ft per hour

FAQ and threads for those just starting to hike the Colorado 14ers.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
shredthegnar10
Posts: 711
Joined: 8/13/2007
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 15
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by shredthegnar10 »

This thread has inspired me to estimate an expected vertical ascent rate for different elevation intervals (this is for me, based on the most recent available information at each elevation interval, YMMV):

6,000-10,000: 1800-2500 ft/hr
10,000-14,000: 1200-1800 ft/hr
14,000-17,000': 700-1100 ft/hr
17,000-19,000: 500-700 ft/hr
19,000-21,000: 400-600 ft/hr
21,000-23,000: 200-400 ft/hr

....so I just plotted this on Excel, and it would appear that hiking speed and elevation decrease linearly. More than likely totally irrelevant, but interesting.
Most things worth doing are difficult, dangerous, expensive, or all three.
User avatar
SkaredShtles
Posts: 2411
Joined: 5/20/2013
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by SkaredShtles »

I rest my case.

:mrgreen:
User avatar
jdorje
Posts: 1388
Joined: 6/16/2010
14ers: 12 
13ers: 27
Trip Reports (16)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by jdorje »

So at 25000-27000 feet you would have a negative vertical gain?

I wonder if the .1 ft/hour/ft ratio applies to everyone?
"I don't think about the past, and the future is a mystery. Only the present matters."
akoller
Posts: 94
Joined: 7/24/2013
14ers: 27  3 
13ers: 23 3
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by akoller »

shredthegnar10 wrote:This thread has inspired me to estimate an expected vertical ascent rate for different elevation intervals (this is for me, based on the most recent available information at each elevation interval, YMMV):

6,000-10,000: 1800-2500 ft/hr
10,000-14,000: 1200-1800 ft/hr
14,000-17,000': 700-1100 ft/hr
17,000-19,000: 500-700 ft/hr
19,000-21,000: 400-600 ft/hr
21,000-23,000: 200-400 ft/hr

....so I just plotted this on Excel, and it would appear that hiking speed and elevation decrease linearly. More than likely totally irrelevant, but interesting.
Are these all carrying similar gear, on similar terrain? (Have you climbed a glacier at 6k?) If so, very interesting.
User avatar
ezabielski
Posts: 738
Joined: 7/13/2012
14ers: 43  1 
13ers: 8
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by ezabielski »

jomagam wrote:
DoctorBreaks wrote:Could someone really summit Pyramid for example in two hours hiking 2k ft per hour?
The FKT is 1:48, so the answer is yes.
Ascent FKT appears to be 1h25m and RT is 2h23m, held by Tony Krupicka.
User avatar
jomagam
Posts: 589
Joined: 1/13/2011
14ers: 16 
13ers: 9
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by jomagam »

ezabielski wrote:
jomagam wrote:
DoctorBreaks wrote:Could someone really summit Pyramid for example in two hours hiking 2k ft per hour?
The FKT is 1:48, so the answer is yes.
Ascent FKT appears to be 1h25m and RT is 2h23m, held by Tony Krupicka.
1:48 is the human FKT, according to
http://www.wwwright.com/climbing/speed/ ... o14ers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
jdorje
Posts: 1388
Joined: 6/16/2010
14ers: 12 
13ers: 27
Trip Reports (16)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by jdorje »

1, Bill Wright's site shows suspicious signs of not having been updated since July 2003.

2, I see what you did there with "human" qualifier.
"I don't think about the past, and the future is a mystery. Only the present matters."
User avatar
ajkagy
Posts: 2294
Joined: 1/7/2007
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: ft per hour

Post by ajkagy »

jomagam wrote: 1:48 is the human FKT, according to
http://www.wwwright.com/climbing/speed/ ... o14ers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1:48 ascent only way back in '96, Anton did it in 1:25, :58 down which is the current record ascent + roundtrip

that site i feel like is way outdated, I bet half of those records aren't current.
User avatar
cheeseburglar
Posts: 2434
Joined: 8/7/2006
14ers: 58  2 
13ers: 79 2 1
Trip Reports (8)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by cheeseburglar »

SeattleHc100er wrote:All funny guys and sarcastic, condescending asses aside, I use the vertical feet per hour measurement to help decipher cardiovascular fitness for climbing trips.
I'd already mentally composed my response to this thread when I read this. And I agree with you.
But to get off the fitness bandwagon, ft per hour is a valuable climbing tool.
I think there are a lot of variables on scrambling peaks, some people slow down on class 3 terrain. Some people move slower at lower elevations but speed up relative to others higher on the mountain or on more difficult terrain.
Growing up in the northwest we used an estimated vertical ascent rate to calculate our turn around time. You have to know how to use it but if you are walking up a glacier and know you will be for the next several hours, it's a valuable metric to know when to call it. The problem gets more complicated with peaks like Capitol. If you thought the last 1000 vertical would be done at your usual rate, you would be wrong!
But a modified system that takes into account difficulty and route knowledge is a great tool. Knowing when you aren't climbing fast enough to beat the weather could save your life!
The marmot said “Nobody is perfect and you are not nobody.”

Random FoTH Quotes
User avatar
Broken Knee
Posts: 470
Joined: 8/5/2014
13ers: 28
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by Broken Knee »

jdorje wrote:But I still think almost nobody hikes at 3000 feet per hour. If you can do so, you are in that almost-nobody group. Very many on this site are young and fit and can ascend at 2k per hour; I wouldn't see that as something to brag about though on an average fourteener day it probably means you are the fastest on the trail. And 1k per hour remains an average speed in my book.
I pretty much agree, except with the "almost nobody" @ 3K/hr. I know quite a few CO and UT trail runners that have broken 4K/hr on climbs in the 3K to 4K foot ascent range. I'm sure there are many more in other mountainous areas.

Just one of many examples:

http://davemackey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... rials.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When life gets you down, climb!
User avatar
randalmartin
Posts: 1490
Joined: 5/4/2008
14ers: 58  1 
13ers: 48 2
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by randalmartin »

Broken Knee wrote:
jdorje wrote:But I still think almost nobody hikes at 3000 feet per hour. If you can do so, you are in that almost-nobody group. Very many on this site are young and fit and can ascend at 2k per hour; I wouldn't see that as something to brag about though on an average fourteener day it probably means you are the fastest on the trail. And 1k per hour remains an average speed in my book.
I pretty much agree, except with the "almost nobody" @ 3K/hr. I know quite a few CO and UT trail runners that have broken 4K/hr on climbs in the 3K to 4K foot ascent range. I'm sure there are many more in other mountainous areas.

Just one of many examples:

http://davemackey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... rials.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wouldn't try to pass off 3kft an hour as just above average. I would put that in the elite status (above the 95% percentile). Trail Runners that are running mountain races are elite athletes.
User avatar
Broken Knee
Posts: 470
Joined: 8/5/2014
13ers: 28
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: ft per hour

Post by Broken Knee »

randalmartin wrote:I wouldn't try to pass off 3kft an hour as just above average. I would put that in the elite status (above the 95% percentile). Trail Runners that are running mountain races are elite athletes.
I certainly didn't describe 3K'/hr as "just above average". I think many reasonably fit people can maintain ~1.5K'/hr when at a manageable altitude. Your definition of "elite athlete" may be different that mine, however, as I can only think of it in the global sense and some of those beasts report >5K'/hr, which blows my mind.
When life gets you down, climb!
Post Reply