| Author |
Topic |
Missing the Rockies.
263 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 1:54 PM
|
MORE SCRAMBLES IN THE CANADIAN ROCKIES
By: Andrew Nugara
Drew's new book, the sequel to Allan Kane's "Scramble in the Canadian Rockies" (the foundational work that was also the impetus for Matt Gunn's book "Scrambles in South West British Columbia") is a great addition to any peak baggers collection. I have been lucky enough to have done several of the routes in all three scrambles books and as such I must say that Drew's new book takes the best from both of the previous books to make a very usable guide.
However, IMHO I feel that the grades on some of the climbs in the book are a bit sandbagged. Probably due in part to the phenomenon that occurs when experienced folks try to rate routes for the average person. Some of this I may have indirectly contributed to by bravado we all spew when we say things like "blah, its just second class!" For example, on reflection I would view Tiara as easy-moderate on the backside due to a run-out slab and low fifth on the direct gully due to incredibly loose vertical rock. When I was up there I called the gully 4th and the backside easy…. Even though the rope was out and we failed to make the gully in winter conditions. Allan's book is also a bit sandbagged. For example if in the Rockies, the Lions and the Tusk would probably garner a moderate rating. Add the chossy nature of the Rockies terrain and you have routes like Smuts and others really pushing the barrier of what a scramble is (to the average person). Regardless, these grades are just guidelines and everyone must take responsibility for their own actions. However, grades do play an important role in guidebooks targeted at people with little mountain experience.
The other comment I would like to make about the book is the fact that Andrew and Mark generally take a short rope and small rack on their trips. Something I strongly encourage and do as well. There is no shame in belaying or rapping a relatively benign section if there is exposure or the conditions are sketchy. Principles of mountain craft have developed out of prudence, why risk that short exposed 5.3 section solo if you can quickly hip belay it? I applaud Drew's introductory sections for bringing this up in greater detail than done previously.
Here's Drews older site:
http://members.shaw.ca/anugara/
And a couple other Rockies sites:
http://bobspirko.ca/
http://www.dave-stephens.com
http://www.dowclimbing.com/
http://www.fresh-oxygen.com/
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1118 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 3:58 PM
|
Some good thoughts there.These are all great guidebooks and although I don't think Matt Gunn would ever set out to purposely sandbag anyone,there are some trips in his book that are beyond what can reasonably be considered scrambling.North Nesakwatch,Joffre,and Cirque Peak come to mind.
Good comment about the hip belay,which is rapidly becoming an arcane technique,but one that every scrambler should know. |
|
|
 Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 7:11 PM
|
I have a friend in the Rockies who thinks just the opposite - that Nugara's routes are way over-rated.
|
|
|
|
Alberta-based choss climbin', flame throwin', rappel lovin', ass talkin' hater who doesn't like "Gumby" for a descriptor
6302 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 8:47 PM
|
Truthfully, I find the scrambles gradings in the Kane book pretty easy actually compared to their write up.
That Nugara site is one I used to read regularly. Personally, from the trip reports I have read, I really don't think these guys fully know what they are doing. Take pictures 6 and 10 on this page for example...http://www.freewebtown.com/anugara/chantilly.htm Who in their right mind climbs above 1/4 of the way driven screws clipped through the eye in FAT ice. That ice is as fat as it gets. Not really an excuse for that except not knowing what's up. These guys do all kinds of wacky stuff, that's why it's entertaining. Good on em for getting out there as much as they do though... I would take any technical (climbing) info from that site with a grain of salt though.
ooohhhhh.....I didn't know that was the same guy who made that new book though. Doesn't change my opinion though. |
Edited by - time2clmb on 11/15/2007 8:52 PM |
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 09:16 AM
|
Oh no, I agree with T2C again  What I've never worked out is how the rope they have on in most of their scrambles is actually supposed to help. |
|
|
Missing the Rockies.
263 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 09:57 AM
|
Sandy, my thoughts are that "in comparison" to Gunn and Kane the routes are graded a bit low. I think that is certainly the case in comparison to Gunn's book (perhaps its just the far better rock on the coast). There are exceptions to the rule I am sure (not having done even close to all the routes in each book). I.e. take a popular route like Heart Mtn. which Kane calls moderate, when it is really just a trail hike. I think the rope probably helps in a few ways: (1) psychologically (which is probably a bad thing) (2) for raps of short exposed sections that would be risky to down climb (3) short exposed traverses that could be belayed (4) protecting a factor 2 fall from leader on a short exposed section (probably want an anchor) (5) bringing up a second on a short section (5) simul-climbing with a some pro in (6) checking slips on run-out terrain…
Example (probably not the best one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zx3UL3bP7Y
Time2Climb, I believe Chantilly was only their second multi-pitch technical ice climb. I think they tend to do more general mountaineering. I'd consider them pretty conservative compared to the "scrambling masses" that populate the scene in Alberta which makes their grading all the more interesting. Frankly it amazes me that some of these "masses" haven't been killed yet as some of their attitudes are pretty "interesting."
