Canyon Rating System

[ratagonia]

Moderator Note: split from this thread http://www.bogley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16638


And just a heads up/warning.... The ACA recently revised their rating system.... and in my humble opinion created what will eventually become a huge rating nightmare....

I mean really: 4C3 S XX III..... :roll:

The one great advantage the original rating system had was everyone who sprayed beta was using the same system....

So.... like the last caller noted.... make certain you understand the rating system used for the beta you are looking at. It's also a good idea to try and get a general feel for how the author of the beta rates things, all the published guides are slightly different.

:2thumbs:

The original ACA rating system was developed in cooperation with many members of the US Canyoneering community. It was a group effort. Maybe even Ice helped out on that, Back In The Day.

The revised ACA system - not so much.

I don't plan on changing to the NEW ACA system, and I don't think Ice will either. The old system was simple, and worked OK. I am slowly adding in SLOT canyon ratings, but that is because that is the type of canyoneering that needs more specificity. Rich responded to this need by adding more specificity elsewhere, because he does not do the kind of canyoneering that requires a SLOT rating.

The new ACA system only becomes a rating nightmare if someone who actually puts out beta adopts it. Seems unlikely.

Tom :moses:

[Iceaxe]

The original ACA rating system was developed in cooperation with many members of the US Canyoneering community. It was a group effort. Maybe even Ice helped out on that, Back In The Day.

True dat.... the old system was developed by those who actual wrote the beta along with those that used it.... the original rating system was probably the single best thing to ever come out of the ACA.... and now they messed it up.....


I don't plan on changing to the NEW ACA system, and I don't think Ice will either. The old system was simple, and worked OK.

Nope... I'm not changing until I see something that is better, and it would really have to be a lot better to make the confusion involved worth the effort.


I am slowly adding in SLOT canyon ratings,

I just revised my 4 rating to incorporate what you include in SLOT. I figure anytime you see a 4, C, R or X in any rating you had better be reading the route description to see why the rating exists.


The new ACA system only becomes a rating nightmare if someone who actually puts out beta adopts it. Seems unlikely.

The nightmare is everyone WAS using the same system.... we even had MK on board and that's not an easy task.... now everyone's rating's are beginning to diverge.

:cool2:

[mdd]

I can see why Rich created the updated ACA system. True the original ACA system was created with input mostly from the US Canyoneering community (actually, the online US Canyoneering community), but back then almost all of the community was focused on CP canyons. Try to translate it to alpine canyons and everything is either 3C or 4C - not enough differentiation. So Rich updated it to add differentiation for non-CP canyons. The problem is that he built his updates on a flawed rating system to begin with. Even on the CP there just isn't enough variation in the ratings to differentiate canyons, so most turn out to be 3B. To compensate everyone decorates their ratings with R, X, PG, etc, without really standardizing what those ratings mean. Rich should have ditched his system and started from scratch.

The WCCM system is obviously a ripoff of the ACA one, and it carries the same flaws. Just about everything in Utah is either 4A or 5A, and his R/X definitions are just stupid. If anything I think it is a regression from the ACA system. Worthless.

The FFME system offers a little more differentiation, but you need a secret decoder ring to make sense of it.

These days I've ditched rating systems altogether. If I find a new canyon I tell people it is beginner, intermediate, expert or whatever, or I compare it to other canyons. Saying a new canyons is a little harder than Middle Fork Lep tells me a lot more than to say both canyons are 3A.


M

[canyoncaver]

A caver's perspective:

This kind of stuff is why cavers have always rejected the idea of a rating system for caves. Every once in a while, someone from a climbing background will try to make a system like this for caving, but it just doesn't work. The caves are too different. Plus, there are often so many different routes in a cave that one rating would not fit. Plus we hate ratings. Ratings inject competition into the sport (can I call it that?) and turn it into a measuring contest. "I can do a 4CIVR but my friends can only do a 4CIIIPG, heh heh." It's all sort of assinine really. While I admit the ratings can be helpful for planning, they tend to turn a beautiful natural feature into a measured obstacle to be conquered.

Canyons are a bit simpler than caves, but not much. There is still a myriad of variety. That is why the canyon rating systems are getting more and more schizophrenic as they evolve. I would argue that it is better to have two canyons rated 3BIII and in reality have them slightly differ from one another. This is better than one of them being a 3rB2IIIPG+ and the other one being a 3pB4III+R-

To me, the simpler rating gives me all the information I need. I know I need ropes, there will be some pools, and it will take about half a day. If I need more information, I'll read the beta. In fact, if there is beta available, why would I ever go in the canyon without reading it?

I agree with mdd. It is much more useful to compare a new canyon with something I have done already than to read me a string of numbers and letters. If you told me a canyon was like Pine Creek, but twice as long and with more swimming, I would know exactly what you meant.

These ratings systems are a holdover from climbing. They are not nearly as useful or appropriate for canyons. If ratings must be used, then keep them as simple as possible.

[rcwild]

It appears that neither Shane or Tom understand the revisions to the ACA rating system. The revisions allow those who want to use the original to do so. Nothing changed.

