I was wondering what the conversion is based on that is used here (shown when registering new ascents)? Compared to most guidebooks I've seen ( e.g. Simon Carter's latest Blue Mountains guide) it is one grade off from about Australian 21 on up:
22 -> 6c+ (8a.nu), 6c (guidebooks)
24 -> 7a+, 7a
29 -> 8a, 7c+
32 -> 8b+, 8b
Any specific reason for that?
[Also the UIAA->F scale seems a bit odd between 7a and 8a, I think 7a+ rather equals 8+, then 7b -> 8+/9-, 7b+ -> 9-, 7c -> 9, 7c+ -> 9+, 8a -> 9+/10-]
Having just spent two years down under it seems that routes a rather graded hard there but I wouldn't say they deserve upgrading by a whole step.
Just my two cents though.
Cheers
Felix
8a ran an article awhile go saying that apparently Australian grades around 23/24/25 were harder compared to the rest of the world. I still am unsure why all the grade table is different but does it really matter at the end of the day? I usually convert my NZ grades according to other peoples ascents and my own database so it talleys up right :)
I'll actually vouch for 8a.nu here. I moved from Canada to New Zealand, and the grade conversion seems to be quite accurate for me and my type of climbing... -D
Hi Felix, the conversions shown are in agreement with most of the charts I ve looked at (and Ive looked at a lot recently). Soon there will be a new chart that shows South African grades as well which line up more with your estimation.
Grading comparison is something of a nightmare to sort out!!
COnversion table used on 8a.nu (AUS->F)