Ultimately this is relative. There was a time when I thought climbing up the backside of the Chief was a big deal as I am sure for others climbing the Grand Wall is a relatively trivial experience while others may think scrambling up the North Gully a daunting task.
For guidebooks like the "scrambles" guides, I personally feel they should be tailored to the lowest common denominator. Not the peeps that can on-sight 5.14, or that romp up complex big mountain faces in extreme conditions. For that matter not even folks that crag climb or have experience with easy/moderate alpine terrain. The books should be tailored to the average day hiker, what is difficult to them would not be to a more seasoned individual. The worst possible use of books like these are by relatively inexperienced hikers that tackle these routes based on inaccurate ratings and misunderstood descriptions. Notwithstanding the disclaimers and warnings in the books these guides are not perceived as dealing with alpine routes (which often times they do) and they attract a more inexperienced crowd. To be conservative the route ratings should probably target these inexperienced people as the more experienced can make their own decisions. That's just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
 | Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:19 AM
|
The point of a guidebook is not to assume the technical abilities of the reader, but to present information and allow the reader to make informed choices as a result.
Taking a rope scrambling is dumb. It makes about as much sense as wearing a motorcycle helmet while you are driving a car. If you want to do a roped climb, go climbing, with everything that entails - an assortment of protection and the ability to place it. |
|
|
Missing the Rockies.
263 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:51 AM
|
Dru,
If that is the only point of a guidebook whay have ratings? Doesn't a rating allow one to make a more informed choice?
What's the diference between a hard scramble and an easy alpine climb?
What happens when that hard scramble part gets covered in ice on the decent?
I carry a rope on harder scrambles. In fact it is smart.
|
Edited by - Mel_Lowe on 11/16/2007 10:57 AM |
|
|
|
Alberta-based choss climbin', flame throwin', rappel lovin', ass talkin' hater who doesn't like "Gumby" for a descriptor
6302 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 11:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mel_Lowe
To be conservative the route ratings should probably target these inexperienced people as the more experienced can make their own decisions. That's just my 2 cents.
Ok, I see your point and it makes sense, but I still don't neccessarily agree.
quote:
I think the rope probably helps in a few ways: (1) psychologically (which is probably a bad thing) (2) for raps of short exposed sections that would be risky to down climb (3) short exposed traverses that could be belayed (4) protecting a factor 2 fall from leader on a short exposed section (probably want an anchor)
If you only have an anchor on a short exposed section without anything else in between you and the climber than you have created a fall factor 2 scenario, not avoided one. I am aware about the knots tightening, belayer being pulled up a bit, rope slipage ect ect, so let's not go there with this. Simply put, a fall directly onto an anchor is a FF2. Having no anchor between and no pro while being belayed would just be plain silly.
|
|
|
Vancouver, BC
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 11:47 AM
|
With only 3 possible ratings (easy, mod, hard), it's difficult to establish a universal standard that everybody's happy with. Even with the 20 or so ratings for climbing routes, there's still geographic variation.
I would posit that ratings are useful information as long as they are consistent within the book (or in all books by the same author). Go do a couple easy or moderate ones and see how you find them. Then you have a good idea of what to expect on future trips.
As for bringing a rope, chalk it up to personal preference/judgement. It's an added piece of security that may make or break the summit for you, but on the other hand, on a clear sunny day on a moderate route it probably won't be worth its weight. |
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 12:34 PM
|
Taking a rope on a scramble can and often will get you into worse trouble than doing without. One example - I have seen a party receive multiple injuries after roping up for the chimney on the Black Tusk. Injuries would have been avoided if the party remained unroped - the rope dislodged loose rocks into the lower climbers.
quote:
What's the diference between a hard scramble and an easy alpine climb?
What happens when that hard scramble part gets covered in ice on the decent?
There is a fair bit of overlap in difficulty between hard scrambles and easy climbs. One route could be both. The main difference is the intent with which a party approaches the route. Certainly, some of the easiest routes in "Selected Alpine Climbs" make good scrambles.
