As a response to the growth of mountaineering the world body for mountaineers, the UIAA, have developed a simple, but very worthwhile code, which the BMC Access and Conservation Committee strongly commend. 

• Observe restrictions and access agreement negotiated by National Mountaineering Federations, and avoid any actions which might endanger access
• Do not disturb nesting birds or other wildlife. Help protect flowers and respect sites of geological or other scientific interest
• Avoid actions which cause unnecessary erosion (such as taking shortcuts on footpaths) and do not leave unnecessary way marks
• Do not disturb livestock or damage crops or trees
• Do not leave any rubbish. Keep campsites clean. Avoid all risk of fire
• Where toilet facilities are not available, dispose of human waste in a sanitary manner (ie under rocks, soil, sand, or in deep crevasses, away from water supplies, paths or climbs
• Do not pollute fresh water supplies. Avoid any unnecessary pollution to the snow pack
• Respect established climbing traditions in ethical matters such as the use of chalk, pitons or bolts etc. Avoid indiscriminate or excessive use of fixed equipment
• In mountain areas use motorised transport sparingly and park considerately. Make us of public transport if practical.

Force v.s. time data for drop tests using climbing rope has been collected and made available on the net by Hal Murray (murray@pa.dec.com). I find analyzing this data is fascinating, even though it has little relevance to my use of rope in climbing. The fact is that the UIAA and some newer organizations have developed practical tests that provide a high level of confidence that ropes, as used in climbing, will do their part help heep us alive and healthy - understanding why ropes behave this way is not necessary for climbers.  
Still, I'm a nerd and can't resist fiddling with data. So here goes...  
Data for several experiments are available. Most of these include prusiks, force limiters, or other devices that mask the rope's properties. I've picked the first data set for analysis. The commentary supplied with this data reads: 

        SamplesPerSecond 2500
        DateTime 2/12/89 11-04
        NumberOfSamples 5000
        Peak 1450
        Info 10 ft, fall factor 1, old climbing rope, good condition

        an = fn/m + g
        vn = vn-1 + an / 2500
        yn = yn-1 + vn / 2500

• There is a slow ramping up at low forces on the first bounce: Ropes behave differently for loads that generate low forces (top rope falls) and those that generate high forces. Due to the inelastic nature of climbing rope, I wouldn't try extrapolating TR fall curves from this data
• Some inelastic stretching occurs: Notice how each loop is shifter to the right - allowing more total stretch for a given force on each successive bounce
• Ropes act like springs during elongation, but not contraction: The graph is essentially linear for each stretching phase
• The effective spring constant increases with each bounce: Each linear successive region is steeper
• There is a small error in my initial conditions: The data should spiral inward without the last segment crossing the previous bounce. Correcting this would shift the graph slightly to the right, but otherwise not appreciably affect it
• The noise in the force during the first bounce seems to be mostly positive, increasing the force above what a simple rope model might suggest. [Either that, or the simple model I'm imagining is wrong!].

Climbing Grades 

In Belgium we generally use the French grading system. On some classic routes however, the older alpine quotations (UIAA) are used. The following table gives an overview of how these systems compare to other systems.  
Some important notes :  

• The different systems can not always be easily "translated". The table must therefore be considered as indicative
• The English system is rather complicated and consists of two grades: the first one for the severity of the whole route (physically and mentally), the second one for the most difficult move
• All ratings are subjective !!!

 

Climbing Grading Systems
French	UIAA	English	American	Australian	German
2	II	Diff (D)	5.2 -5.3	10	I
3	III	Very Diff (VD)	5.4	12	II/III
4	IV	Severe (S)	5.5	14	III/IV
5a	V-/V	Hard Severe (HS)	5.6	15	IV
5b	V/V+	Very Severe (VS)	5.8	16	V
5c	VI-	HVS	5.9	17/18	VI
6a	VI	E1,5b	5.10b	19	VII-
	VI+	E2,5c	5.10c	21	VII
6b	VII-	E3,5c	5.10d	22	VII+
	VII	E3,6a	5.11b	23	VIII-
6c	VII+	E4,6a	5.11c	24	VIII
7a	VIII-	E4,6b	5.11d	25
	VIII	E5,6a	5.12a	26	VIII+
7b	VIII+	E5,6b	5.12b	27	IX-
7c	IX-	E6,6b	5.12c	29	IX+
7c+	IX	E6,6c	5.13a	32	X
8a	IX+	E7,7a	5.13c	40	X+
8b+	X	E8,7a	5.14a		XI-
8c	X+	E9,7b
8c+
9a