find it's crap. It encourages people to attempt things they wouldn't normally attempt. Even with the disclaimers people are unfortunately idiots and don't take into account the forever changing conditions.

If you want to shred a line, get out there and meet people. Ski towns are small and for sure you'll find a willing experienced person that have ridden a variation of what you want to shred to take you out.

Tl;dr: The backcountry is called the backcountry for a reason. Go on an avvy course, get an idea of snow pack etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top