ft per hour
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.
- jdorje
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: 6/16/2010
- 14ers: 12
- 13ers: 27
- Trip Reports (16)
Re: ft per hour
Yeah, I've been surprised by how many people have posted and spoken of climbing at 2500 feet per hour - clearly a larger population than I had thought. It's a bit motivational since now I can't be content at my current level of fitness.
"I don't think about the past, and the future is a mystery. Only the present matters."
- DoctorBreaks
- Posts: 581
- Joined: 6/3/2014
- 14ers: 33 5
- 13ers: 6 2
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: ft per hour
I'm really happy at how fast I've gotten since I started at Gray's june 6th. I know it's a process, and I have been getting faster, more knowledgeable, and have gained considerable experience. Always have to strive to get better though.
"Mountains are not Stadiums where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, they are the cathedrals where I practice my religion."
-Anatoli Boukreev
Be humble enough to respect the mountain, but confident enough to climb it.
Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor.
-Anatoli Boukreev
Be humble enough to respect the mountain, but confident enough to climb it.
Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor.
- ezabielski
- Posts: 738
- Joined: 7/13/2012
- 14ers: 43 1
- 13ers: 8
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: ft per hour
Ah, but 95th percentile of what? Americans, hikers, Colorado 14er hikers, or runners?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.Broken Knee wrote: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.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.
Just one of many examples:
http://davemackey.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... rials.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think an interesting project would be looking at a large Vertical Kilometer race in Europe and seeing the distribution of vertical speeds.
- randalmartin
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: 5/4/2008
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 48 2
- Trip Reports (13)
Re: ft per hour
I was thinking 95% of Americans but it is probably more like 99.9% of Americans that are NOT able to move up at 3kft/hour. If I pulled 99.9% of Americans from their Sofa and put them at the base of Quandary, assuming a few days to acclimate for those from sea level, they couldn't get up in 1 hour.
For me, speed in the mountains is as much about safety. Clearly on sketchy terrain you may be limited but from the standpoint of avoiding weather speed is your friend. I also have found that I don't mind going "Fast" up (my fast is about 1900ft/hr on something like Quandary) but going fast down (running down) I try not to do anymore due to knee and foot issues if I do it repeatedly.
For me, speed in the mountains is as much about safety. Clearly on sketchy terrain you may be limited but from the standpoint of avoiding weather speed is your friend. I also have found that I don't mind going "Fast" up (my fast is about 1900ft/hr on something like Quandary) but going fast down (running down) I try not to do anymore due to knee and foot issues if I do it repeatedly.
Last edited by randalmartin on Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Broken Knee
- Posts: 470
- Joined: 8/5/2014
- 13ers: 28
- Trip Reports (1)
Re: ft per hour
Did you mean to say 5% and 0.1%?randalmartin wrote:I was thinking 95% of Americans but it is probably more like 99.9% of Americans that are able to move up at 3kft/hour. If I pulled 99.9% of Americans from their Sofa and put them at the base of Quandary, assuming a few days to acclimate for those from sea level, they couldn't get up in 1 hour.
For me, speed in the mountains is as much about safety. Clearly on sketchy terrain you may be limited but from the standpoint of avoiding weather speed is your friend. I also have found that I don't mind going "Fast" up (my fast is about 1900ft/hr on something like Quandary) but going fast down (running down) I try not to do anymore due to knee and foot issues if I do it repeatedly.
I'd guess the 3K'/hr fraction is somewhere between those two numbers.
The speed/safety thing is a balance. There are so many preparation and attitude aspects that impact safety.
Indeed. I don't think a 2000' burst at 2500/hour is very rare but as you go faster and longer, the crowd thins itself.ezabielski wrote:I think an interesting project would be looking at a large Vertical Kilometer race in Europe and seeing the distribution of vertical speeds.
When life gets you down, climb!
Re: ft per hour
People who are fast spend less time on the mountain, which enables them to go lighter and thus even faster. They use their speed as a safety net. People who are slower (like me) have to carry a lot more crap to be safe, and this slows us down even more. So when someone says they climb 3k/hr I automatically assume that is trail running, light and fast style, and probably not for more than a few hours. If someone can climb that fast carrying a full load of gear, on anything but class 1/easy class 2, I would be impressed.
- randalmartin
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: 5/4/2008
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 48 2
- Trip Reports (13)
Re: ft per hour
Sorry, 5% and .1%. Edited for clarificationBroken Knee wrote:Did you mean to say 5% and 0.1%?
- brett.t.burch
- Posts: 261
- Joined: 6/20/2007
- 14ers: 29
- 13ers: 1 1
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: ft per hour
Sorry to revive an old thread, but maybe some will find this useful.