If the scramble route you are on gets "coated in ice during the descent", probably someone in the party made a serious error in judgement in picking an objective given the forecast conditions and desired activity. But, crampons and ice-axes are often a better choice for verglas than attempting to set a secure anchor in iced rock. |
|
|
Missing the Rockies.
263 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 12:58 PM
|
T2C, thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't clear. As really bad example (probably where people rightly point out that a rope in a scramble situation would not do much good for a leader), imagine a short crux on a scramble that had exposure on one side. (Picture up climbing the so called "down climb" on Baldy). An unprotected fall by a leader to the exposed side would be fatal as it would be to ground over 15m. The fall to the unexposed side would be an injury fall to a ledge less than a few meters. The belayer is anchored on the ledge, orienting the direction of pull towards the exposure and setting for a fall past the anchor. The force would be huge and the system would probably fail taking both people down regardless of a soft catch. You'd need pro. Although I have heard of falls being caught this way it ain't good.
Supershiaholic, I agree, no need for rope on most moderate scrambles in good conditions. Although I have hip belayed (they tied in with a bowline) people up and down the chimney on Needle because they were scared.
Dru, I agree, a rope is a detriment for people that don't know what they are doing and people that derive a false sense of security from it. Also, the extra weight and time to set up stations can result in an unplanned bivy or risk running into bad conditions. I also agree that better down climb than rely on a sketchy anchor (although a rope could check a slip).
I'd suggest that the subjective element is too great to distinguish when a rope may or may not be needed. If I am unsure of the route, the conditions or people that are with me, I'll bring a rope. It has come in useful on several occasions.
|
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 5:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mel_Lowe
I think they tend to do more general mountaineering. I'd consider them pretty conservative compared to the "scrambling masses" that populate the scene in Alberta which makes their grading all the more interesting. Frankly it amazes me that some of these "masses" haven't been killed yet as some of their attitudes are pretty "interesting."
I'm with T2C, their webpage makes great entertainment, but holy batman, I'm surprised they haven't been seriously injured. Some of the stuff they do is dubious at best.
quote:
For guidebooks like the "scrambles" guides, I personally feel they should be tailored to the lowest common denominator.
Agreed.
As for taking a rope, given the difficulty of setting secure belays in the Rockies, I'm with Dru, either really go climbing or don't scramble anything you can't scramble down.
As for points 1 to 6 for taking a rope - (1) a pyschological belay is worth s**t, why not just jump off the mountain together, 'cos that's what you'll be doing if you have no anchor. (3) If you are doing an exposed traverse, the second will pendulum unless you place intermediary gear, (4) you PROBABLY want an anchor for a factor 2 fall, see psychological belay above, (5) and (6) are for experienced climbers who won't need the rope anyway. |
Edited by - sandy on 11/16/2007 11:06 PM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1118 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 6:25 PM
|
| Probably not worth taking a rope on scrambles,but we have found a length of 6 millimetre cord useful for hand lines etc.Whatever, there have been a few times when we were glad we had it with us.Nice to see some intelligent discussion on this website. |
Edited by - tedoliver on 11/16/2007 6:27 PM |
|
|
|
Alberta-based choss climbin', flame throwin', rappel lovin', ass talkin' hater who doesn't like "Gumby" for a descriptor
6302 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 8:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mel_Lowe
T2C, thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't clear. As really bad example (probably where people rightly point out that a rope in a scramble situation would not do much good for a leader), imagine a short crux on a scramble that had exposure on one side. (Picture up climbing the so called "down climb" on Baldy). An unprotected fall by a leader to the exposed side would be fatal as it would be to ground over 15m. The fall to the unexposed side would be an injury fall to a ledge less than a few meters. The belayer is anchored on the ledge, orienting the direction of pull towards the exposure and setting for a fall past the anchor. The force would be huge and the system would probably fail taking both people down regardless of a soft catch. You'd need pro. Although I have heard of falls being caught this way it ain't good.
What you describe is a FF2 scenario. Why put yourself in that situation? I would much rather solo it (scrambling). If my second wanted a belay from the top I would consider (depends on loose rock ect..) trailing a rope up but NOT while on belay. No point ripping the anchor and taking both people off the side. Let's face it, it's alpine scrambling and there is no fricken way I am going to test rockies alpine anchors with a FF2.
Sandy is absolutely correct, pyschological pro is worth shit. If your putting in garbage pro and convincing yourself it won't fail then you are putting yourself into a bad situation. If you absolutely need the pro because you might fall then maybe it's time to back off. If you are taking a rope to make up for lack of climbing ability / experience then Dru's comment kicks in..."Taking a rope on a scramble can and often will get you into worse trouble than doing without".
