# Rapid class change



## Jdsampsonite (Dec 7, 2015)

Class of a rapid is always subjective. One place you will read it is class 4 and another will say 3. It can also change based on flow of the river.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Raft companies love to overstate the rating of rapids to make their customers think they are doing something more extreme. Guide books also tend to be conservative with their ratings as well so that people don't get in over their heads after reading it.

I agree...its very subjective though...so it is what it is. As people become more comfortable and gear gets better, stuff gets easier so I think it is pretty common for things to get down rated over time.


----------



## bystander (Jul 3, 2014)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Raft companies love to overstate the rating of rapids to make their customers think they are doing something more extreme. Guide books also tend to be conservative with their ratings as well so that people don't get in over their heads after reading it.
> 
> I agree...its very subjective though...so it is what it is. As people become more comfortable and gear gets better, stuff gets easier so I think it is pretty common for things to get down rated over time.


Often raft companies will try to keep a rapid classification a 3, when it is really a 4(-), as it helps them with cheaper insurance.

You may also find that runs that are really old, tend to have higher ratings then more recently rated runs. You often hear about the difference between west coast and east coast ratings, and how west coast ratings won't get as high of a classification as older east cost runs. That's due to when these runs were first discovered and the equipment available to them at the time.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

And ratings can change after rocks shift or flash floods dump big boulders into formerly tame rapids.

Rapids also change class rating with flow - sometimes high flows make rapids more challenging, sometimes gnarly features get washed out at higher water. levels and the rapid is easier to run. This is why we scout...


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Raft companies love to overstate the rating of rapids to make their customers think they are doing something more extreme.


 This is so true. I have an old River Runners T shirt that names the five class V rapids in Browns Canyon.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

bystander said:


> Often raft companies will try to keep a rapid classification a 3, when it is really a 4(-), as it helps them with cheaper insurance.
> 
> You may also find that runs that are really old, tend to have higher ratings then more recently rated runs. You often hear about the difference between west coast and east coast ratings, and how west coast ratings won't get as high of a classification as older east cost runs. That's due to when these runs were first discovered and the equipment available to them at the time.


Maybe that is what the company owners tell their insurance agents and lawyers...but in my experience what the raft guides tell the customers is over-exaggerated to increase the drama and seeming difficulty. As the old joke goes "how do you when a raft guide is lying" (when their mouth is open :grin.

I agree about the rest of what you said...though I do see a trend of things getting downgraded overall.

I haven't rafted much on the east coast, but I've talked to people who have bought a commercial trip down the Gauley and others and have told me the guides told them it was the hardest commercially run river in the country. I haven't run it, but with the shenanigans I've seen on videos during Gauley fest causes me to question its "Class V" categorization. I know there are a few runs in Colorado and California that get run commercially all the time that have much higher consequences.


----------



## ColoradoKayak15 (Oct 7, 2017)

Rapid class can change a lot from erosion or construction two seasons ago I was paddling barrel around 800 all the time no problem then last season when I did it a rock had moved and a new wave pushed me off line. it’s still IV+ but it’s more difficult although a while ago before I was boating it the crux of barrel changed a lot


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

caverdan said:


> This is so true. I have an old River Runners T shirt that names the five class V rapids in Browns Canyon.


Oh wow! Never new some of the rapids in Browns used to get the class V title.

I used to be a class V guide, back in the Royal Gorge like 10 years ago, we all called sun shine and sledge class V, now a days a lot of folks call them a three. It IS a little harder to run with a paddle boat full of folks challenged as far as listening and co-operation goes, as opposed to being in a Kayak or Oar rig. But compare the run to Big Gore Canyon, which gets run all the time now, and the Gorge gets down graded.
But basically like other people just said, as equipment gets better, and over all boater skill improves, ratings tend to go down, and rapids also change.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

mattman said:


> I used to be a class V guide, back in the Royal Gorge like 10 years ago, we all called sun shine and sledge class V, now a days a lot of folks call them a three.


Sunshine actually did physically change. A large boulder at the last ledge that forms the hole rolled over at high water about a decade ago. It significantly altered the difficulty of the rapid. The AHRA used to classify it as a V. After the change they call it a IV.


----------



## lncoop (Sep 10, 2010)

bystander said:


> You often hear about the difference between west coast and east coast ratings, and how west coast ratings won't get as high of a classification as older east cost runs. That's due to when these runs were first discovered and the equipment available to them at the time.


