If you are dressed for the water temp, are you automatically dressed
for the air temp?

People die up here in Colorado every year from hypothermia, without
ever getting in the water. All they need to do is get a little wet from
rain or even sweat, and at 50F they can become hypothermic. Wind chill
is important and especially if you are wet, and setting still in a
kayak, unable to exercise enough to stay warm. Combine that with the
possibility of having become tired, hungry, and seriously chilled if
you did take a swim, recovery air temp could be real important! TnT

[snippage]
I don't really bother to
think in terms of a standardized rating system. I may not quantify
conditions "by the numbers", but I guess somewhere inside me there's
my own mysterious and particular (peculiar?) rating system. :-)

- --
Melissa

Being a relatively new paddler (about 3 years and can't get out enough). I
also have developed my own peculiar rating system.

1- Oh how boring, but maybe the view will make up for it.
2 - This looks promising.
3 - I think I can
4 - See you folks later for dinner, cause there ain't no way I'm goin out
today.

So far it has worked. I only had to invoke number 4 once last year on a trip
to Lake Erie. They were breaking 4-6 footers and I'm not ready yet. It would
have been a launch from rocks on top of that. I was the first to say no and
quickly everyone decided that the river was a better bet for the day. We did
the Vermillion river that day and ended up doing one of the protected bays
the next. We paddled out and took a look at the lake but I'm not even sure
we could have pushed out past the breakwater. We did have 2 people that went
out past the breakwater from the Vermillion river the first day. They were
doing pretty good and then one of them went for a swim and in the process of
3-4 reentries his paddle broke. While they did have a spare on the rear deck
of one of the boats they made the decision to tow the capsized boater into
shore. They landed on a private beach quite to the amusement of the
homeowner. He offered a ride to one of the guys and they came and got the
rest of the group to bring the kayak trailer around to collect the boats and
the swimmer. Gave us something to talk about during dinner.


Ken

"No Spam" wrote in message
news:Vb_Id.14464$1l2.1670@trndny05...
[snippage]
I don't really bother to
think in terms of a standardized rating system. I may not quantify
conditions "by the numbers", but I guess somewhere inside me there's
my own mysterious and particular (peculiar?) rating system. :-)

- --
Melissa

Being a relatively new paddler (about 3 years and can't get out enough). I
also have developed my own peculiar rating system.

1- Oh how boring, but maybe the view will make up for it.
2 - This looks promising.
3 - I think I can
4 - See you folks later for dinner, cause there ain't no way I'm goin out
today.

So far it has worked. I only had to invoke number 4 once last year on a
trip
to Lake Erie. They were breaking 4-6 footers and I'm not ready yet. It
would
have been a launch from rocks on top of that. I was the first to say no
and
quickly everyone decided that the river was a better bet for the day. We
did
the Vermillion river that day and ended up doing one of the protected bays
the next. We paddled out and took a look at the lake but I'm not even sure
we could have pushed out past the breakwater. We did have 2 people that
went
out past the breakwater from the Vermillion river the first day. They were
doing pretty good and then one of them went for a swim and in the process
of
3-4 reentries his paddle broke. While they did have a spare on the rear
deck
of one of the boats they made the decision to tow the capsized boater into
shore. They landed on a private beach quite to the amusement of the
homeowner. He offered a ride to one of the guys and they came and got the
rest of the group to bring the kayak trailer around to collect the boats
and
the swimmer. Gave us something to talk about during dinner.

Both you, Ken, and Melissa bring up a very good point. Ocean and lakes are
NOT rated by the traditional river rating system, because the conditions are
so variable. As a result, folks who play on the beach are welcome to devise
their own rating system, and it is inevitably based on their own ability
to run that particular water. And on any particular day, three different
boaters may rate the same beach waves differently, depending on their skills
and equipment.

River runners need a similar system, or else there will be the same old
arguments forever about whether or not class 4 is 'runnable' in an open
boat, or class 5 is 'runnable' at all.....

--riverman

riverman wrote:


Nonetheless, we can morph this into a rating system thread, if you want. :-)

Sure, why not, RBP seems to have come alive again, and I enjoy the
direction that some of these discussions are going. :-)

What do you think: two identically skilled paddlers in the same type boat,
on the same day, paddling the same river together. One is dressed
appropriately, one is underdressed significantly. Is the river rated the
same?

Not according to me. I rate the difficulty of a rapid by how difficult
it is to stay on the line, i.e. the skill necessary to stay on that
particular line through that rapid.