For those who wish to append a slot rating, they can. S = SLOT. Feel free to spell out the word SLOT if you want.

For those who wish to append a more detailed Class C rating, they can. C is still C, but you can describe it more precisely if deemed desirable.

Unlikely you will ever see an S in the same rating as a C3. They are two completely different kinds of canyons.

The revision discussions ran from 2005 to 2009 on the ACA forums -- http://canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?t=416 -- and on the Yahoo group. Can't recall if it was discussed here.

The rating system is described here:
http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=146

[Iceaxe]

It appears that neither Shane or Tom understand the revisions to the ACA rating system.

I understand we are both kinda new to canyoneering and all... :roll:

But.... If Tom and I don't understand the revisions to the ACA rating system what makes you think everyone else will???

:ne_nau:

[tanya]

I have this in my and Bo's book that is about to be published and can make changes for another week or so, but then we are stuck with it. I am not sure what to use?

[trackrunner]

I have this in my and Bo's book that is about to be published and can make changes for another week or so, but then we are stuck with it. I am not sure what to use?

Tanya Zion doesn't really have any special S "slot" or any C canyons over a C1. So the ratings are basically the same. Maybe some B2 in Zion but you should be fine with what you have. just MHO

[tanya]

Oh good... I did not want to read any new stuff. lol

[Felicia]

I have this in my and Bo's book that is about to be published

Congrats! When will the book be ready for purchase?

[tanya]

No clue. The publisher has had it for a couple of weeks now. I guess however long it takes to fix all mine and Bo's mess ups. :haha:

[Iceaxe]

Maybe some B2 in Zion

B2?!?!?

That's a new one on me... :ne_nau:

.

[Brian in SLC]

The FFME system offers a little more differentiation, but you need a secret decoder ring to make sense of it.

I actually like the FFME rating system.

You get vertical rating, and aquatic rating (both on a scale from 1-7) , and, a committment (length) rating (grades 1 to VI similar to climbing grades). Easy.

Very much for water canyons, to be sure.

I guess I've never really embraced the ACA rating stuff, mostly, because I really didn't feel like I needed it for the canyons I was doing (with minimal beta or the like). To this day, I couldn't give anyone an idear of what canyon is rated what, or, what the ratings are even based on. Just never really committed to it, I guess. Which is kinda weird, because I can debate long and hard on climbing ratings. Hmmm...(pause for self reflection)...

Folks do get all hung up on ratings.

-Brian in SLC

[jman]

this is confusing, or perhaps I'm missing something.

People say they use ACA standards. I thought that was THE "standard" for all canyoneering. Learned something new.

Then some people say they prefer FFME.

The trackrunner throws in B2 ratings.

Some say they use the revised ACA ratings.

So, what is a noob to do now?

So if Brian in SlC, for example, gives an explanation about a canyon, he says, " I couldn't give anyone an idea(r) of what canyon is rated what, or, what the ratings are even based on". I'm sure if he can't explain the ratings - I'm sure he can definitely tell ya what the climb or canyon entails (which is the most important). But then again, that's all based on THAT person's hiking ability. So I imagine Brian is a great climber and awesome canyoneer and can probably do most canyons a lot faster than the average person.

Even in Shane's beta for the Leprachuan Canyons (if not that one, maybe Shillelaigh, or - it says it takes about 3 hours to do. Yet, I my friends and I can do it in easily an hour and half. And that includes, the scramble to the top. I understand, though, shane is conservative with numbers - which is VERY good for the general public.

So, you would think there would be a standardized system for canyoneering, but apparently as I thought, some people don't use or prefer ACA.

That can be dangerous, so what are we to do? And also, how do I know if the person is giving me the beta, which rating system they are using? I should probably ask - but if I forget, and it's NOT what they say it is. For example a IV day might be a III, if you are fast hiker and that group might be hiking in the dark.

Is any of this making sense, or am I just over analyzing and confusing myself?

[mdd]

I actually like the FFME rating system.

You get vertical rating, and aquatic rating (both on a scale from 1-7) , and, a committment (length) rating (grades 1 to VI similar to climbing grades). Easy.


I agree, I do think it is a very usable system and as far as rating systems go I like it best. What I meant to say is that these days I just prefer adjectives or comparisons to describe how difficult a canyon is instead of codes.

For those you haven't seen it, a few years back I made my own translation of the FFME system at http://coloradocanyons.org/ffme-classification-system.php. Chucky did a superior translation (at least I think so) and it is linked on that page too.

M

[ratagonia]

this is confusing, or perhaps I'm missing something.

So if Brian in SlC, for example, gives an explanation about a canyon, he says, " I couldn't give anyone an idea(r) of what canyon is rated what, or, what the ratings are even based on". I'm sure if he can't explain the ratings - I'm sure he can definitely tell ya what the climb or canyon entails (which is the most important). But then again, that's all based on THAT person's hiking ability. So I imagine Brian is a great climber and awesome canyoneer and can probably do most canyons a lot faster than the average person.