As someone who primarily open boats water that's rated based on eastern classifications I submit that it's also at least partly due to the fact that western boaters are harder to impress. These days I usually find myself saying "Eastern class I-V or Western class I-V" rather than simply saying class I-V. There's a noticeable difference IMO. I'm fine canoeing eastern class III, but if I attempted western class III I'd most likely get my ass handed to me.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

*Skill level~*

At my skill level every rapid is a class V, even a class II. Experience, physical and mental fitness for that day(twisted ankle, late night drinking, etc.) and goood-old- common-sense makes a big difference in the difficulty of a rapid, no matter what class it is rated at. Scouting is a good idea for debris(logs, wrecked boats etc.) especially early season, high water, eather from your raft or shore. Rapid rating's are a good idea but there is a big void between the classes, II to III to IV to V, for each individuals level of experience(skill). I have also noticed rapids get bigger and more challenging around a campfire after a few rounds of JD.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

lmyers said:


> Sunshine actually did physically change. A large boulder at the last ledge that forms the hole rolled over at high water about a decade ago. It significantly altered the difficulty of the rapid. The AHRA used to classify it as a V. After the change they call it a IV.


Ya, we always called it Sids rock, I'm not entirely sure on who Sid was. I never got to boat the old Sunshine, only watch videos of it, and hear the tales, quite the hole at that drop!
All us commercial types back then, just kept calling it a V,( even though the sign board said otherwise, I think!) guess it was a marketing thing, that we could tell the custy's that they'd run a 5.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

lmyers said:


> Sunshine actually did physically change. A large boulder at the last ledge that forms the hole rolled over at high water about a decade ago. It significantly altered the difficulty of the rapid. The AHRA used to classify it as a V. After the change they call it a IV.


My understanding is that this happened during the 1996 high water year. I remember watching a video of that year that Hoss Saeger had, and some of the runs were before and some after the change.

There are other rapids that have changed with rocks shifting or flash floods rearranging the furniture in rapids. One of the rapids on the GC (Granite?) recently changed as well.

-AH


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

The international scale of river difficulty is so vague and is so poorly applied to the real world that I believe it is of little use. It was originally created for Eastern canoeing but now seems to be more catered to kayakers. Case in point, I have seen kayakers talk about how Cataract Canyon is a solid class three. Americam Whitewater lists the Big Drops as a benchmark V.1 or something like that. Vague measurements kind of annoy me, and it seems that anymore the scale is just dependent on what type of boating you do and how bad ass you think that you are.

Lets take the definition of a III:

"Rapids with moderate, irregular waves which may be difficult to avoid and which can swamp an open canoe. Complex maneuvers in fast current and good boat control in tight passages or around ledges are often required; large waves or strainers may be present but are easily avoided. Strong eddies and powerful current effects can be found, particularly on large-volume rivers. Scouting is advisable for inexperienced parties. Injuries while swimming are rare; self-rescue is usually easy but group assistance may be required to avoid long swims. Rapids that are at the lower or upper end of this difficulty range are designated Class III- or Class III+ respectively."

The first sentence is pretty clear. Rapids with waves that can swamp an open canoe are class III, but that is almost never applied today by rafters and kayakers. 

Now lets look at the definition af a IV: 

"Intense, powerful but predictable rapids requiring precise boat handling in turbulent water. Depending on the character of the river, it may feature large, unavoidable waves and holes or constricted passages demanding fast maneuvers under pressure. A fast, reliable eddy turn may be needed to initiate maneuvers, scout rapids, or rest. Rapids may require "must make" moves above dangerous hazards. Scouting may be necessary the first time down. Risk of injury to swimmers is moderate to high, and water conditions may make self-rescue difficult. Group assistance for rescue is often essential but requires practiced skills. For kayakers, a strong roll is highly recommended. Rapids that are at the lower or upper end of this difficulty range are designated Class IV- or Class IV+ respectively."

What are "large, unavoidable waves and holes or constricted passages demanding fast maneuvers under pressure."? If you are in a heavy raft with multi-day gear, a hole might be unavoidable, where as a kayaker may have no problem avoiding it.

So, it really just depends on what context the scale is being used in and what your motivation for classifying a rapid is.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Andy H. said:


> My understanding is that this happened during the 1996 high water year. I remember watching a video of that year that Hoss Saeger had, and some of the runs were before and some after the change.
> 
> There are other rapids that have changed with rocks shifting or flash floods rearranging the furniture in rapids. One of the rapids on the GC (Granite?) recently changed as well.
> 
> -AH


Granite Springs...not Granite. 

The side canyon next to the rapid has had major flashes in the last few years. It tends to be a big GC Class 6-7 drop for a few months and gradually gets flattened out back to its GC class 2-3 status again. The High Flow experiments help that along too.