Danger or risk is not part of the rating for me, but it does have a big
impact on whether or not I would run something, despite the rating.

I was thinking about this on the way home, and began to get a grip on the
problem with the rating system...allow me to soapbox a bit.

:-)

The solution is simple. The first step has to be to clearly and
unambiguously define as much about that 'imaginary person' as possible. What
boat, what clothing, what skills, etc. And that imaginary person has to be
standard for all rivers, everywhere. Of course, we can always invoke the
'reasonable man test', as they do in law. "A reasonable person in such a
situation", but I don't think the disparate types of boaters could ever come
to agreement on what a standardized 'reasonable man' is. But until it is
clearly defined, any attempt to make a river rating system is doomed to
failure.

Hmmm, so what according to you does the clothing of said imaginary
boater have to do with how difficult it is for him to stay on his line?

Anyway, my proposal: some recognized authoritative body must clearly define
who the 'Reasonable Boater' is: what skills, what boat, what gear, as well
as what the environmental situation is: what temp (air and water), what
river level, what sky conditions are, etc. Then, all rating systems
worldwide would be correlated and usable. If a person was in a more stable
boat than the Reasonable Boater Standard, they could modify *all* river
rating worldwide by just adjusting the rating system on their local river
accordingly. Sort of their personal handicap.

Sounds a bit like (in part) what AW has tried to do...

In this way, a river's actual rating is meaningless. There is NO 'class 4
rapid', because no one is really the Reasonable Boater. But what is class 4
for YOU may be class 3 for someone who is a much stronger paddler, and
class 5 for a newbie. Which actually represents reality much more, since
people will argue all day about whether a class 4 rapid is runnable.

I think that most difficulty ratings have grey areas, but for me the
clearest line was the one between class III and class IV. Suddenly I
found myself acutely aware of the differences between the two, it just
felt so clearly different. Now that I've run plenty of each, I find that
they seem to get closer, but still I find them to be rather clearly
distinquishable. Do we need a clearer distinction? Maybe... For me it's
more an indicator that is joined by a number of equally subjective
arguments and measurements like tiredness, confidence, risk, danger,
distance from the nearest help and so on.

Wilko

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

....stuff deleted

Both you, Ken, and Melissa bring up a very good point. Ocean and lakes are
NOT rated by the traditional river rating system, because the conditions are
so variable. As a result, folks who play on the beach are welcome to devise
their own rating system, and it is inevitably based on their own ability
to run that particular water. And on any particular day, three different
boaters may rate the same beach waves differently, depending on their skills
and equipment.

River runners need a similar system, or else there will be the same old
arguments forever about whether or not class 4 is 'runnable' in an open
boat, or class 5 is 'runnable' at all.....


Valid points, all. After reviewing the Tsunami Ranger's rating system, I
was fairly impressed by the number factors they consider, but as was
pointed out, common sense (gee, this looks dangerous) is the best
defense. Too many seem to lack the skill and are overly optimistic about
the conditions.

In my ocean trips, I always ask others for an assessment of the
conditions. Often, I stay out of it, entirely, until everyone has their
say. If anyone feels uncomfortable with the conditions, we change the
paddling plan (calmer sites are often available). Sometimes, I make the
choice for the group to change the plan (if I am leading, that is).
There are times when novices choose conditions that are beyond their
skill and I've seen this both in paddling and diving.

Sadly, nobody is completely innocent of this. Sometimes, having a mix of
novices and experienced paddlers is what keeps a group from making the
wrong choices.

Rick

"Melissa" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Rick,

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:41:01 GMT, you wrote:

Sometimes, having a mix of novices and experienced paddlers is what
keeps a group from making the wrong choices.

I solve this problem by paddling solo most of the time! Well, almost,
as I can still have some pretty entertaining discussions with myself
before deciding to do something stupid; then I go ahead and do
something stupid, because after all, sometimes the "stupid me" is the
designated leader of the trip! :-)

Seriously though... (my comments to follow are related specifically to
sea kayaking, as my experience with whitewater river paddling is very
limited to date; though I intend to do more of it!).

All the variables that the Tsunami Rangers consider are valid, and
good to think about; whether paddling with a group or paddling solo.
I still don't use the rating system as such, because I just don't
want to spend half an hour sitting on the beach playing with a
calculator before I go paddling!

