Hopefully, the river is rated based on it's features, characteristics,
and dangers. What craft you are in has no bearing on the river. It
doesn't care what you may fall out of.

Many novice rafters can safely enjoy a Class (Grade) 4 run, while some
novice kayakers may have their hands full on Class 3. That is not a
hard and fast rule, but an over simplification. Some runs greatly
favor kayaks because of size. Large boats don't always fit where
small boats fit.

I don't think there are many Class six runs being done routinely.

(Wilko, I hope I am correct in assuming that European standards are
substantially the same as U.S.?)


Just my $.02 (while I try to help breathe some life back into RBP)


-Dan


On 11 Sep 2003 02:11:48 -0700, (ZattleBone)
wrote:

Anyone know the differences in the two grading systems?

A friend has just come back from South Africa where (as a complete
rafting novice) he was running Grade 5. The kayakers supporting the
raft all went off to do a Grade 6 run in the afternoon. The numbers
seem a bit high to me.

Any ideas? Is a grade 6 raft-rapid actually a grade 4/5 kayak-run?

Zatt.

Dan Valleskey wrote:

I don't think there are many Class six runs being done routinely.

Same story here.

(Wilko, I hope I am correct in assuming that European standards are
substantially the same as U.S.?)

From what I've seen in the U.S., I would say so. Maybe the comparison
with western U.S. rivers/ratings fits the type of rivers here better,
though.

--
Wilko van den Bergh
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Wilko" wrote in message
news:1fg8b.37557$tK5.4769674@zonnet-reader-1...

Dan Valleskey wrote:

I don't think there are many Class six runs being done routinely.

Same story here.

(Wilko, I hope I am correct in assuming that European standards are
substantially the same as U.S.?)

From what I've seen in the U.S., I would say so. Maybe the comparison
with western U.S. rivers/ratings fits the type of rivers here better,
though.


The interesting thing about western ratings is that there is no numerical
classification for 'unrunnable'. Class 10 often is described as "an
inexperienced boatman in a good quality boat has less than a 50-50 chance of
making it right-side up." I like the 10-step breakdown, too, since it
clears up some of that vast grey area between Class III and Class IV on the
traditional grading scale.

--riverman

(and it sounds a lot like Spinal Tap, too.)

riverman wrote:

The interesting thing about western ratings is that there is no numerical
classification for 'unrunnable'.

Ehm, having only run a few rivers west of the Appalachians, I think that
you might mistake Grand Canyon ratings for "western rivers" ratings,
Myron. The creeks and rivers I saw up close in Colorado were classified
I to VI, noting that my paddling buddy is from Colorado...


Class 10 often is described as "an
inexperienced boatman in a good quality boat has less than a 50-50 chance of
making it right-side up."

I know a rapid or two that fits this desciption... big grin


I like the 10-step breakdown, too, since it
clears up some of that vast grey area between Class III and Class IV on the
traditional grading scale.

Hmmm, that's one of the few level distinctions that I find very clear.
IMO a class III paddler will immediately know when they've hit a IV
rapid. For a class IV (and over) paddler, a line in a class III rapid
will not be anything to note.

(and it sounds a lot like Spinal Tap, too.)

:-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko wrote:
riverman wrote:


The interesting thing about western ratings is that there is no numerical
classification for 'unrunnable'.


Ehm, having only run a few rivers west of the Appalachians, I think that
you might mistake Grand Canyon ratings for "western rivers" ratings,
Myron. The creeks and rivers I saw up close in Colorado were classified
I to VI, noting that my paddling buddy is from Colorado...


Myron et al, are refering to the "Deseret Scale", which goes from 1-10
and was applied to the Grand Canyon and several other large volume
rivers without difficult rapids. Rumored that 1-10 was for how high the
waves were (in feet) in that rapid.

--Chris

"Wilko" wrote in message
news:8Nq9b.42339$tK5.5098975@zonnet-reader-1...
riverman wrote:

The interesting thing about western ratings is that there is no
numerical
classification for 'unrunnable'.

Ehm, having only run a few rivers west of the Appalachians, I think that
you might mistake Grand Canyon ratings for "western rivers" ratings,
Myron. The creeks and rivers I saw up close in Colorado were classified
I to VI, noting that my paddling buddy is from Colorado...



