[Fultonius]

I think one issue might be that there aren't *actually* that many E6+ trad climbers regularly on here. And it's very peak-centric.

I guess what really need to happen in the E7+ bracket is for someone to create a graded list database, where people who have actually climbed the routes can give a suggestion of E grade, French grade, font grade for crux etc. And then rank them in their own personal order of difficulty. Crunch all the numbers and, voila!

[andy moles]

For the most part E grades work absolutely fine up to about E6.

For harder routes that are predominantly headpointed, just go down the line of a French grade (or Font grade if more appropriate) and danger rating. Have an E grade in brackets if you must.

If you're going to inspect and top-rope it first anyway, the E grade doesn't really matter, because you're going to acquire all the information you need in a safe and controlled way, and the physical difficulty + danger grade is easily adequate to inform you of whether it's worth a look.

This would also help make a distinction between routes that are predominantly ground-upped and predominantly projected, and the wadsome foreigns will be less confused.

Obviously this won't happen because people can't stand inconsistency, and because then the climbing consumer of Britain can't jizz themselves over E11 7a, and sponsorship and advertising revenue and carabiner sales related to hard 'trad' will collapse.

[andy popp]

That they largely got right (once I was looking at the correct conversion table). 
ie: for well protected trad routes
7a+ - 7b routes would be E5
7b+ - 7c  routes would be E6
7c+ - 8a routes would be E7
8a+ - 8b routes would be E8
8b+ - 8c routes would be E9
8c+ - 9a routes would be E10
9a+ - 9b routes would be E11
9b+ - 9c routes would be E12

This table is pretty much spot on from E5 to E8

I hesitate to prolong this discussion, but here goes ...

I would see this set of conversions as spot on for only a rather small subset of absolutely bombproof single pitch routes. Outside of that very specific genre of routes the ranges are too high, too narrow, and don't overlap, as they do in reality.

If the aim is to construct a more 'linear' version of E grades then I think that is doomed. In my view, the whole point of E grades + technical grades is their flexibility, not their rigidity.

This is also all rather abstract when we actually use grades in context. Even if we simply have a picture with a line drawn on it and no description, when we are actually stood beneath a crag we take in a range of visual clues that help us make sense of a combination of letters and numbers on the page: does the rock look solid; does it look compact and hard to protect; how tall is the cliff; how steep; are the lines obvious or hard to read, etc. etc. Of course, having a guide book description adds even more information.

[petejh]

So in summary, we have a grade system in Britain that only works for on-sighting. Routes =>E7 90+% of the time aren’t attempted onsight. The grading system doesn’t make much sense for these routes. All roads lead to H grades. 🙄

[Tom de Gay]

This is also all rather abstract when we actually use grades in context. Even if we simply have a picture with a line drawn on it and no description, when we are actually stood beneath a crag we take in a range of visual clues that help us make sense of a combination of letters and numbers on the page: does the rock look solid; does it look compact and hard to protect; how tall is the cliff; how steep; are the lines obvious or hard to read, etc. etc. Of course, having a guide book description adds even more information.

Ah, well that's all good as long as you are using grades for their primary purpose: to give information on difficulty to the aspirant ascentionist.

The problem comes when using grades to compare dissimilar routes in order to benchmark achievements, for example to compile a graded list where Century Crack is in some way comparable to Equilibrium. Leading to the reductio ad absurdum that WSS is harder than Right Wall because it takes most people a few more goes. Because E-grades consider the extra dimensions of risk and consequence inherent to trad, they can only be comparative within a genre – 'safe-but-sustained', 'bold-and-technical' to quote the Grit List from 25 years ago.

As for the H-grades idea, in my limited experience the E grades for harder climbs are indeed given for a hypothetical ascent without pre-inspection. That’s the only way a route such as Meshuga could merit E9: it’s straightforward if you have top-roped it, but working it all out going from the ground would be pretty exciting. At least comparable to onsighting Indian Face or Hubble

[SA Chris]

when we are actually stood beneath a crag we take in a range of visual clues that help us make sense of a combination of letters and numbers on the page: does the rock look solid; does it look compact and hard to protect; how tall is the cliff; how steep; are the lines obvious or hard to read, etc. etc.

Not an approach recommended after abseiling into a seacliff though, unless there is an easy escape route, or your jumar / runaway game is good.

[andy moles]

Leading to the reductio ad absurdum that WSS is harder than Right Wall because it takes most people a few more goes.

That's hardly ad absurdum, WSS is much harder than Right Wall! It's not just 'a few more goes', there are loads of climbers who would onsight Right Wall but wouldn't get up WSS after a multi session siege. And yes, the same is true in reverse, but only for boulderers who don't actually climb trad.

Not that this matters, because WSS isn't graded E4 any more.

[Tom de Gay]

Bit of an absurd comparison to make, was what I was getting at. At least apples and oranges are both similarly-sized spherical fruit.

[andy moles]

Bit of an absurd comparison to make, was what I was getting at. At least apples and oranges are both similarly-sized spherical fruit.

Apologies, re-reading your post I agree with the general point.

Though my impression is that hard E-grades are not always graded for the hypothetical on-sight attempt - listening to what various people climbing those routes have said or written, it doesn't always seem to be a consideration. In Dave Mac's recent-ish video on how he grades routes, for example, he didn't even touch on it.

[andy popp]

This is also all rather abstract when we actually use grades in context. Even if we simply have a picture with a line drawn on it and no description, when we are actually stood beneath a crag we take in a range of visual clues that help us make sense of a combination of letters and numbers on the page: does the rock look solid; does it look compact and hard to protect; how tall is the cliff; how steep; are the lines obvious or hard to read, etc. etc. Of course, having a guide book description adds even more information.

Ah, well that's all good as long as you are using grades for their primary purpose: to give information on difficulty to the aspirant ascentionist.

Silly me!