Even in Shane's beta for the Leprachuan Canyons (if not that one, maybe Shillelaigh, or - it says it takes about 3 hours to do. Yet, I my friends and I can do it in easily an hour and half. And that includes, the scramble to the top. I understand, though, shane is conservative with numbers - which is VERY good for the general public.

So, you would think there would be a standardized system for canyoneering, but apparently as I thought, some people don't use or prefer ACA.

That can be dangerous, so what are we to do? And also, how do I know if the person is giving me the beta, which rating system they are using? I should probably ask - but if I forget, and it's NOT what they say it is. For example a IV day might be a III, if you are fast hiker and that group might be hiking in the dark.

Is any of this making sense, or am I just over analyzing and confusing myself?

Yes.






Brian IS an awesome climber, impeccable arguer, wonderful person (most of the time), and canyoneer. But he don't canyoneer much, at least on this side of the puddle, so one would not expect him to have fine discernment of difficulties and nuances of canyons. One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

BITD, when I climbed a lot and 5.9 was hard, we could have extended discussions about the EXACT order of difficulty of the 5.9s in Eldorado Canyon, and we did. And there was consensus. Entirely subjective. Somewhat easier when you have done each of the climbs several times.

I think canyons are harder to rate because they are easier, or perhaps because canyons vary more. Or perhaps because canyoneers vary more. When the canyons start to be about climbing through (like Leprechaun), the experience in that KIND of canyon, those kinds of moves, reading where to put your body becomes the principle factor, and the amount of time it takes especially will vary widely with skill and fitness level. And physical size plays a big role in these canyons also. My times in The Subway vary from six to twelve hours - my times in Main Leprechaun vary from 1-1/2 to 7 hours.

The rating is based on a generalized community standard. If you and your posse of busy bees can send a six-hour canyon in three hours, it does not mean that it is a three-hour canyon - it means you move in that kind of canyon at roughly twice the speed of the average party. Check Kelsey's book - he'll call it 2 hours! A Grade IV does not become a Grade III - it just means that on that day you moved well.

How you figure out what the ratings mean is you learn by experience how each beta-provider rates things. Just like in climbing (watch out for those 5.9+s in New England!). Although, maybe the key point, is that 'difficulty' is a key element of climbing and therefore it is worth spending effort to get your personal gauge dialed in; while in climbing it does not matter a whole lot (except when it does).

And YES, I think you are over-thinkin' it. But it IS winter, afterall. Do more canyons, gain more experience and it will all become clear, and among other things, it will all become clear that ratings on canyons are not really all that 'important', really, although selecting canyon adventures that fit the inclinations of your group is kinda important.

Tom :moses:

[Brian in SLC]

One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

Really?

Based on what?

Back before there was, say, a guidebook in Zion, where did information on canyons come from?

Was the information not "good" or "reliable", at least in my case?

Hmmm.....

Anyhoo, jman, thanks. You are spot on SPOT ON I tells ya. Ha ha.

-Brian in SLC

[nonot]

I think part of the problem is people are sick of requiring you to pay for beta or having people try to maintain secrecy of certain canyons. Therefore the move is to try to get the info out of the route description and into the rating system.

Everything has been proposed from lengths of slots, to lengths of ropes, to deepness of pothole problems, to grades of slots.

After all if I know it's a

3C1 S2 III R 140' P1, <200lbs
Then I know exactly what to bring. Wetsuit, bunny strap, 2x150 ft ropes, and a buddy for pothole escape, and I'm not too fat to squeeze through the slot. Should be a fun day.

Is that ridiculous rating system helpful...yes, if I have no other description that goes with it. Is it confusing as hell? Yes, it is.


3BIIIR, <pay>....OK, I know what type of canyon this is, and since it is class 3 with the R, I could get myself into some deep trouble if I don't bring the right tools. So, I have no idea what to bring and who wants to carry 400ft of rope and everything including the kitchen sink if it turns out the R is for one partner assist out of a pothole and just 50 ft raps?

[tanya]

One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

Really?

Based on what?

Back before there was, say, a guidebook in Zion, where did information on canyons come from?

Was the information not "good" or "reliable", at least in my case?

Hmmm.....

Anyhoo, jman, thanks. You are spot on SPOT ON I tells ya. Ha ha.

-Brian in SLC

I have to disagree with Tom on this. Don't know Brian, never met him, but his posts are just about always right on the mark when talking about canyoneering -- the man, in a funny way, has a way of debating and making his point. :popcorn:

[ratagonia]

One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

Really?

Based on what?

Back before there was, say, a guidebook in Zion, where did information on canyons come from?

Was the information not "good" or "reliable", at least in my case?

Hmmm.....

Anyhoo, jman, thanks. You are spot on SPOT ON I tells ya. Ha ha.

-Brian in SLC

Sorry, meant to say "rating" information. Got carried away with my diatribe...

T

[Brian in SLC]

Sorry, meant to say "rating" information. Got carried away with my diatribe...

Oh, come on. You're not gettin' off that easy...

Ha ha.

I find the "ratings" on especially the skinny stuff kinda interesting. Always curious to see what the kids rate these bombay chimney and offwidth things, and then compared to their experience in what might be considered classic climbs at that grade. Its a tough thing to do, given that most folks these days it seems can kinda rate a sports climb, but, have a really difficult time rating a wide crack and the like. Although, I think there's been fair interest in that stuff as of late, for sure, at least 'round here.

