3k rule clarification/hypothetical

[Jules Randolph]

Hey, noobie here, tbh I was completely unaware of the 3000 foot rule until I signed up for this site earlier today, but I love weird hypotheticals almost as much as I love long hiking days so here goes...

Suppose I were to start my hike at the Quartzville site and hike up Lincoln (2.6k feet ascending), then complete 2 rounds of the DeCaLiBron loop (3.7k ascending per loop) and head back down from the summit of Lincoln to Quartzville all in a single day. I would have done 3 summits (not counting Cameron) and roughly 10k feet of ascent in a single hike. Could I then divide up that 10k as I wish and count all 3 summits under the 3000 foot rule? Or would I not be able to count any of them since I started at 11.6k and didn't climb 3k net vertical at all?

[Conor]

Nope doesn't count.

Or...you can do whatever you want. Sometimes I feel like following the "rule," sometimes I don't. I have a family, so some days if I can cut off 1+ hours, I take it. Purists may turn their nose up at me, but I could care less.

[Sbenfield]

As I understand it, you cannot divide up elevation like that. You would have to start lower on the trailhead to gain 3000 vertical. However, I believe once you get to the top of Lincoln and traverse around to the other summits then you can officially count those as well (as long as the 1st summit in a group has 3000 vertical). This rule is sort of silly and I only understand its use in speed record attempts

[Jrodicon]

First of all I think the 3000ft rule is more of a guideline that some follow and others ignore, there is no one there to say you didn't finish the 14ers because you didn't follow the 3000ft rule.

I think that if you insist on following the rule, then the most widely accepted form is what Andrew Hamilton and others have done during record attempts:

-there must be a 3000ft difference between the starting point and your first summit. (if the summit is 14,007ft, then you must start at 11,007ft or lower)
-there must be a 3000ft difference between the last summit and the ending point. (if the last summit is 14,100ft then the ending point must be 11,100ft or lower)
-you can hit multiple peaks in a row without gaining 3000ft so long as you stay on your feet in-between and gain 3000ft up the first peak, and lose 3000ft on the last peak.

So for Decalibron, if you start at 11,286ft, climb Democrat, traverse to the other 3, and then descend to 11,172ft from Bross, then it counts.

[I Man]

I don't follow the 3,000ft rule, nor do I think I know anyone who does (then again I don't know many who are trying to complete the 14ers list).

Count whatever feels right to you. If you feel warm and fuzzy about starting lower on a road to get that 3,000ft - do it. If you feel motivated to climb Decalibron 4 times to get 3,000ft on each - do it. Some might call you crazy tho.

[MonGoose]

This subject has been discussed in depth many times on this forum and the general consensus is: do whatever makes you happy. If you feel parking your car and walking a few hundred feet up the road to gain the elevation makes you a better mountaineer, then go for it.

[I Man]

If you feel parking your car and walking a few hundred feet up the road to gain the elevation makes you a better mountaineer, then go for it.

For another topic that's been discussed many times - it'd be a hard thing to sell that as 'mountaineering.'

[Jeff Valliere]

The only rules I abide by are respecting the mountains, respecting others, enjoying, appreciating and coming home safe, beyond that, it is wide open. Aside from FKT attempts, who cares? Whatever works for you.

[mtree]

I don't know who came up with the 3000' rule. Rather arbitrary if you ask me. Why not impose a total distance, too? If the round trip is less than 8 miles it doesn't count. How about a glissade, belay, or butt sledding rule? If you descend by means other than walking or running on the soles of your feet, it doesn't count. But, skipping, hopping, or cartwheels are ok.

For me, if I put forth a decent effort and reached the summit, I climbed it. So what if some were easier than others. It's like a par 3. I'll take it.

[Jon Frohlich]

I don't know who came up with the 3000' rule.

It's supposed to correlate vaguely to the difference from treeline to the the summit. Regardless, if you start doing 13ers it will never be mentioned again.

[HikerGuy]

It's supposed to correlate vaguely to the difference from treeline to the the summit. Regardless, if you start doing 13ers it will never be mentioned again.

Correct, it is 2,000 ft for 13ers.

[Jeff Valliere]

I don't know who came up with the 3000' rule. Rather arbitrary if you ask me. Why not impose a total distance, too? If the round trip is less than 8 miles it doesn't count. How about a glissade, belay, or butt sledding rule? If you descend by means other than walking or running on the soles of your feet, it doesn't count. But, skipping, hopping, or cartwheels are ok.

For me, if I put forth a decent effort and reached the summit, I climbed it. So what if some were easier than others. It's like a par 3. I'll take it.

This reminds me, what if you get a ride down? I have thought of this often in regards to Pikes. Purists may contest that it does not count, but say you run the Pikes Peak Ascent and take the shuttle down, does that not count? Would a round trip from 11,115 count more than a full ascent from downtown Manitou? What if you run the Pikes Peak Marathon, but don't take the time to run over to the highest bump of rocks next to the parking lot? Does that count? What if you stockpiled a few round trips from the PPM turn to the bump of rocks to the summit and back, to make complete summits for past or future Pikes Peak Marathons?