Hmmm, I guess I missed the gist of your post, then , Wilko. Other than the
Grand Canyon scale (which I have never heard anyone but the Utah Mormons,
novices or marketers refer to as the 'Deseret Scale') there isn't a separate
rating scale for Western Rivers, so you must be referring to how the rivers
are rated? I know that because of geology, geography, plant cover and
relative age, Western water has a completely different 'feel' than Eastern
water, so as a result a Western class 4 can be completely different than an
Eastern class 4. And the nature of the boaters and their skills plays a big
part in that, too. The western boaters are more familar with open, big
water, so 'Carolina Steep Creeks' have been traditionally a challenge.
Eastern boaters are used to manuvering through rock gardens, so the
traditional '40 foot wave' is a real challenge to them. Also, the
familiarity with the types of boats plays a real role.
I once heard this summary, which is pretty good:

Back when the Americas were settled (from East to West), the natives in the
East used canoes as essential transportation, so from the earliest days,
everyone in the East had canoes and were taking them through the tightest of
spots, rather than take the time to portage. As people got more adventuous,
they began running more technical rivers in canoes, and the recreation
industry developed to support this, with durable boats and paddling gear,
and the right techniques.
The western natives, OTOH, did not run their rivers because they didn't take
them anywhere they wanted to go, and in many cases the rivers were hard to
access. That was, until after WW2, when a surplus of army rafts became
available and people started taking them on rivers for recreation. Rafts
have never been 'essential transportation'.

As a result, eastern rivers are rated for canoes, and eastern boaters have
grown up with hard boats as part of their culture for 250 years. Western
rivers are rated for rafts, and western boaters have had rafts are part of
their culture for 50 years. It wasn't until the mid 70s that the two started
to mix: some eastern boaters brought canoes to the west and started running
the big and small rivers (hey, *I* even managed to bag a first descent!) and
some western boaters brought rafts to the east and started running the
narrow rivers.

As a result, the very foundations of the east vs. west rating system is
different. The boats, the culture surrounding the boats, the 'genetic
resonance' of the boaters, and the entire outlook on the style of water is
different.

Is that what you meant?

--riverman

riverman wrote:

As a result, the very foundations of the east vs. west rating system is
different. The boats, the culture surrounding the boats, the 'genetic
resonance' of the boaters, and the entire outlook on the style of water is
different.

Is that what you meant?

Bingo! :-)

From what I've paddled in Europe, and (mostly the eastern part of) the
U.S., I got the impression that western U.S. rivers are more like what
we have over here. Sure, there are pool and drop as well as more
continuous rivers here, and there definately is a big difference in
volume between the multitude of rivers and creeks here.

In general, I found the rating of the rivers I ran in the east to be
quite different from those I ran in Europe. From the experiences of
those Eastern U.S. paddlers that I've taken on trips in Europe, I got
the impression that they weren't so used to the more continuous nature
of the creeks and rivers I took them on. They tended to rate those
European creeks/rivers higher than I would, I assume that had to do with
the more continuous nature of those streams.

--
Wilko van den Bergh
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Wilko" wrote in message
newswG9b.44887$tK5.5159039@zonnet-reader-1...

From what I've paddled in Europe, and (mostly the eastern part of) the
U.S., I got the impression that western U.S. rivers are more like what
we have over here. Sure, there are pool and drop as well as more
continuous rivers here, and there definately is a big difference in
volume between the multitude of rivers and creeks here.

In general, I found the rating of the rivers I ran in the east to be
quite different from those I ran in Europe. From the experiences of
those Eastern U.S. paddlers that I've taken on trips in Europe, I got
the impression that they weren't so used to the more continuous nature
of the creeks and rivers I took them on. They tended to rate those
European creeks/rivers higher than I would, I assume that had to do with
the more continuous nature of those streams.

Hmmm, good observations, and I don't see any simple explanation. However, my
experience is that European rivers (if there is such a generic term) are a
differnet animal entirely than Eastern or Western water.

The eastern US rivers tend to be relatively short and intense, as the
Appalacians are an old, narrow mountain belt, and there is often only a few
miles between where the water has enough volume to have carved a good bed,
and when the rivers dump out onto the piedmont and flatten out with mud
bottoms. So, yes, eastern boaters will run a 2-mile stretch of rocky water
several times, and call that a 'run'. Several larger rivers (the Hudson, for
example) have several play stretches, but mostly because the rivers cut
across resistant geology and develop rapids in areas where they could easily
be long, class 1-2 stretches instead.

