New Waterfall Record
Printed From: ProfessorPaddle.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Chit Chat
Forum Discription: Non Boating Related Discussions
URL: http://www.professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8109
Printed Date: 19 May 2025 at 12:28pm
Topic: New Waterfall Record
Posted By: Tobin
Subject: New Waterfall Record
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 9:15am
I just got confirmation from Brad Ludden that Tyler Brandt hucked a 186' waterfall in Washington yesterday.
Holy crap, I am rooting around to find the river and the story. ------------- Sure? |
Replies:
Posted By: water wacko
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 9:19am
|
http://professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8105&PID=39411#39411 - http://professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8105&PID=39411#39411 ------------- "Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." ~Howard Thurman |
Posted By: Yotes
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 9:23am
| Palouse Falls is 186 feet (according to the sign at the park) and the Palouse was running right around 2000 cfs yesterday, which would've been a prime level for the drop. I'd say 98% chance that that's the falls he ran. |
Posted By: Tobin
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 9:35am
|
Sorry I didn't see Dave's post.
Just for perspective - The Tacoma Narrows Bridge deck is 187-1/2' I know different kind of landing but it shows how freaking high that is ------------- Sure? |
Posted By: Yotes
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 10:34am
| Just got confirmation from Ryan Scott, it was Palouse. |
Posted By: Ryan
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 10:46am
|
WOW. That is awesome!!
Here is a good pic of the falls: http://www.experiencewa.com/attraction.aspx?id=255 - http://www.experiencewa.com/attraction.aspx?id=255 Hopefully he didn't land on his head and climb out from behind the falls
|
Posted By: CRG Productions
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 11:35am
|
More of the story here... www.lvmvideo.com ------------- www.gorgehits.com |
Posted By: SupaSta
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2009 at 10:58pm
|
There seems to be no photos or video available unless you buy the movie. Lame. ------------- Life is short, paddle hard! |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 23 Apr 2009 at 8:27am
| That's so incredibly sick. Me and Mike were over there a few weeks back when it was running about 5K. Biggest water I've ever seen there. I'll post some pics later I got some pretty good shots. |
Posted By: septimus prime
Date Posted: 23 Apr 2009 at 9:19pm
|
whoa! the pic of the falls at the link Ryan provided was overwhelming when thinking of a human in a plastic boat going over it. with the frequency in which the water fall record is being broken, one might think the sport is experiencing an evolutionary outburst. Yet the gene pool remains in tact? ------------- Jon Shell Bee |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2009 at 9:46am
|
I added some photos of the Falls from a few weeks back. Level then was around 5K (huge)... quite a bit higher than when it was run, I think they said that was about 2K (still alot of water, but with that much drop, I guess aeration is your friend) http://professorpaddle.com/media/photoview.asp?File_Id=4075 |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 27 Apr 2009 at 4:20pm
|
Wow. According to the word I got, he paddled away (with a broken paddle), skirt intact around cockpit, no head plant.
Way to go Tyler! Glad you paddled away unscathed! I fear for whoever wants to break that record. Any foot now, any inch, any random happenstance--- and someone is bound to find that boundary of what is humanly possible.
Incedible, though! ------------- 🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋 |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 2:15pm
|
Which begs the question-- Is Palouse falls a class V+ drop? Or is it a class VI drop? It obviously isn't U (unrunnable). It sure as hell ain't ME- I'd ever line up to drop it! Anyway, I'd really like to know. As boundaries will continue to be erased by each passing feat, can we really expect "class V" to be a container of infinite capactiy to hold every new accomplishment that is achieved in the future? It seems that sooner or later you'd have to start calling some of these rapids, drops and waterfalls "class VI" Not that any particularly high waterfall would necessarily qualify as class VI due to its height alone. I dunno. Just askin'... ------------- 🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋 |
(<<that's the closest emoticon I can find to express "Hell no, I won't go!"--we need a FEARFUL emoticon, but that's another discussion...
) Posted By: James
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 2:41pm
|
Certainly a discussion for another thread. I see it as a class VI means unrunnable or never been run. Once its run it gets dropped down into the V scale. V.1 - V.10. I would say that would be a V.10 meaning its been run but the next dropping might be death... same with sunset! |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 3:02pm
|
Right on. There's always been a split camp about the class VI and its definition, although most guidebooks I've seen describe class VI as runnable if rarely run. I know that your "never been run" qualifier is prevalent throughout the west, but check the guidebooks for Idaho and Washington, or the Cassidy/Calhoun guide to Western Whitewater, and they all define class VI as runnable if rarely run. It seems weird then that the generations that follow would step in the other direction and say class VI is synonomous with U (unrunnable, or "Off the scale" as soem have referred to it).
