Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

FAQ and threads for those just starting to hike the Colorado 14ers.
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
Flyingfish
Posts: 208
Joined: 5/23/2011
14ers:summits56 winter2 
13ers:summits233 winter5 
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by Flyingfish » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:38 pm

Another problem with how hikers use the YDS is that they often mix in exposure with their ratings. Difficulty and exposure are very different ways of measuring a route. However, generally something with a high difficulty does have lots of exposure. This is not always the case. Halo Ridge is solidly class 2 but has some sections with a high amount of exposure. There are also come class 4 sections on Pyramid with very little exposure.
This exposure vs. difficulty rating is something I feel like very few "new" hikers have any understanding of and can lead people to both over rating and under rating routes.
User avatar
AlexeyD
Posts: 1281
Joined: 10/28/2013
14ers:summits40 ski3 winter2 
Trip Reports (3)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by AlexeyD » Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:07 pm

Flyingfish wrote:Difficulty and exposure are very different ways of measuring a route.
I agree up to a point. I'd argue, though, that there are times in which the exposure actually does become a factor in the rating. Take the following example: imagine a Class 1 or 2 trail. Now put that trail on top of a ridge, and make it increasingly narrow. At some point, the consequences of a slip will become so severe that people can no longer walk that trail the same way they would if it were simply on flat ground; instead, they're now using their hands and feet in a way that's more similar to climbing. In other words, the exposure actually changes the nature of the route - and hence its rating. The Capitol knife edge is the obvious real-world example of this. Were it not for the 1000s of feet of air on either side, it wouldn't be harder than class 2, and most people would simply walk across. It's the exposure that makes people scoot, crawl, smear, or do whatever it is they do to get across without falling into the abyss.

Ultimately, these scales - even at the YDS Class 5 level - are an attempt to quantify the human experience vis-a-vis the terrain, not an objective measure of the terrain itself. Therefore, it can never come down to just one factor alone, and it's rarely the case that you can completely eliminate another factor (i.e. exposure) from the equation either.
User avatar
Jorts
Posts: 381
Joined: 4/12/2013
14ers:summits21 ski3 winter1 
13ers:summits59 ski12 winter5 
Trip Reports (6)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by Jorts » Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:07 pm

Route finding can make some class 2 terrain more difficult to navigate and thus "difficult class 2". Really though, it's arbitrary.

A 5-12 climb for a short woman could be a 5-9 for the tall guy who can bypass the difficult section, and a 5-9 for a person with small hands could be a 5-12 for the large handed guy left crimping.

Image
Traveling light is the only way to fly.
IG: @summityinzer
Strava: Brent Herring
User avatar
mtree
Posts: 1111
Joined: 6/16/2010
14ers: List not added

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by mtree » Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:21 pm

By definition, class 2 does not require use of your hands. Class 3 will require the use of your hands. It gets blurry in the middle. I'd say Challenger is a great example of a difficult class 2. Chicago transplant explained it well. A difficult class 2 requires very modified movement, whether its for balance or security. Easy class 3 would be something most folks can accomplish fairly easily, but will require hand holds...however easy they may be. Kit Carson's standard route is a great example.

I'll mention that one person's class 2 may be another's class 3. Depends on how long your legs are... or your skill level. Sneffel's V-notch comes to mind. Some might even consider Kit Carson's Challenger Point route a class 2.
- I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was blaming you.
User avatar
TakeMeToYourSummit
Posts: 285
Joined: 9/10/2012
14ers:summits58 ski2 
13ers:summits240 ski24 winter2 
Trip Reports (8)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by TakeMeToYourSummit » Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:08 pm

AlexeyD wrote:imagine a Class 1 or 2 trail. Now put that trail on top of a ridge
An even better example of this is the Devil's Causeway on the Flattops. From everything I understand it is simply class 2. The exposure turns people around all the time though. This discussion is similar (not exactly) like the class 4 or low 5 debate. I climbed Tijeras followed by the south ridge of Music this weekend. Solidly class 4... or was there a move or two of low 5 in there somewhere?! Such a blurry line. When I hear difficult 2 I always think of loose, shifting terrain - think Castle, Challenger, or the like. My personal nemesis on this matter was Gilpin... ascending (& worse yet; descending) that gully dry was not the most prudent choice!
I'm horrible with names...
But will never forget a mountain's face!
User avatar
derekesq
Posts: 127
Joined: 12/23/2013
14ers:summits27 
13ers:summits6 
Trip Reports (1)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by derekesq » Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:16 pm