There really isn't a point taking a rope on the scrambles around the rockies. Typically too much loose rock and that rope is just going to knock off rocks onto your parnter. |
|
|
Missing the Rockies.
263 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 9:29 PM
|
Let’s get off the F2 leader issue and the physiological issue that I have already pointed out is weak. If that is the sole justification for always soloing class 4 terrain (and some class 3) then I digress.
This black and white distinction between going climbing and going scrambling is fictitious, think of it all as just mountaineering. A lot of so called 4th class routes traditionally call for rope but not a lot of pro. As mentioned, sure you’ll pendulum if not redirected, but finding something to sling should be pretty easy in 4th class terrain. I’m not advocating trying to bury gear in a choss pile or trying to advocate attacking an easy climb with 70 meter ropes and full kit. I’m also not suggesting a half ass belay is the thing to do in technical terrain. However there is a middle ground on semi-technical terrain. The kind of terrain that can and has killed/injured a lot of people. Generations of past mountaineers have used these less sophisticated techniques to get them through some pretty gnarly spots. Sure they aren’t the best thing in comparison with modern climbing methods, but they still can work, especially in the kind of terrain we are talking about, where a full-on anchored belay with pro is overkill but soloing the step is sketch. Here are a few examples.
(1) a short 10 arm rappel down to a col due to hard snow. Would I have been better with crampons and an axe, ya maybe.
(2) a hip belay to check a second in 3rd class terrain on Needle. Tension was on and I wasn’t going anywhere. It got a couple hikers up and down the mountain.
(3) Yamnuska traverse solo, crux has a cable, snow made the footing difficult. Rigged a diaper harness with a sling and attached another to connect Via Ferrata to the cable.
I don’t understand the mentality that you’re either (1) totally solo or (2) into a fully anchored and protected climbing mode.
With the greatest of respect, instead of some of you dumping on these guys it may pay some karma dividends to drop them an email if you know they are doing something wrong.
|
|
|
|
Alberta-based choss climbin', flame throwin', rappel lovin', ass talkin' hater who doesn't like "Gumby" for a descriptor
6302 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 9:41 PM
|
quote:
This black and white distinction between going climbing and going scrambling is fictitious
No one was saying it's black and white. There is way too much overlap between 3rd / 4th / 5th to be able to draw a line. Not possible. |
|
|
|
Alberta-based choss climbin', flame throwin', rappel lovin', ass talkin' hater who doesn't like "Gumby" for a descriptor
6302 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 9:45 PM
|
quote:
I don’t understand the mentality that you’re either (1) totally solo or (2) into a fully anchored and protected climbing mode.
No one was saying this...
quote:
With the greatest of respect, instead of some of you dumping on these guys it may pay some karma dividends to drop them an email if you know they are doing something wrong
lol....I already did this. I emailed him regarding the ice screws shortly after he put it online. Oddly enough, that was the last trip report I have seen on that site.
This has been a good discussion. There really is no need to get defensive. No one is attacking you, just sharing opinions. |
|
|
Missing the Rockies.
263 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 10:34 PM
|
| It is a good discussion. You guys are obviously quite experienced and knowledgeable. |
|
|
|
Kootenay Bud
2695 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 11:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by time2clmb
lol....I already did this. I emailed him regarding the ice screws shortly after he put it online.
OMG  I've agreed with T2C twice in one thread
Seriously, the problem with the Rockies is you just can't find natural belays easily. If the rock is solid, it tends to be very compact and there are no horns or anything to sling. If there are things to sling, the rock is crap. I can't think (off hand) of a scramble route where there are actually solid natural protection possibilities.
|
|
|
| Dru
Mountain Grammar Police
|
Sardonic sandbagging scoundrel, Cascade Climbers lobotomized spraymeister, space blanket flyer, new millennium vulgarian betaboy and friend to all squids
Climbing, a mountain
Canada
∞ Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 12:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sandy
quote:
Originally posted by time2clmb
lol....I already did this. I emailed him regarding the ice screws shortly after he put it online.
OMG I've agreed with T2C twice in one thread
Seriously, the problem with the Rockies is you just can't find natural belays easily. If the rock is solid, it tends to be very compact and there are no horns or anything to sling. If there are things to sling, the rock is crap. I can't think (off hand) of a scramble route where there are actually solid natural protection possibilities.
And unlike the lower parts of the Coast Mountains and Cascades you can't always count on finding trees to sling either |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
MORE SCRAMBLES IN THE CANADIAN ROCKIES