Also, while the Ranger's system does consider various potentialities
"in general", it necessarily disregards several specific
possibilities that can be unique in every different place, like
shoals, very specific configurations of rock gardens and sea caves,
and how these influence conditions in those areas during various
times of the tide/current cycles, and in various weather conditions.
No matter how specific we can get with the numbers at the time of
launching, we have to constantly reevaluate conditions while on the
water based on our overall situational awareness.

Even as I begin to write this, I'm realizing that I can just keep on
writing without end, trying not to forget some important detail here
and there, yet in reality, all these things are also "considered" in
a transparent way that is as natural as breathing, and what might
take five single spaced pages to *try* and explain actually flashes
by in an instant of simply "being in the moment" while standing on
shore or paddling on the water.



If I'm reading you correctly, Melissa, you bring up an incredibly salient
point, which is: "What is a rating system used for?"

When I was leading canoe trips in the NWT, I would often come across a rapid
and have to decide whether or not to run it, to let the clients run it, or
to line it. I never rated the rapid, or even cared an iota what it was
rated....my decision was not based on the rating; it was based on being 'in
the moment', looking at the rapid and making an educated judgement.

Rating systems are actually not for making on-site decisions. They are for
communciating things to people who are not there.

For example, someone deciding if they are going to run a certain long rapid
might ask someone what it does around the corner. Being 'half' in the
moment, the other person might say "Oh, it continues like this part
here....no larger than an easy class 3." At least that person has a
reference for what the other person is describing.

Or I might have to explain why I did not let the clients run a certain drop.
I would tell my boss "it was a tricky class 3, they weren't up to it".

Then you might have someone who is packing for a trip on a river they have
never done before. The guidebooks all agree that this river has certain
Class 4 rapids, so the tripper has to use that information to decide what
kind of gear to bring, how long the trip will be, what boat to paddle. Thats
where internally consistent grading systems become important: for the folks
who cannot just be 'in the moment' and need some info about the river to
prepare for it. And this is where the system sometimes breaks down. I
remember when I ran the MidFork Salmon at flood stage: there were boaters
from both coasts on the trip, in kayaks and rafts, and the first 20 miles
was rated 'Class 3'. We all were shocked at how technical, continuous and
irregular the wave were, and all the East Coast boaters insisted that this
was class 4. The west coast boaters (who were used to Grand Canyon sized
rapids) insisted that these were really more like an easy class 3. We ended
up compromising and calling them "Idaho Class 3s". But forever after that,
whenever I was running a Western river that was rated Class 3 or 4, I had no
idea if I could get down it in an open boat, although I had been running
Class 4 rapids in my open boat in the East Coast for years.

I'm pretty sure that this is because most NorthEastern rivers (and North
Central) are rated from the perspective of a canoeist, since the history of
that region is the history of the Voyageurs. However, SouthEastern rivers
are rated from the perspective of kayakers, being the home of recreations
steep-creeking. And Western Rivers are rated from the perspective of
Oarsmen, thanks to the Post WW2 army surplus pontoons . For each of these
boaters, the same river would pose different obstacles and have differing
difficulties. As an open boater, I could not possibly distinguish between
Class 4+, Class 5- and Class 5+. As a rafter (or a solid kayaker), Class 2-,
2+ and 3- are pretty indistingiushable (and boring). As a result, there is
some internal inconsistency between regions.

The hardest part comes when we are trying to correlate rapids of very
different nature in different places. A class 3 in Maine on a rocky,
clearwater woods stream like the Penobscot will be different than a Class 3
in the Grand Canyon (if you adjust the Canyon scale accordingly), and will
be different than a Class 3 on the Orange in South Africa, which is a desert
river. Different types of rock, different volumes of water, different shaped
waves all change the charteristics of the rapids so that, as per Oci-One's
assertation: class 3s are harder than class 2s, but the problem is that not
all Class 3s are equally hard.

Funny thing, however, is when some people let the rating system override
their momentary presence. These are folks who get laundered in some rapid,
then amazingly declare "Hey, I should have been able to run that! The book
says its only class 3!"...even though their eyes told them at the scout rock
that it would have probably been rated a class 4 if it had been back in
their home state.

--riverman

I too noticed that the biggest change I found was between class III and
class IV. Another big change I noticed was when I moved from the east coast
to the west coast. I had done a few big water runs in the east but they
seemed nothing like the one's in the west. To me, generally speaking, west
coast big water class III feels like a class IV; whereas their technical,
lower volume class IV feels like a class III. I've noticed in some of the
western whitewater books they make mention if the river is a big water run
which is exactly what I like to know. It would be nice if that could be a
staple in all whitewater books.