I don't think the Little White (taken as a run) is easier than class V. But the stuff in Rush Sturgis's video of African Bigwater seems to me to be of a whole other class, and not just because it's in a remote expedition style setting, though that factors in for sure.
And The weird thing about the sub-V decimal system is that one man's V.3 is another girl's V.1. I can see that myself looking at the inconsistant decimal ratings attached to several of the class V runs on the Guage Page. And then I ask- is 10 slots enough to keep packing new whitewater rapids and runs into over the next 100 years?
A thread begging to be started. ------------- 🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋 |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 3:38pm
|
I think that much like climbing the scale of V should be openended. meaning that just because something harder gets run other things are not down graded, but rather new ratings are brought in to make it scaled and proportional. Heck you could even toss in a few more letters for sub cats. V.7c would that be granite falls? lol |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 5:27pm
|
The way I look at it, a V.1 should be the same step up from a V as a V is to a IV and so on. ------------- |
Posted By: water wacko
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 6:15pm
...continuing with this off topic theme, why not simply increase the class rating (VII, VIII, IX) and finish it off with U? Obviously people are figuring out just what kinds of punishment, albeit swift, the human body can handle. And I don't see this trend stopping. Man wishes to see himself in as many flashy and fascinating ways as possible. Consider mirroed ceilings and disco balls.  ------------- "Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." ~Howard Thurman |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 6:44pm
|
I think class V is a more recognizable term and thus it will be easier to move to a V.1, V.2 etc system. Class IV already means unrunnable so there is no point in changing the definition. ------------- |
Posted By: Kiwi
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 7:37pm
| kayaking isn't like climbing where it's a open ended scale, I think that kayaking can't have a true "difficulty" rating because drops like palouse falls do not take long to do, like the critical move only takes 1/2 a second, whereas on a climb it is critical move after critical move, not to belittle these paddlers acomplishments in running these huge drops, but I think kayaking at this level is almost more balls than skills. so the rating might not be for the actual difficulty (we know it's class V) but for the mangle factor... |
Posted By: Kiwi
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 7:40pm
|
addition: in paddling once you get to a certain point I think that the pace that new skills develop is replaced by the pace at which your comfort level rises. any class V boaters want to verify (or shoot down) my theory? |
Posted By: arnobarno
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 8:34pm
|
Continuing off topic though sort of continuing Kiwi's point... One of the problems I've always had with the rapid rating system is that it conflates two completely different things - difficulty and consequence. Why is that? ------------- arn9schaeffer@gmail.com (remove 9 for my real email address) |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 8:54pm
|
I would agree and disagree... while climbing is obviously not the same as kayaking the scale and increase in difficulting being attained is similar. Climbers often peck away at a difficult route taking months or years before finishing it off or red pointing it, while in kayaking you really only have a few times or your going to either die or get badly injured. Notice rob has not been hunkered down on Sunset looking for the clean line, for good reason! its just different like you say. Same for palouse ... might have been cleaned this time but that does not mean a line of boaters are going to form at the lip to run it. adversly, that descent did up the bar for class V waterfalls so it should be open ended. |
Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 28 Apr 2009 at 10:53pm
|
Originally posted by James Notice rob has not been hunkered down on Sunset looking for the clean line, for good reason! Damn right, it only took one try for Rob to find the "clean" line! The only whitewater achievement that's occurred recently that is maybe more significant than Sunset Falls is Palouse. Wow! That both of these drops were successfully run is truly amazing and says as lot about the onging progression of the sport. My only regret is that I was not present for either of these historic feats which both occurred here in Washington. Congratulations Tyler! I think the V.X system has some value, but I don't believe that it should be drawn out very far. For me, V.1 is "standard" class V, V.2 is V+, and V.3 or more is V+ with add'l difficulties such as a hike in, multiday, mandatory sketchy drops etc. With this system I don't see much use for V.4 or V.5, although I suppose those ratings could be used describe a runnable but extremely dangerous section, eg Dingford. It would be interesting to see Tyler's take on rating the difficulty to waterfalls. If you've run many 50-100 footers, it's probably possible to break down the difficulty of different falls and give them ratings over a wide range. The fact of the matter is that a "big-drop" rating system would only have relevance to the people actually running those drops (not me). Therefore, I don't think it's worth the effort to try to make "official" rules or guidelines for this type of open-ended rating system. |
Posted By: water wacko
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2009 at 6:28am
|
I think you're right on, Ben. ------------- "Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." ~Howard Thurman |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2009 at 8:20am