I got to run it about a week after it flashed in 2016 and it was super fun rapid with a couple of big fluffy holes at the top and a roller coaster wave train to lead out. Went back in 2017 and it barely registered as a rapid.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

mikepart - Wait a second, that's the scale you've been using? That's really different from the one I use:



> Someone asked an anonymous boater about his class IV comfort level and he answered something along the lines of "I'm comfortable that I can usually find an eddy to swim to." Thus, the interviewer was inspired to offer this International Scale of River Difficulty:
> 
> Class I: Easy
> Fast moving water with riffles and small waves. Swimming is pleasant, shore easily reached. A nice
> ...


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

mikepart said:


> The international scale of river difficulty is so vague and is so poorly applied to the real world that I believe it is of little use. It was originally created for Eastern canoeing but now seems to be more catered to kayakers. Case in point, I have seen kayakers talk about how Cataract Canyon is a solid class three. Americam Whitewater lists the Big Drops as a benchmark V.1 or something like that. Vague measurements kind of annoy me, and it seems that anymore the scale is just dependent on what type of boating you do and how bad ass you think that you are.
> 
> Lets take the definition of a III:
> 
> ...


Corran Addison noted this about a decade ago and tried to get a new rating system to going but no one really went for it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Xmr5KQPec

IMHO, he is pretty hardcore and under rated most of the stuff (assuming he was using the video segments as reference instead of just Eye Candy to talk over). It still brings up the ambiguity that the rapid classification system uses and helps out a bit. It still leaves some personal interpretation though.

Only real way to do remedy this is to get a standards comity together and agree that whatever they come up with for each rapid stands. Sounds pretty complicated to get started and in my experience, rallying boaters to a cause is harder then herding cats though...so I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Corran Addison noted this about a decade ago and tried to get a new rating system to going but no one really went for it...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Xmr5KQPec
> 
> ...



I really like his idea about separating difficulty, danger, and exposure, but everything else about the video just pissed me off. If you want to talk about something serious, skip the rock n roll. I wasn't sure if I was watching the latest kayaking video from some bro dude or a serious discussion about rating rivers. He also did not address differences in craft at all. Some of the video that he was showing while talking about class 3 would be unrunable in a raft.


Really, once you get into anything with the kind of gradient in his video, does it really matter what someone rated it? If your going to go off some waterfalls and stuff, you better be doing your own damn research, scouting ect and make your decisions based on a real life size up or what your trusted close friends can tell you.


Hell, I'm just a family rafter guy anymore. If i'm going to go run an unfamiliar river and somebody says it's class four, I'm going to go do some research on what the rapids are really like before going for it. And I'm talking about the normal, sane, river rating scale where a big hole with a nasty eddy below it is class 4, not this Addison guy's world where a straight up horizon line with a 15 foot vertical drop is a class three.


Like I said, I like his idea about separating difficulty, danger, and exposure when rating a river, but the stuff that he is showing when he talks about a class three is a really, really, really long way from "waves capable of swamping an open canoe" and as thus I think it is guys like this who undermine the possibility of a reliable scale.


For instance, just because a relatively small group of skiers is pushing the boundary's of the sport and jumping off cliffs that no one else has ect, that does not mean the we should make all of the black diamond rated runs in the resort green. For the vast majority of weekend skiers, or "gapers" as the really cool bros call them, the sport hasn't really changed that much.


Like wise in river running, the extreme sort of kayakers have gotten way better at going over waterfalls and putting that footage to hip music in my lifetime, but what was really hard in an 18' gear raft thirty years ago is basically just as hard today and it is inappropriate to start calling something a class three that used to be a big class four ect.


Perhaps what we really need are fiver separate classification systems. One for canoes, one for low volume, mountain river paddle rafting; one for big water, western multi day rafting; one for sane kayakers; and another for twenty something kayakers who like to put themselves on YouTube going over waterfalls to sick jams.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

mikepart said:


> I really like his idea about separating difficulty, danger, and exposure, but everything else about the video just pissed me off. If you want to talk about something serious, skip the rock n roll. I wasn't sure if I was watching the latest kayaking video from some bro dude or a serious discussion about rating rivers. He also did not address differences in craft at all. Some of the video that he was showing while talking about class 3 would be unrunable in a raft.
> 
> 
> Really, once you get into anything with the kind of gradient in his video, does it really matter what someone rated it? If your going to go off some waterfalls and stuff, you better be doing your own damn research, scouting ect and make your decisions based on a real life size up or what your trusted close friends can tell you.
> ...


You'll note my disclaimer... Corran is a hard core dude especially back in the day when that movie was originally made. He way under rated most of the rivers, but the idea about the rating system is a good one. It was a flash in the pan and there wasn't really a better way to explain it then just linking the video.