Courtney


I think that most difficulty ratings have grey areas, but for me the
clearest line was the one between class III and class IV. Suddenly I
found myself acutely aware of the differences between the two, it just
felt so clearly different. Now that I've run plenty of each, I find that
they seem to get closer, but still I find them to be rather clearly
distinquishable. Do we need a clearer distinction? Maybe... For me it's
more an indicator that is joined by a number of equally subjective
arguments and measurements like tiredness, confidence, risk, danger,
distance from the nearest help and so on.

Wilko

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Courtney" wrote in message
ink.net...
I too noticed that the biggest change I found was between class III and
class IV. Another big change I noticed was when I moved from the east
coast
to the west coast. I had done a few big water runs in the east but they
seemed nothing like the one's in the west. To me, generally speaking,
west
coast big water class III feels like a class IV; whereas their technical,
lower volume class IV feels like a class III. I've noticed in some of the
western whitewater books they make mention if the river is a big water run
which is exactly what I like to know. It would be nice if that could be a
staple in all whitewater books.



Yes, your perceptions are right on, Courtney. The lines get blurry at the
edges.

The reason for disparity at the Class III, Class IV boundary is that class
I,II and III rapids are primarily rated by canoeists, as that's their
'specialty water' and they can really split hairs. Class III+ is up near the
top end, and to an open boater, looks awful similar to Class IV-.

Likewise, class IV and V water is primarily rated by yakkers, as that is
their specialty water, and to them, class III looks suspiciously similar
to easy class IV.

As a result, there are a LOT of rapids rated class 3+ or 4- which have very
little similarity, except that they are really challenging for an open boat
and a bit easy for a kayak.

Similarly, eastern water is rated by yakkers and canoeists, but western
water is rated by rafters. Eastern boaters wouldn't automatically add a few
levels just because there are rocks in a rapid, but western boaters
(especially big water boaters) freak out at rocks. Look at Hance in the GC:
no way thats a 10, but tell that to those rubber boaters who are used to
punching 10 foot waves. Similarly, try to convince an east coast boater
that, just because there's a 10 foot wave in a rapid, its not necessarily a
class V.

In fact, when I travelled around the NW around 1985 or so, and was running
(eastern-style class 3) water in my BlueHole 17A, I was what most easterners
considered a dinosaur and an advanced-intermediate boater, but on most of
the western rivers I ran, no one had ever seen a canoeist before, and I was
cutting edge. Rather funny at the time. :-)

--riverman

Melissa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
....stuff deleted

All the variables that the Tsunami Rangers consider are valid, and
good to think about; whether paddling with a group or paddling solo.
I still don't use the rating system as such, because I just don't
want to spend half an hour sitting on the beach playing with a
calculator before I go paddling!


Melissa,

I've watched Eric and co. paddling on the Monterey Coast. They spend
only a few seconds making their assessments, but then, there is little
these guys are not capable of handling (if there is, they are in
conditions few others would consider paddling, must less bother rating).
As with any system, it needs to be adapted to consider the prevailing
conditions. According to what I've read, they rate the trip before
leaving based upon their expectations of the conditions. When they
arrive, they judge the conditions and determine whether the trip needs
to be re-rated. When they arrive, unless conditions are considerably
different than their expectations, they pretty much just put the boats
in the water and go.

Also, while the Ranger's system does consider various potentialities
"in general", it necessarily disregards several specific
possibilities that can be unique in every different place, like
shoals, very specific configurations of rock gardens and sea caves,
and how these influence conditions in those areas during various
times of the tide/current cycles, and in various weather conditions.
No matter how specific we can get with the numbers at the time of
launching, we have to constantly reevaluate conditions while on the
water based on our overall situational awareness.


Again, they tend to paddle in familiar areas. Like our WW bretheren, who
seem to paddle the same rivers over and over (probably because there
aren't that many wild rivers left), the rangers have their own favorite
coastal spots in the Monterey/SF Bay areas. When paddling south of
Monterey, where landing sites are few, conditions are consistently
rough, rocks are plentiful, etc. they are paddling in areas they have
already rated. I'm sure they've been surprised, however, nonetheless.