Watched "Mountain of Storms" last night with some of the said kids. Wild stuff, watchin' Yvon and the crew on Fitzroy in '68. When they got in a bit of the wide, you should a heard the hoots from the crew. Pretty funny.

http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/product/mountain-of-storms-dvd-movie--yvon-chouinard-doug-tompkins-dick-dorworth?p=D1005-0-000&src=fcd

That flick was followed by Green's footage and film on the first ascent of Luxary Liner (aka Supercrack of the Desert). Interesting to hear the kids thoughts on it. Not even much of a warm up for them anymore, but, they seem to get the history thing a bit, sorta. Although they didn't understand that the term "3rd classing" was the same as free soloing.

Fun stuff.

Quality ratings and difficulty ratings. When worlds collide...

-Brian in SLC

[tanya]

I took the easy way out. Emailed the publisher and removed anything to do with canyon ratings at all.

:mrgreen:

[trackrunner]

B2?!?!?


My bad. There was consideration to split B into two groups. one with water to waist deep and or swims up to 10 meters. Another was for canyons with much longer swims. looks like that was dropped. sorry for adding confusion I looked at one of the old proposed ratings that were skipped over.

So Tanya the ratings in Zion would still be the same. You shouldn't have a problem including it.

Personally I like splitting the class C. Maybe not in Utah but in other areas not all class C are the same and require more skill and consideration.

[Iceaxe]

Given a choice.... I'd probably relax the ratings and make them simpler. "Back in the day", before the ACA developed it's orginial rating system canyons were rated "nothing, R or X", and that worked well enough.... and everyone understood exactly what you were taking about.... the R and X were more of a warning that it was a difficult and/or serious canyon more that anything else.

The biggest problem I see with the newer rating systems floating around is that somewhere along the line some folks began to confuse "Rating" with "Route Description"....

YMMV
:cool2:

[trackrunner]

some folks began to confuse "Rating" with "Route Description"....

YMMV
:cool2:

I may agree. I've heard one person complain about a canyon being too hard at 3B III. When asked what the problems were they were all problems available in public beta route description that was not read.

[jman]

I'm guessing you guys saw Rich's ACA email today about the revisions?

I do like simplicity, like Ice does, but at the same time their should be completeness (if that makes any sense) when it comes to this sport, right? Basically I mean canyoneers should be fully prepared - gear and knowledge wise. So any system (that is standardized I would think) that helps the canyoneer understand the canyon - the better right? Yes, they can read the route descriptions and find out there, but in a lot of aspects in life - there should be redudancy. Ergo, the canyon rating and full route description.

/my thoughts anyways

[jman]

So with the above said, basically I am in most favor of the new ACA revisions.

[Iceaxe]

The ACA Canyon Rating System - Revised

The ACA's Canyon Rating System is the only widely-used rating system in America. The system has served the canyoneering community well, but does have some minor short-comings. Individuals who primarily descend Class C canyons suggested the original system served well for Colorado Plateau slot canyons, but didn't provide enough precision for Class C. Interestingly, individuals who primarily descend Colorado Plateau slot canyons suggested the original system served well for Class C canyons, but didn't provide enough precision for slot canyons.

The original rating system was developed over a period of months between 2000 and 2001. We posted ideas on an internet forum and asked for input from the community. From the input we posted a revised system and asked for more input. The process continued until we felt we reached a consensus. We used the same process to develop the revisions, but this time over a period of years - between 2005 and 2009 - and from input solicited from many more canyoneers through several forums and direct contact.

The revision ideas we received included:

-Expand the current 1-2-3-4 terrain-ropework ratings to 1 through 7, prefaced with a T for Terrain or V for Vertical, with more detailed descriptions at each level. Expand the current A-B-C water ratings to 1 through 7, prefaced with W for Water or A for Aquatic, with more detailed descriptions at each level.
-Keep the current 1-2-3-4 and A-B-C ratings, but add + or - to provide more precision. Example: 3+B
-Keep the current 1-2-3-4, but add decimals for more precision. Example: 3.4B
-Add the rock climbing YDS rating for climbing moves. Example: 3B 5.8
-Add identifiers for specific problems. PH for pothole problems, NA for natural anchors, A for aid climbing, S for stemming problems, B for big rappels, etc.

All ideas were considered and posted for comment. The final decision was made based on three primary concerns:

1.Avoid making current ratings in guidebooks and websites obsolete.
2.Avoid confusion between original and revised versions. We didn't want people wondering if a rating is based on the old 3B or the new 3B.
3.Avoid including so many elements and definitions that they would be hard to remember.

The revised ACA Canyon Rating System meets all three criteria. We left the core rating system as it was, but fine-tuned some definitions. A 3B canyon under the original rating system is still a 3B canyon under the revised system. 3C is still 3C. 4A is still 4A. We added options for additional precision for Class C and slot canyons.