How about Belford and Missouri both being class two. I would consider Missouri a difficult class 2 whereas Belford seems more like a 1.5.
Who is John Galt
User avatar
justiner
Posts: 3402
Joined: 8/28/2010
14ers:summits58 winter4 
13ers:summits138 
Trip Reports (26)
Contact:

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by justiner » Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:26 pm

I propose we split Class 2 into more specific grades:

[*] Easy Class 2
[*] Moderate Class 2
[*] Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Difficult Class 2
[*] Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Severe Class 2
[*] Very Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Very Severe Class 2
[*] Extremely Severe Class 2
User avatar
rijaca
Posts: 3186
Joined: 7/9/2006
14ers:summits58 winter4 
13ers:summits244 ski1 winter3 
Trip Reports (1)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by rijaca » Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:46 pm

Class 2: I use my trekking poles.
Class 3: I put my trekking poles on my pack.

I encounter difficult Class 2 when I try to put my poles on my pack while still wearing it.
"A couple more shots of whiskey,
the women 'round here start looking good"
User avatar
Conor
Posts: 978
Joined: 9/2/2014
14ers:summits41 ski6 winter6 
13ers:summits41 ski1 winter1 
Trip Reports (7)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by Conor » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:02 pm

justiner wrote:I propose we split Class 2 into more specific grades:

[*] Easy Class 2
[*] Moderate Class 2
[*] Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Difficult Class 2
[*] Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Hard Very Difficult Class 2
[*] Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Severe Class 2
[*] Very Severe Class 2
[*] Hard Very Severe Class 2
[*] Extremely Severe Class 2
I propose we adopt the yds for 5th class. We then have 2.1 all the way up to 2.15. This represents the hardest part of the route from a technical stand point. We should then use letters for an exposure rating. + and - can then be used in multiples for route finding difficulty. For example, sneffels would be 2.10b-+.

This system is fool proof and elimanted all silly conversations about a route's difficulty in the technical climbing world. Applying it to the hiking world should bring the same joy mountainproject.com enjoys.
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 8255
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers:summits51 winter16 
13ers:summits41 winter13 
Trip Reports (16)
Contact:

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by Scott P » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:05 pm

derekesq wrote:How about Belford and Missouri both being class two. I would consider Missouri a difficult class 2 whereas Belford seems more like a 1.5.
Isn't Belford a class 1 by more than one route? I'm asking rather than arguing, because maybe I'm not remembering correctly.
I'm slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
TravelingMatt
Posts: 2175
Joined: 6/29/2005
14ers:summits56 
13ers:summits426 
Trip Reports (2)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by TravelingMatt » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:10 pm

Conor wrote:I propose we adopt the yds for 5th class. We then have 2.1 all the way up to 2.15. This represents the hardest part of the route from a technical stand point. We should then use letters for an exposure rating. + and - can then be used in multiples for route finding difficulty. For example, sneffels would be 2.10b-+.
Yes, as I wrote:
TravelingMatt wrote:I understand the original intention of YDS was for all the class levels to have decimal precision the way Class 5 does. Imagine all the long, pointless debates we could have over whether Crestone Needle is 3.6 or 3.7.
You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough. -- William Blake
User avatar
Conor
Posts: 978
Joined: 9/2/2014
14ers:summits41 ski6 winter6 
13ers:summits41 ski1 winter1 
Trip Reports (7)

Re: Class 2 vs Difficult Class 2

Post by Conor » Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:24 pm

TravelingMatt wrote:
Conor wrote:I propose we adopt the yds for 5th class. We then have 2.1 all the way up to 2.15. This represents the hardest part of the route from a technical stand point. We should then use letters for an exposure rating. + and - can then be used in multiples for route finding difficulty. For example, sneffels would be 2.10b-+.
Yes, as I wrote:
TravelingMatt wrote:I understand the original intention of YDS was for all the class levels to have decimal precision the way Class 5 does. Imagine all the long, pointless debates we could have over whether Crestone Needle is 3.6 or 3.7.
I think we might have blown this whole troll account thing.
Post Reply