Western rivers, OTOH, tend to drain huge drainage basins, and the mountains
belts are very wide and relatively young. So the rivers can come down out of
the hills already with substantial volume, toss among miles-long stretches
of boulders, then canyon out and become long fla****er floats. The
whitewater stretches can be VERY continuous (my personal favorite is the
dozen-mile long nonstop 'Idaho Class 3' stretch at the top of the MidFork
Salmon.), but once the river changes its nature, its a long-term change.

European rivers, OTThirdH, are a mix of the two. The mountains are very old
and worn down, like the Appalacians, however they are very wide and can
support large rivers. The european steep creeks (like the ones in Slovenia)
are similar to the Eastern US rivers in nature, but because of the
dependable drainage of the Alps, they run more consistently and carry a lot
more debris through their drainout. However, because of the intermittent
nature of big floods, the rocks are sharp, poorly sorted, and the river bed
is relatively immature. So you end up with an eastern-style rocky creek,
that runs a western-style length before it changes its nature.

I think both eastern and western boaters overrate anything they are
unfamiliar with. Calling Hance in the Grand Canyon a '10' is a joke to any
eastern boater who can navigate rocks. Calling Magic Falls on the Kennebec a
'4-5' is a farce to any western boater who has run the V-wave in Lava. Any
US boater who comes to Europe is going to overrate the rapids, until they
get used to the continuous and rocky nature of them. I think European
boaters see both long runs, and rocky runs, so they might not overrate US
rivers quite so easily.

I know here in Kinshasa, I have had so many people tell me how the rapids on
the outskirts of town here are 'Unrunnable' that I want to puke. Its
basically a solid class 5-, with an entrance where you skirt a huge Lava
LedgeHole-sized pourover, run a Hance Lookalike wave train, then catch a
Niagara Whirlpool-sized eddy. I've run stuff this big in rafts a dozen times
with no problem. The stuff downstream is rumored to be worse, but I wonder
if its just continuous instead......

--riverman

"riverman" typed

The interesting thing about western ratings is that there is no numerical
classification for 'unrunnable'. Class 10 often is described as "an
inexperienced boatman in a good quality boat has less than a 50-50 chance of
making it right-side up." I like the 10-step breakdown, too, since it
clears up some of that vast grey area between Class III and Class IV on the
traditional grading scale.

Myron, I think you bin away from home to long. As far as I know there
is no "western" 10-step scale in the US any longer. The only 10-step
scale I know about is the "Grand Canyon Scale", applied only on the
Grand Canyon, as an historical artifact.

The Class 10 you describe could only conceivably apply to rafts and
dories (only guessing about the latter, since I have no experience
with dories). I would say that, in the 6-step International Scale of
River Difficulty, which we and the Europeans try to follow, an
inexperienced kayaker or canoeist in a good quality boat would have
less than 50% chance of making it through a Class III rapid right-side
up. (In fact, the ratings map very closely to skill levels:
I-Beginner, II-Novice, III-Intermediate, IV-Advanced, V-Expert,
VI-God).

Which brings up a problem, and perhaps the reason the 10-step scale
has fallen into disuse: if the rating of the rapid must be changed to
suit the craft, then you are not actually rating the rapid, *per se*,
you are rating the rapid/craft combination. By contemporary thinking,
the difficulty of a rapid should be intrinsic to the rapid, measured
by objective criteria, and irrelevant to the nature of any craft that
might attempt the rapid.

I think.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net 1-301-775-0471
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll.
rhople[at]wfubmc[dot]edu 1-336-713-5077
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters.
================================================== ====================

Which brings up a problem, and perhaps the reason the 10-step scale
has fallen into disuse: if the rating of the rapid must be changed to
suit the craft, then you are not actually rating the rapid, *per se*,
you are rating the rapid/craft combination. By contemporary thinking,
the difficulty of a rapid should be intrinsic to the rapid, measured
by objective criteria, and irrelevant to the nature of any craft that
might attempt the rapid.

I think we should rate rapids based on a combination of both the rapid, the
boat, and the paddler. For instance, there is a rapid, that shall remain
nameless due to embarrassment, that flips me every time. It's "easier" than
many other rapids I paddle, and I've done it a few dozen times, and yet, it
flips me. I think it should be at least a V.

Geoff