Class C
Normally has water with current. Waterfalls. Expect to do some deep wading and/or swimming in current. Wetsuit or drysuit may be required depending on water and air temperatures.

The definition of Class C did not change, but Class C canyons may be rated more precisely using the following OPTIONAL system:

-C1 - Normally has water with light to moderate current. Easy water hazards.
-C2 - Normally has water with strong current. Water hazards like hydraulics and siphons require advanced skills and special care.
-C3 - Normally has water with very strong current. Dangerous water hazards. Experts only.
-C4 - Extreme problems and hazards will be difficult to overcome, even for experienced experts with strong swimming skills.

Slot Canyons
Tight slot canyons are in a class of their own. Slots can be so narrow that it is necessary to stem above the floor of the canyon to move horizontally. An "S" may be appended to the rating to indicate some sections of the canyon are extremely narrow. A Class 2 canyon with an appended S will serve as a warning to those with greater-than-average girth that they may have to stem more than their skinny partners. A Class 4 canyon with an appended S will serve as a warning that there may be a need to execute difficult climbing/stemming moves that are likely to be high above the canyon floor.

While the discussion about a slot canyon rating was underway, Michael Kelsey published the current edition of his Technical Slot Canyon Guide. As a result, we decided to use the same basic system he used: S or SLOT, followed by a risk-seriousness rating.

Risk-Seriousness Rating
The original rating system used only R and X, which denoted extraordinary risk. Using the full "movie" rating system -- G, PG, R, X and XX -- provides more precise options. Keyhole and Pine Creek canyons in Zion National Park are both 3B, but perhaps Keyhole should be rated 3B G and Pine Creek rated 3B PG.

Using the Rating System
From all of the input we received one point was very clear; the overwhelming majority of canyoneers want a rating system that provides a quick-glance summary of difficulty, risk-seriousness and time. Additional detail should come from reading the route description.

3B III - The rating tells you there will be rappelling involved, it has water with no or very little current and will require most of the day for an average group. Read the route description to find out how much rope you need, how long the swims will be and whether or not a wetsuit is recommended.

4A S X IV - Because it includes a terrain-ropework rating of 4 and an S for Slot, the canyon will probably include: "difficult and exposed free climbing and/or down-climbing". The X tells you "multiple risk factors exist that will complicate the descent. Errors in technique or judgment will likely result in serious injury or death. Descent should only be attempted by expert canyoneers". The risks are likely related to falling. The IV tells you the canyon will require a very long day to complete. If anything goes wrong, you will likely spend the night. Read the route description to find out how much rope you need (if any) and just how difficult the difficult climbing moves really are.

4-C3 X II - Because it includes a terrain-ropework rating of 4 along with a C3, the canyon will probably include: "complex rope work (i.e. guided rappels, deviations, rebelays)" to deal with the water hazards. The X tells you "multiple risk factors exist that will complicate the descent. Errors in technique or judgment will likely result in serious injury or death. Descent should only be attempted by expert canyoneers". The risks are likely related to water hazards. The II tells you the canyon will require a half day to complete. Read the route description to find out how much rope you need, the normal water volume, what types of water hazards might be present, how long the swims will be and whether or not a wetsuit is recommended.

The ACA Canyon Rating System provides a simple core. Guidebook authors, website publishers and other users are able to use it as is and add details to route descriptions or they can add +/- or decimals, append additional elements for rope length, climbing difficulty and more. Something like 4A S X IV 80' 5.10 180lb could mean 4th class terrain, basically dry, slot with extraordinary risk, very long day, 80' rope required, 5.10 climbing moves, not suitable for anyone over 180 lbs. Too much information for some; not enough for others.

.

[Felicia]

I took the easy way out. Emailed the publisher and removed anything to do with canyon ratings at all.

:mrgreen:

I notice that no one has commented on this statement.

Question: Is this a good idea or a bad idea?

I'd rather see the yea and nays now - when they may be construed as constructive - then later when they may be received as destructive.

:popcorn:

[tanya]

I got the ACA email and did not want to sift through all that -- why new stuff. This is not school!

Bo never did like the rating thing any way so he seemed happy I got rid of it.

[rcwild]

Following this thread should give people an insight into the challenges of running an association ...

Tom wanted his slot canyon system included. Others didn't.

Mike and Brian liked the FFME system. Others didn't.

Ram liked listing a weight limit for tight slots. Others didn't.

Some liked adding +/- Others didn't. Some liked adding decimals. Others didn't.

Some wanted more detail in the rating system. Some wanted less.

Bo and Tanya and others don't like ratings at all.

What to do? Create 100 different rating systems so everyone can choose the one they like? No rating system at all?

It's like this on every issue. We make decisions based on serving the majority -- usually the overwhelming majority. Then listen to the out-spoken minority complain because they didn't get it their way.

Organizing canyoneers is like herding cats.

[FOX]

Organizing canyoneers is like herding cats.

Now that's funny. :roflol:

[Iceaxe]

Just an observation from my own personal experience.... Canyoneers are only difficult to herd when you are herding them in an unpopular direction or in a direction where they find little merit.

Canyoneers by nature are intelligent, self reliant and individualistic. They will quickly adopt items\products\techniques they find value in..... Just a few examples.