That segment is a small piece of a larger video that is an instructional video for those wanting to step up the difficulty and learn about techniques for creek boating. So, in a lot of ways IT WAS just another Bro Dude.

Obviously it still leaves some ambiguity to the rating since different people would give different numbers for a given run...but I would still favor adopting it across the board since it gives more information on whether I'd want to run it or not.

So yeah...I agree that his examples and the tone of the video wasn't for the average boater (rafter, canoeist, or whatnot)...but the idea was what I wanted to get across.

Oh, and I agree with Andy H.... not sure where you got your rating system (the swamped canoe system) but it doesn't mesh all that well with what I think most people consider when rating a rapid (except canoeists maybe). I've seen some stuff that everyone agrees are Class II rapids that are easily capable of swamping a canoe. That said, Andy H's rating descriptions are pretty funny...not sure if I want to rate something based on how much carnage happens after a flip/swim.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

A couple things. The Gauley is a consequential river. There are a lot of places to die on that Rio. Years ago AW established benchmark rapids. It's a great way to establish a common understanding of what we're talking about when we rate rapids. The Gauley has several benchmark class 5s. IMHO, they should stay class 5s even as equipment and skills get better and make them more accessible to more people.

Corran' s proposed system has some real value but like so much of what he does his ego can overwhelm what he has to say or do.

Rafting companys are a poor rating source. Their motives are different than ours.

No system can take into account different craft and different types of rivers but what we have is a good baseline to assist in initial assessment of the general difficulty of a run. As an experienced boater I can benefit from a trusted friend telling me something is busy low volume class 3 vs big volume desert class 3. Etc.

These conversations often amuse me. I'm grateful that some of my old east coast friends stepped up and gave us an (imperfect) system to aid in communication.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 4, 2012)

Phil U. said:


> No system can take into account different craft and different types of rivers but what we have is a good baseline to assist in initial assessment of the general difficulty of a run.



this.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

No one has mentioned class tree yet...that's a class 3 skill run with class v wood to deal with on the fly ! I think Corran's system has some merit.You should see his instructional play video ,he rattles off about ten complicated instructions you can't follow at once then tells you to do it "just like Steve here".The Steve is Steve Fisher.


----------



## bystander (Jul 3, 2014)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Maybe that is what the company owners tell their insurance agents and lawyers...but in my experience what the raft guides tell the customers is over-exaggerated to increase the drama and seeming difficulty. As the old joke goes "how do you when a raft guide is lying" (when their mouth is open :grin.
> 
> I agree about the rest of what you said...though I do see a trend of things getting downgraded overall.


I wasn't talking about guides, or even the companies, but the American Whitewater ratings, which may be influenced by what the raft companies say. What guides say to their customers is another thing all together. They want to excite their customers, so they say what ever they want.


----------



## wookie (Oct 19, 2009)

I want to say it changed about 14 years ago Sids{ Sunshine} was more in the middle of the river and now its too the right alot easyer to miss you can see this on old footage and comparing to now,,, I also noticed the older I get the more it feels like a 4 royal gorge fantastic run!


----------



## wookie (Oct 19, 2009)

I was thinking 14 years ago but no Andy 22years ago my buddys pictures say the same thing. my how time flys....


----------



## wookie (Oct 19, 2009)

I love it! my copying that one thanks Andy!


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

bystander said:


> I wasn't talking about guides, or even the companies, but the American Whitewater ratings, which may be influenced by what the raft companies say. What guides say to their customers is another thing all together. They want to excite their customers, so they say what ever they want.


So, my understanding is AW' s ratings and river info are generated by volunteers. Typically their/our web info is managed by a "stream keeper" who knows the river being rated and described. Often it's the stream keeper's home run. Members who want to amend or add to the data base can by submitting info to the stream keeper for that stretch. As far as I know, no raft companies are a part of that process. Also, the benchmark rapid ratings were generated by the whole AW community and I don't think they have changed in the 20ish years since they were established. I don't think the raft companies have any impact on AW's ratings.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

wookie said:


> I was thinking 14 years ago but no Andy 22years ago my buddys pictures say the same thing. my how time flys....


Life - don't blink or you'll miss it!


----------



## Grif (May 21, 2008)

Class I: I pee a little, but just because I'm relaxed.

Class II: When I fall asleep I wake up in weird places.

Class III: People everywhere!

Class IV: I found these little caps that cover my beer. No longer a problem.

Class V: I wear a life jacket. Also use the little cap fer my beer.

Class VI: Always tie in to the boat! Anything might could happen.


----------

