Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

3000 Feet?

FAQ and threads for those just starting to hike the Colorado 14ers.
User avatar
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:04 pm
Location: Longmont Colorado

3000 Feet?

Postby fourseasoncyclist » Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:50 pm

I've noticed on my personal checklist that I can mark 3000 ft of elevation. My question- On routes like Oxford- Belford. I have gained over 3000 feet to get to Belford, but not going to Oxford. Does the 3000 ft of gain count on a second mountain on the same day? In the case of Grays and Torreys I think the mountain should have to be climbed again, but that's my opinion. What is the "official" way of measuring this?
Justin Smith
Longmont, CO
fourseasoncyclist@gmail.com

User avatar
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:11 am
Location: The West Side

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby EatinHardtack » Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:57 pm

Technically, per Roach, they should be re-climbed again for a 3k check mark.

User avatar
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:30 pm
Location: Golden

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby Carl » Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:57 pm

Try the search function and you'll find this question being asked and debated at length. Here's a starter http://www.14ers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3520

User avatar
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:04 pm
Location: Longmont Colorado

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby fourseasoncyclist » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:02 pm

Thanks Carl. My apologies for the repost...
Justin Smith
Longmont, CO
fourseasoncyclist@gmail.com

User avatar
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:30 pm
Location: Golden

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby Carl » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:46 pm

fourseasoncyclist wrote:Thanks Carl. My apologies for the repost...


No worries. Not trying to be the forum police but for certain inquires, like this one, the search function can yield a wealth of information / discussion. Although this forum loves debating the same things over and over anyway.

User avatar
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby Fisching » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:52 pm

Carl wrote:No worries. Not trying to be the forum police but for certain inquires, like this one, the search function can yield a wealth of information / discussion. Although this forum loves debating the same things over and over anyway.


Amen to that. Speaking of which, when are we going to renew our annual "trench poaching" debate???
Peter Aitchison on the risks of rock climbing and mountaineering: "That's life, isn't it? We think the challenge and satisfaction you get from doing this is worth the risks."

"Respect the mountain. Train hard. Hope you can sneak up when it isn't looking."

"The mind is always worried about consequences, but the heart knows no fear. The heart just does what it wants."

Online
User avatar
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:10 pm
Location: Englewood

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby ameristrat » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:39 am

fourseasoncyclist wrote:I've noticed on my personal checklist that I can mark 3000 ft of elevation. My question- On routes like Oxford- Belford. I have gained over 3000 feet to get to Belford, but not going to Oxford. Does the 3000 ft of gain count on a second mountain on the same day? In the case of Grays and Torreys I think the mountain should have to be climbed again, but that's my opinion. What is the "official" way of measuring this?


If you feel like you earned it, mark it! No one is going to call you out on it, and if they do, take comfort in the fact that they have nothing better to do than policing other people's personal peak lists. The 3000 foot rule is a little silly anyway - as long as you're not driving to the Mt. Evans summit parking lot, hopping up to the top in flip flops, and calling it an ascent, you're not going to draw anyone's ire.

If you do want to stick to the 3000 foot rule (for each peak), I'm with you - probably need to climb it again. Hop up Belford from the Missouri Gulch TH and head over to Oxford (skirting the summit of Belford if you feel like you must). There is also a long route up Oxford alone from the east, but it's a seventeen mile day.
You cannot stay on the summit forever; you have to come down again. So why bother in the first place? Just this: What is above knows what is below, but what is below does not know what is above. One climbs, one sees. One descends, one sees no longer, but one has seen. There is an art of conducting oneself in the lower regions by the memory of what one saw higher up. When one can no longer see, one can at least still know. - Rene Daumal

User avatar
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:50 am
Location: SoSlo (South of Sloans Lake)

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby wildlobo71 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:52 am

ameristrat wrote:
fourseasoncyclist wrote:I've noticed on my personal checklist that I can mark 3000 ft of elevation. My question- On routes like Oxford- Belford. I have gained over 3000 feet to get to Belford, but not going to Oxford. Does the 3000 ft of gain count on a second mountain on the same day? In the case of Grays and Torreys I think the mountain should have to be climbed again, but that's my opinion. What is the "official" way of measuring this?


If you feel like you earned it, mark it! No one is going to call you out on it...


As long as you don't announce to the world that you are not summiting the peak, but still claiming the peak... If you do this - expect some pushback.

Mount Bross Closure Thread

As for counting Shavano twice because you had to re-ascend it to get back over from Tabeguache - and things like that? Noting that second effort is up to you and will probably never be questioned.
Last edited by wildlobo71 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill W.
Yes, I have my Scotch.

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby Bean » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:55 am

wildlobo71 wrote:As long as you don't announce to the world that you are not summiting the peak, but still claiming the peak... If you do this - expect some pushback.

Mount Bross Closure Thread

Plausible deniability.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

Online
User avatar
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:33 pm
Location: Crestone, CO and/or Chapel Hill, NC

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby jdorje » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:57 am

ameristrat wrote:If you do want to stick to the 3000 foot rule (for each peak), I'm with you - probably need to climb it again.

Disagree. Roach may have laid that out as the Colorado rule but Cave Dog refined it. Since its only purpose is for competitive comparison (racing and such), I'd go with Cave Dog's definition.

a) one must ascend at least 3,000 feet in absolute elevation gain on foot from the base of the first peak of a series.
b) foot traverses of less than 3,000 feet are allowed between peaks through traverses.
c) one must descend on foot at least 3,000 feet in absolute elevation loss back to the starting point or end of a traverse.

http://www.thedogteam.com/14ers-Web_Pages/14ers-Rules.html

Doggler has laid out guidelines for 14er speed trials ("14ers speed grid"), following the same rules.

3,000' rule must be followed from TH to first summit. This encourages link-ups such as the Crestone Group and Collegiates.

http://seanoday.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-cave-dogs-record-will-stand-and.html
Last edited by jdorje on Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Jason Dorje Short

Online
User avatar
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:10 pm
Location: Englewood

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby ameristrat » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:01 am

Fair enough. I like Cave Dog's Rule better. If it's me though, I feel like its cheating to not gain 3k on each mountain individually if I'm going to call it a 3k ascent. Before I get murdered for this view, I'll reiterate that it's just my personal feeling - I'm pretty self-competitive. I'm not going to knock anyone for calling A Shav-Tab day 3k for both peaks.
You cannot stay on the summit forever; you have to come down again. So why bother in the first place? Just this: What is above knows what is below, but what is below does not know what is above. One climbs, one sees. One descends, one sees no longer, but one has seen. There is an art of conducting oneself in the lower regions by the memory of what one saw higher up. When one can no longer see, one can at least still know. - Rene Daumal

Re: 3000 Feet?

Postby MonGoose » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:19 am

I've wrestled with this question myself, especially in the case of Belford and Oxford. After climbing both peaks, I did not check either one as having gained 3,000' despite gaining 4,547' from the trailhead and hiking 5,800' on the day. My plan is to do them again some day and then I will check both peaks as having gained the 3k'.

In my opinion, summiting the peak from the trailhead is what matters most to me. I think it's absolutely stupid to walk up a road an additional few hundred feet just to say you've gained 3,000'. By the time you sprawl across the Knife Edge of Capitol, sit on the summit block of Sunlight and bang the Bells, it really doesn't matter to me if you only gained 2,800' on Mt Bierstadt. Just my .02 cents.

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jkunk3, mbergeron1828, mgep, mikeworcester911, Wilderness_hike and 16 guests