- Switch to earth colored webbing.
- Extend anchors to avoid rope grooves.
- Taking responsibility for Sandthrax campground.
- Pack toss and throw bags (replaced hooking)
- Alter existing routes (Dragonfly comes to mind) to lessen environmental impact.
- adopt quality products (Imlay Gear)
- adopt productive gear (5-10 canyoneers)
- particiapte in fests and rondies
- wear helmets
- yada, yada

:blahblah:

[tanya]

I liked the rating system, it is Bo that does not, but probably just because he has "hiked with a rope" so long and never used them. I just don't want to read anything new. I was happy with how they are. I just look at the list and think.. dang.. I just don't want to read it.

Put me on the Lazy list! :mrgreen:

New people will like whatever. Those that have used things one way hate change. That is to be assumed.

[Felicia]

Organizing canyoneers is like herding cats.

Now that's funny. :roflol:

Of course I think it would be more accurate to read: Organizing canyoneers is like hearding cats in a rain storm.



:mrgreen:

[Bo_Beck]

I liked the rating system, it is Bo that does not, but probably just because he has "hiked with a rope" so long and never used them. I just don't want to read anything new. I was happy with how they are. I just look at the list and think.. dang.. I just don't want to read it.

Put me on the Lazy list! :mrgreen:

New people will like whatever. Those that have used things one way hate change. That is to be assumed.

No Tanya....I do not dislike the Canyon Rating System, it's just that it seems like something so simple is looked at in such a complex way? A canyon is just like anything else. There are always problems that need to be addressed and overcome. When I drive north and there is snow on the road....I slow down. When it's cold outside I wear a jacket. If it's hot and the street is very hot I wear shoes. Canyons are very much like "rock climbs". One persons conquer is another persons nemesis. What you call 5.9 I call 5.12. What you call exhausting I call a warm-up. Subjectivity fits every opinion. I don't see how a rating system can be any less subjective than one persons brief description? I also don't see how a rating system can be any less confusing than someones description? It's a 4CIVS1-XX? Or dang that canyon is fun, but watch for some swirling pools, and some of those desert tanks can be a bitch to squirm out of. That one upclimb in that loose offwidth corner scared the be-jesus out of me, but after humping for 16 hours we made it back in time to have a cold one at the local hotspot!

[rcwild]

You are spot on, Bo, except ... anytime someone wants to argue that the rating system is complex, they throw out an example like: 4CIVS1-XX

Using the core rating system your example is simply 4C. Nobody expects anyone to do any canyon based on only that information. The idea behind a rating system is to give people a quick glance summary. It's a 4. That's expert-advanced canyoneering. If you don't have the skills, keep scrolling down the index until you find a 3. It's a C. That's water with current. If you're not a strong swimmer, keep scrolling down the index until you find a B.

Everything else about the rating system is OPTIONAL.

Personally, I think the grade (adopted from climbing) is also useful for a quick glance, but it is an optional element. A guidebook author could list a 3B rating next to the name of the canyon and add time as 1-2 hours somewhere in the route description or he could list 3B I next to the name of the canyon.

Think of the core rating like a climbing rating. A person who knows he is a 5.10 climber will scan the guidebook for 5.9s and 5.10s to cruise and 5.11s and 5.12s to push himself. Climbers will also approach climbs differently based on ratings. He might lead 5.9s, but prefer a top rope when he tries his first 5.11. He will also be looking for information beyond the basic YDS rating. Is it a face climb or a crack? Is it single- or multi-pitch? Is it trad, bolted or top-rope?

It should be similar with a canyon rating. A person who knows he is a 3B canyoneer will scan the guidebook for 3B canyons. He should not be looking at 4Bs unless he has a skilled partner or has received advanced instruction. Finding a 3B rating should cause a canyoneer to look for more information. It's a 3 - there will be rappelling. How many rappels? How much rope will I need? Are the anchors obvious? It's a B - there will be pools. How long are the swims? What's the water temperature? Should I bring a wetsuit?

Whether the additional information is included in complex add-ons to the core rating or relegated to the route description doesn't matter. The ACA certainly doesn't care. To each his own.

[rcwild]

Just an observation from my own personal experience.... Canyoneers are only difficult to herd when you are herding them in an unpopular direction or in a direction where they find little merit. :blahblah:

But all very subjective. What is unpopular to some is popular with others. What has merit to some seems worthless to others.

Probably explains why there are different herds on each of the canyoneering forums, plus many more cats out there who won't join any of the herds.

[Iceaxe]

Probably explains why there are different herds on each of the canyoneering forums

touche'

:2thumbs:

[tanya]

Probably explains why there are different herds on each of the canyoneering forums

touche'

:2thumbs:


AWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Shane and Rich being nice. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!!!!!

:2thumbs: :five: :rockon: :popcorn: :haha: :nod: :cool2:

[Iceaxe]

Ram liked listing a weight limit for tight slots. Others didn't.

