[QUOTE=franzhorner]

The Cascade as a river is definitely Class V.

Remembering my criteria for the classification of rivers is that you must include access and the remoteness of outside help.

Because I am new to whitewater, I am always trying to figure out the vagaries of Class V, because I know I can paddle Class V, but there is some Class V I can't yet paddle.

I think it is useful to compare river kayaking to other sports.  If I were going to produce a stream rating, one could use ratings similar to rock climbing ratings (Preface: I am only partially familiar with these ratings).

The climbing system has an open ended rating system. And by precise, I mean there are a lot of potential outcomes.  5.1-5.9; 5.10a-5.14c (?). The climbing system is open-ended; I am not sure of the current maximum rating.  That is not to say that there is not wide variation in interpretation of the standard.

I addition, climbing has a grade 1-? that details, basically the duration of the climb...1 pitch, 1/2 day, 1 day, overnight, multi-day. This represents the very basic climbing grades. There are other systems for specific techniques like aid climbing and glacier travel.

I don't think kayaking needs a rating system with as many categories (5.1-5.14d), but a two-tiered rating system has some merit. I like the decimal system for Class V. The easier classes aren't as differentiated as Class, because they don't have the complexity of features like, for example, waterfalls.  But it makes sense to have an open-ended decimal system for V, because as people perform more difficult feats, the rating should concurrently increase its capacity for capturing NEW information.  In any case, this rating would specifically describe the difficulty of the whitewater.

This new information idea is important with respect to Class VI.  In climbing, things that haven't been climbed do not receive a rating, because, you don't really know how difficult it is.  The person accomplishing the first ascent (descent) also has the privilege of rating the climb. Thus in my mind, Class VI would mean "hasn't been run and potentially unrunnable."

Back to the grading system: The second-tier rating describes the risk involved. This could have one or two letters, depending on whether you want to split "potential for death" and "remoteness".

So, let's talk about the Cascade, which the book says is V.  I ran it at 600 cfs (don't laugh, it's Leifs fault).  Up til now, I basically agree with JPs assessment of the rapid ratings, and I agree that the book rating is compromised because of the removal of the bridge wreckage (although why wouldn't that then be a V+ rapid?).

I would say when I paddled it, its was IV-V with Bridge and Monster Class V.

However, the decimal should represent the skill required, or by extension the stream's hardest rapid or continuous nature.  If we use the decimal in this situation, I come up with
IV-V.2 (assuming agreement Bridge and/or Monster are V.2).

Let's add in risk on a scale of a-f.

a) Roadside. Low potential for serious injury.
b) Accessible. Moderate potential for serious injury.
c) Remote or inaccessible. Moderate potential for serious injury.
d) Accessible. High potential for serious injury and potentially death.
e) Remote and/or inaccessible. High potential for serious injury and potentially death.
f) Remote and/or inaccessible. High potential for death.

This could obviously be improved, but I think you get the idea. I would say that Cascade is inaccessible but not remote, as their is a gas station/restaurant things right across the Skagit. However, it is inaccessible.  Numerous people have died on this prior to the bridge, which would result in an f rating.  However, most deaths were at the bridge, which has been removed, so I would probably revise that rating to e.

Thus, under the current system, the rating would be IV+-V, although the book says V. Under the straight decimal, its IV+-V.2.  Under my proposed system, its IV+-V.2e, which means the remote and inaccessible stream is IV+ with 2-3 Class V rapids, the hardest or cumulation of which requires V.3 skill to paddle. 

it's complicated....boof here, turn right there.....

[/QUOTE]

no worries JP.

PS: I like the 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 ratings...

Chip's suggested rating system is very similar to the one Corran Addison proposed about 15 years ago, which was a three number system. I believe he suggested it for rating both rivers and individual rapids. If I remember correctly, it went something like this:

I agree with Ben in the fact that knowing where your info comes from is important with how you interperet it.  When I call a bro to give me beta I always consider which horses mouth it comes from.  For instance some guys are down for boating in the bone zone as far as levels go, others not so much.  Personally after 10 + years of class V boating I feel class V is an open ended deal and a bit vague. A call out to a buddy about a class V run will probably include a question like how hard is it really?  Then based on who is speaking coupled with their description I can estimated what I am in for.  I comend those who are trying to nail it down however, yet I feel one mans IV+ will always be anothers V and so on and so on.  By the way I feel the Cascade merits a IV-V because this gives room for level fluctuations and such.