I just wanted to respectfully disagree with comments that class 6=unrunnable. The definition of class 6 from the International Scale of River Difficulty as published by AW is as follows:Class VI: Extreme and Exploratory RapidsThese runs have almost never been attempted and often exemplify the extremes of difficulty, unpredictability and danger. The consequences of errors are very severe and rescue may be impossible. For teams of experts only, at favorable water levels, after close personal inspection and taking all precautions. After a Class VI rapids has been run many times, its rating may be changed to an apppropriate Class 5.x rating.Since it has been run once, that would put Palouse as a class 6. If at some point in the future boaters start hucking it more regularly, maybe then it could have a 5.4 or whatever rating. To me though, Palouse will always be class "nof**kingway"  |
Posted By: displaced
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2009 at 10:07am
|
isn't everyone here pretty much talking about "bouldering vs. climbing" rating systems? To say, as Ben does that "sunset and palouse are the only significant feats accomplished in a kayak in recent memory" might be true in the bouldering sense of the word. These are both, obviously, amazing feats. However, they both only took a matter of seconds. I think it is very difficult to put the same rating on an act that took less than five seconds, then turn around and use (and compare) that same rating to a feat that took five days (perhaps MFofK). I don't think it does justice to either (big drops vs. full river trips) to put them in the same rating system. Perhaps for "bouldering (big drops/rapids)" there should be a R(rapid)1 - R10 scale? That way, the established runs don't get too tweaked around with this new rating and that new rating, and individual drops (which might be in the middle of a class V run) are given a rating without confusing the rest of the run. This is a bit of a stretch, but then you could have a run that is described as: a class V run with four R3 rapids, and one R6. or as in Tyler's case on palouse: class II with one R8 or the stikine with: 10+ R4's and one R9(site zed). I think it just gives a more accurate description of what is involved. |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2009 at 2:19pm
|
I think you're making things confusing with all of those "R"s. No Offense meant.
And some people's comments sound as if they overlooked my whole point I made in my 2nd or 3rd post (and it was breif, too.). Thanks to Joeskayak for echoeing it:
Pickup the Idaho guidebook. Pick up the Bennet Book. Gander at the Gary Korb Book, or any guidebook. Read the AW int'l scale, ect. They all mention class VI as "Rarely Run" or something similar. Look also at how those guidebooks distinguish between whole runs and rapids and how they are rated. I think the existing rating system is fine, if loose and vague at times.
I'd argue that these precedents, as they exist in print over several decades, should continue to have weight, to keep the scale grounded to something objective.
Yes the scale is subjective. But it's up to individuals to inform themselves about this larger landscape of subjectivity: Actually knowing how California interprets the scale vs. West Virginia, or the commonalities between 5 or so relavent guidebooks. There is an AVERAGE subjectivity that provides us with a rough framework to evaluate and communicate these rapids, runs and rivers.
People will always infuse their own individual opinion into the mix. But it is up to all individuals to be grounded to some standard, which is what we currently have.
I understand how the I-V scale looks when plotted on a J curve. Within the class V zone, there is a wide variance of difficulty, hazard, and consequence. It does follow that while standards are important, so must the rating syatem adapt to new standards, hence the V.3 ect. I'm just saying it should be integrated with what's already been established, otherwise it is arbitrary and doesn't help to comminicate anything.
------------- 🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋 |
Posted By: RemAcct2
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2009 at 2:45pm
JP, you always like to rub it in how some of us can't get our hands on the Idaho guidebook 
------------- |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2009 at 3:25pm
|
Leif... Idaho the whitewater State by Grant Amaral... you can get used copies on Amazon for around $45 and up. Or I'll sell you mine for $450.  |
Posted By: RemAcct2
Date Posted: 29 Apr 2009 at 5:05pm
|
Last time I checked amazon, they started at $100. Prices are down somewhat now; I guess its the economy. I wonder when the copyright lapses so we can take it to Kinkos? ------------- |
Posted By: STLboater
Date Posted: 30 Apr 2009 at 8:10am
|
We need to find someone who is willing to break their book at the bindings and then create a bunch of blackmarket books. Its for the greater good!
------------- Kayak Academy Whitewater Instructor |
Posted By: Liz
Date Posted: 30 Apr 2009 at 8:21am
|
This is off the topic of the off-topic, off-topic, BUT does anyone know what the good California guide book is? ------------- |
Posted By: water wacko
Date Posted: 26 May 2009 at 5:54pm
|
A Cali book I like is written by two guys. Chuck Stanley and Lars Holbeck(rip). ------------- "Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." ~Howard Thurman |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 May 2009 at 6:05pm
Dang it brett... PM that kind of thing. You re-surfaced the New Waterfall Record, and the first thing I though was ... Who the heck went bigger than Palouse.... Not guidebook 
|
Posted By: water wacko
Date Posted: 26 May 2009 at 6:25pm
|
he he ------------- "Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." ~Howard Thurman |