FWIW: Listing weights is worthless.... weight has nothing to do with it.... As anyone that has been stuck or trapped can tell you it's all about chest size. The rib cage is the limiting factor when squeezing..... if folks want to start providing a little more value to TR's, route descriptions or ratings its jacket size, or even better, and actual chest measurement that is most useful....

Not all canyeers are smurf's.... :haha:

http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Content/Images/Journal/2003/Winter/Giants/TheBarbarian.jpg

[Felicia]

Ram liked listing a weight limit for tight slots. Others didn't.

FWIW: Listing weights is worthless.... or even better, and actual chest measurement that is most useful....

Not all canyeers are smurf's.... :haha:




Not all canyoneers are guys either.... :nono:



:mrgreen:

[Iceaxe]

You can squeeze beer guts and boobies through slots.... but rib cages don't compress.

[hank moon]

You can squeeze beer guts and boobies through slots.... but rib cages don't compress.

well, they do a little, but makes breathing kinda hard...

pelvis another limit

[Iceaxe]

well, they do a little, but makes breathing kinda hard...

That's a really scary deal.... you can gain about an extra inch by exhaling and collapsing you rib cage slightly.... but if it doesn't work you are in deep dodo.... I always figured that's what the guy who died in Nutty Putty must have done....

I've done it a couple times before but I'm usually pretty careful about when and where.... otherwise you end up stuck worse and have difficulty breathing.... being stuck in a slot is one of the scarier things I've had happen to me. Last time I was only stuck for about 15 minutes but it felt like 15 hours....

:popcorn:

[forum8fox]

I second hanks comments for sure. I've used the exhale technique numerous times ranging from squeezing in very tight alpine colorado caves, to shuffeling in the bottom of a tight utah slot. I'm always considering getting stuck thus very rarely allowing a complete collapse so as to have a back up short breath ability to problem solve momentarilly.

It's not very common for me to get stuck period, and of the one time I remember it happening recently it was my pelvis that became wedged. That was in trail canyon over freeze fest and was slightly scary for about a minute untill I figured out the key. I had to inch my way upwards to find a slightly wider opening to slide through.

I have two instances that come to mind where my body size wasn't the limiting factor but rather the size of my partners and my packs were the issue. I got stuck I think 2 times in shenannigans for about 15 minutes because of this. The second time was in alcatraz, after completeing the high spur we went over and dropped in with the mindset of racing through...

Well either we had some bad beta or we were under the wrong impressiion of what our beta was trying to tell us (perhaps the same thing with shennanigans). Either way we ended up lugging a 30' 10.5mm in one pack and a 60m 10.5 in another. I also had an inflateable pool float in my pack with the 30' rope, along with other un used saftey precaution gear.

It was horendous, we ended up setting up a relay system through the tight spots and ferrying packs over head up high. As if it wasn't hard and tireing enough to just lug them through, not to mention over head. It was a frantic panic as we were racing the sun and still had to find the exit and walk the rim maze. We made it out just before it got dark, went up a side canyon that dead ended, found the way to the rim as the sun set and walked the maze back to the car in the dark arriving at 11:30 pm. Epic.

In hind sight, I would bring only the equivilent to a 30' rope and pull cord and maybe 30' of webbing, leaving the 60 rigged at the entrance drop. Same thing with shenanigans, equivilent of a 30' rope and pull cord is all that is needed, maybe some webbing just incase the last drop had been ghosted by a previous party.

Good descriptions are super important in some instances. In both these examples just taking a quick glance at a rating would do little for you.

[ratagonia]

Well either we had some bad beta or we were under the wrong impressiion of what our beta was trying to tell us (perhaps the same thing with shennanigans). Either way we ended up lugging a 30' 10.5mm in one pack and a 60m 10.5 in another. I also had an inflateable pool float in my pack with the 30' rope, along with other un used saftey precaution gear.


But of course, taking more gear makes you safer, right? :ne_nau: :haha:



It was horendous, we ended up setting up a relay system through the tight spots and ferrying packs over head up high. As if it wasn't hard and tireing enough to just lug them through, not to mention over head. It was a frantic panic as we were racing the sun and still had to find the exit and walk the rim maze. We made it out just before it got dark, went up a side canyon that dead ended, found the way to the rim as the sun set and walked the maze back to the car in the dark arriving at 11:30 pm. Epic.

In hind sight, I would bring only the equivilent to a 30' rope and pull cord and maybe 30' of webbing, leaving the 60 rigged at the entrance drop. Same thing with shenanigans, equivilent of a 30' rope and pull cord is all that is needed, maybe some webbing just incase the last drop had been ghosted by a previous party.

Good descriptions are super important in some instances. In both these examples just taking a quick glance at a rating would do little for you.

It is important to use reliable information sources, and be careful of taking information off the Internet. For instance, if you use Jason's beta above for Shenanigans, you might find a 30' rope a bit short for that final 50' rappel. Perhaps Jason downclimbs the slimy chimney at the end, or swings out to drop 20' into the pool - most people will want to rappel all the way to the ground and will consider themselves fortunate to have brought a 50' rope and pull cord.

http://canyoneeringusa.com/utah/north/shen.php

I also have 50' as the length of the 2nd rappel in Alcatraz, but I could be wrong there. Perhaps one can use the pool toy as an airbag to soften the 20' drop off the end of the 30' rope?