....stuff deleted

================================================== ===================
Don't underestimate conditions to be macho or sucker people into doing
activities beyond their skill. The SCRS is useful but artificial; it
only estimates, not guarantees the actual risks you will face.
Finally, keep in mind that the SCRS is at best a general guideline,
an indicator; it doesn't account for freak incidents such as
williwaws or rogue waves. Its main value is it encourages kayakers to
take the time and effort needed to assess the complex factors which
comprise the sea.
================================================== ===================


I left this in because it bears repeating.

I paddled on the sea for a long time before I even heard about the
Tsunami Ranger's rating system, so reviewing it "after the fact" is
interesting, but I still see no particular need to play a numbers
game every time I want to go paddling. Once we've been paddling a
while, in addition to knowing something about tides and currents,
wave dynamics, shoals and other underwater features, shoreline
topography, weather, and what's possible on truly open water (not
just near shore), we can develop a "feel" for the overall conditions,
and what to expect in terms of changes as the day progresses. As we
can see by how detailed the Ranger's rating system is, we can also
see how someone not so well versed in "sensing" the conditions for
themselves can kind of trip over all the numbers, and become even
more confused than ever by trying to quantify too precisely the fluid
conditions (no pun intended) with numbers, because those conditions
are always changing, and sometimes, they can change very suddenly and
severely indeed.


I first came upon the rangers when I started paddling many (about 15)
years ago. Back then, they were already on their way to building this
system. Though its been around for a while, I haven't used it myself.
Mostly, like you, I use the "god, this looks stupid," rule-of-thumb.

Being too concerned with constantly recalculating the *numbers* is
sort of like trying to constantly evaluate and compensate for all the
particular muscle movements required as we walk. If we do this,
we'll either take a year to walk a short distance, or we'll simply
fall down.



And I just thought I was slow.

Rick

You're right about many western boaters freaking out about rocks.
Personally I love them. They make the rapids fun and full of possibilities!

I don't know anything about class III and less generally rated by canoeist
and IV and V by kayakers. I haven't really paid that much attention to what
paddlers are rating what. I personally find that in a canoe or a kayak the
rapids seem about the same to me. In fact strangely enough, I find paddling
some class IV's in my canoe easier than in my kayak. Yet I've paddled V's
in my kayak but would never take my canoe on one. Don't ask me why because
really I don't know why. I know everyone is different but I can't see why
there would be a real difference between kayakers and canoeists and their
ratings? As I mentioned I personally find them to feel basically equal. I
can understand that I see more kayakers on class IV / V. Maybe that's it.
Can you expand on how you came to that?

Courtney

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Courtney" wrote in message
ink.net...
I too noticed that the biggest change I found was between class III and
class IV. Another big change I noticed was when I moved from the east
coast
to the west coast. I had done a few big water runs in the east but they
seemed nothing like the one's in the west. To me, generally speaking,
west
coast big water class III feels like a class IV; whereas their
technical,
lower volume class IV feels like a class III. I've noticed in some of
the
western whitewater books they make mention if the river is a big water
run
which is exactly what I like to know. It would be nice if that could be
a
staple in all whitewater books.



Yes, your perceptions are right on, Courtney. The lines get blurry at the
edges.

The reason for disparity at the Class III, Class IV boundary is that class

I,II and III rapids are primarily rated by canoeists, as that's their
'specialty water' and they can really split hairs. Class III+ is up near
the
top end, and to an open boater, looks awful similar to Class IV-.

Likewise, class IV and V water is primarily rated by yakkers, as that is
their specialty water, and to them, class III looks suspiciously similar
to easy class IV.

As a result, there are a LOT of rapids rated class 3+ or 4- which have
very
little similarity, except that they are really challenging for an open
boat
and a bit easy for a kayak.

Similarly, eastern water is rated by yakkers and canoeists, but western
water is rated by rafters. Eastern boaters wouldn't automatically add a
few
levels just because there are rocks in a rapid, but western boaters
(especially big water boaters) freak out at rocks. Look at Hance in the
GC:
no way thats a 10, but tell that to those rubber boaters who are used to
punching 10 foot waves. Similarly, try to convince an east coast boater
that, just because there's a 10 foot wave in a rapid, its not necessarily
a
class V.

In fact, when I travelled around the NW around 1985 or so, and was running
(eastern-style class 3) water in my BlueHole 17A, I was what most
easterners
considered a dinosaur and an advanced-intermediate boater, but on most of
the western rivers I ran, no one had ever seen a canoeist before, and I
was
cutting edge. Rather funny at the time. :-)

--riverman