1. In cycling this metric is called VAM. If you use a Garmin / Suunto / Polar / etc. watch to record your hikes, many online apps will measure VAM for you even on hikes.
2. VAM / Power / V02 Max typically deteriorates exponentially rather than linearly. Check out the chart on pg 329 of Training for the New Alpinism
1. In cycling this metric is called VAM. If you use a Garmin / Suunto / Polar / etc. watch to record your hikes, many online apps will measure VAM for you even on hikes.
2. VAM / Power / V02 Max typically deteriorates exponentially rather than linearly. Check out the chart on pg 329 of Training for the New Alpinism
-
- Posts: 397
- Joined: 5/11/2008
- 14ers: 27
- 13ers: 32
- Trip Reports (3)
Re: ft per hour
So ... first, personal background to put context to the below ... I'm fast compared to an average hiker, slow for a mountain runner. My best sustained climbing rate at altitude under perfect conditions (Elbert last year) is 2,200 ft/hour. That is, I summitted in just over 2 hours. I think I'm a tad slower this year. As for going down, I'm much slower than the "real" trail runners, but even for me on a good trail I can cut a lot of time off by running the runnable bits.
I go fast not just for safety, but to cover more ground in a given amount of time, to see more/do more, and/to fit climbs into a shorter time window due to other obligations. I'm actually just getting started with that goal - I've been building toward that for a couple of years, and have a couple of multi peak challenges planned over the next few weeks. We'll see how it works out.
As for carrying less / going lighter, obviously it depends partly upon conditions, and I'm probably taking SOME chances, but:
for footwear, for someone who spends a lot of time running on fairly technical trails near Boulder, I much prefer trail running shoes to boots during the summer. Obviously that's necessary when running, but even when just hiking, either with my daughter or my girlfriend, I wear my running shoes.
you can fit more into an ultra vest than you might think.
I go fast not just for safety, but to cover more ground in a given amount of time, to see more/do more, and/to fit climbs into a shorter time window due to other obligations. I'm actually just getting started with that goal - I've been building toward that for a couple of years, and have a couple of multi peak challenges planned over the next few weeks. We'll see how it works out.
As for carrying less / going lighter, obviously it depends partly upon conditions, and I'm probably taking SOME chances, but:
for footwear, for someone who spends a lot of time running on fairly technical trails near Boulder, I much prefer trail running shoes to boots during the summer. Obviously that's necessary when running, but even when just hiking, either with my daughter or my girlfriend, I wear my running shoes.
you can fit more into an ultra vest than you might think.
- Voshkm
- Posts: 159
- Joined: 7/28/2015
- 14ers: 19 4
- Trip Reports (0)
Re: ft per hour
People who are fast spend less time on the mountain, which enables them to go lighter and thus even faster. They use their speed as a safety net. People who are slower (like me) have to carry a lot more crap to be safe, and this slows us down even more. So when someone says they climb 3k/hr I automatically assume that is trail running, light and fast style, and probably not for more than a few hours. If someone can climb that fast carrying a full load of gear, on anything but class 1/easy class 2, I would be impressed.
I am impressed regardless
I am impressed regardless
-
- Posts: 239
- Joined: 9/23/2010
- 14ers: 58 1
- 13ers: 13
- Trip Reports (4)
- Contact:
Re: ft per hour
Geez, I've never even come anywhere close to 2000 ft / hour. Must mean I'm outta shape, old, or this forum is full of overachievers. Now don't get me wrong, I do keep track of this metric, but some of the numbers people here are quoting makes me feel utterly like a tortoise.
But do you really need to go at such a pace, if you're not trying to outrun bad weather?
But do you really need to go at such a pace, if you're not trying to outrun bad weather?
IG: jc_solitude
- justiner
- Posts: 4397
- Joined: 8/28/2010
- 14ers: 58 8
- 13ers: 138
- Trip Reports (40)
- Contact:
Re: ft per hour
That's like asking a weightlifter if it's really necessary to lift that much weight.dr_j wrote:But do you really need to go at such a pace, if you're not trying to outrun bad weather?
You run, you ultimately get faster. 2k'/hour is like a brisk pace
I'm looking at some of my stats: My Freeway PR is 7m 47s apparently (@ 76% grade), and that's for 539 vertical feet. So 4,155 ft/hr. My Green Mt PR is 38m13s for 2,338' or 3,670/hr (@23% av. grade)
I'm no lightweight @ 175/180lbs. Those stats are pretty much, "hiking". Tons of people are much faster than me
My flat road pace is around 7m30s/mile, no fooling. I guess it's about what you optimize for