The point being, sometimes on the Internets people give 'information' rather casually that is important, and incorrect. Gotta be careful out there. Best to find and use a reliable information source, rather than 'I found it on the Internet, it must be true' stuff. Even books, sometimes, have a few hidden 'guesses' made by 'the Author' that can get you in serious trouble if not read carefully and precisely.

Tom :moses:

[forum8fox]

I agree about the relilable sources Tom, hence going in over prepared (since I don't actually REALLY know any of my internet sources). Those numbers were never stated to be beta or acurate at that, they were merely a guess. Really it was just to be used to understand what I was trying to portray.

Another example would be taking 2 60 meters and an additional 100' rope aswell as some webbing through no kidding after reading the story of the first descent. In this instance it caused us no harm(infact it may have even slightly eased the mind a bit as a back up if things got stuck), but two 60m would have worked fine. However the previously mentioned trips entailed more suffering then is necessary.

That's really the whole point I was trying to make(that reading the rating does nothing for these types of things, and that good descriptions are important). Not to try to supply accurate beta to some noob, especially when the numbers were not intended to be used in that manner in the first place.

And just a little background....

the day in high spur and alcatraz was my 3rd day ever, my second day ever leading other people, the over prepared ness most likely stemmed from that. The pool float deal was a precautionary measure as we didn't know if it would be dry or wet and we heard there was a keeper and thought it might help considering we had little experience.

Another thing, the first drop was rigged, with a harness hanging at the end of the rope, didn't think much of it... Everything in the whole canyon was fixed, and we really didn't need to take anything except harnesses and a belay device. The drop on the back side of the pot hole was fixed with webbing with small knots tied in it, I didn't even use a harness. I'm guessing less then 30' to the bottom.

As for the 60 m and 30' of webbing in shennanigans goes, I had no smaller ropes at the time and I wasn't going to go cutting into one of my long ropes.For the record, no I don't downclimb that drop, it's not possible :2thumbs: . Besides I've only been through it once and as I mentioned before we had a 60m which I can accurately say is atleast 100' too much.

BTW Glad to see you finally jumped on the (pick on Jason) bandwagon again. :lol8: :bootyshake: (this is kinda confusing, as I'm referancing numerous threads not just this one).

and let me clarify something one more time, NONE OF THIS IS TO BE USED AS BETA! it's just to be used to make a point.

Sorry if I'm comming off defensively, what's the point anyway we all know what a moron I am. :ne_nau: :haha: What could I possibly contribute? Oh I know, some common ground for you and Shane to get along about. :roflol: Keep it up guys, I like seeing you work together! :lol8: Boy is this fun or what??? :popcorn:

PS. I mean no dissrespect, just trying to stand my own ground and have a little fun on this boring Saturday afternoon. If you find it offensive I will retract my comments. I'm deffinately not here to step on toes or burn bridges. :rockon:

[ratagonia]

Didn't mean to be picking on you, ... much. Actually, you tossed a big, fat slow one for me right in the wheelhouse - what am I supposed to do, take it for a strike? Nah!!!

I hope if anyone else is reading this, they draw the right conclusion. Or perhaps, I should say MY right conclusion - which is - when picking information off the internet, be brand-cognizant! It is fairly reasonable for someone to choose an Internet conversation by TWO (count-em) TWO noted canyoneers as a place to get reliable info on canyon rappel lengths. Heck, Jason says you don't need more than 30' of rap capability to do Shenanigans - all those old farts like Shane and Tom always tell you to take WAY too much stuff...

Not.

Little sprinkle of snow and rain today in Mt Carmel. Looks like more rain for the southland - put off spring another week.

Tom :moses:

[forum8fox]

Nice, I'm glad you didn't take offence.
I'm curious...
when you say this:


It is fairly reasonable for someone to choose an Internet conversation by TWO (count-em) TWO noted canyoneers as a place to get reliable info on canyon rappel lengths. Heck, Jason says you don't need more than 30' of rap capability to do Shenanigans - all those old farts like Shane and Tom always tell you to take WAY too much stuff...


Are you calling me a notable canyoneer??? You should know better then to go feeding my ego. :roflol: Hell I've never claimed to be an expert why would someone take me as one when I often say I'm still a noob, just a highly capable one.(don't bite on this one, it's almost like I'm goin fishin so to speak)

Also, you must have missed this part: :ne_nau:


As for the 60 m and 30' of webbing in shennanigans goes, I had no smaller ropes at the time and I wasn't going to go cutting into one of my long ropes.For the record, no I don't downclimb that drop, it's not possible . Besides I've only been through it once and as I mentioned before we had a 60m which I can accurately say is atleast 100' too much.

OH and this one too:

and let me clarify something one more time, NONE OF THIS IS TO BE USED AS BETA! it's just to be used to make a point.

:2thumbs:

Thanks for entertaining me Tom, BTW it's just getting to be winter over in these parts, I'm going down the hill to shuttle some friends up the mountain since they have 2wd and it's snowing.