ft per hour

[DoctorBreaks]

So this is probably a stupid question, but how exactly do people get this number? Is it vertical ft per hour? I just don't see how the number can be so constant. 1k verticle ft per hour over 1 mile would take much longer than say 1k verticle feet over 3 miles. Could someone really summit Pyramid for example in two hours hiking 2k ft per hour? It seems to me that scrambling for .8 miles on steep loose terrain requires a much slower pace. If someone could explain this to me that would be awesome.

[ezabielski]

So this is probably a stupid question, but how exactly do people get this number? Is it vertical ft per hour? I just don't see how the number can be so constant. 1k verticle ft per hour over 1 mile would take much longer than say 1k verticle feet over 3 miles. Could someone really summit Pyramid for example in two hours hiking 2k ft per hour? It seems to me that scrambling for .8 miles on steep loose terrain requires a much slower pace. If someone could explain this to me that would be awesome.

Obviously it falls apart at the extremes. Say your normal climb rate is 3k/hour at altitude. Obviously, you cannot climb 3k in an hour over 13 miles, because you cannot run 13 miles in one hour, even on flat ground (almost no one can). And no one climbs 3k/hour on vertical rock. The speed record for The Nose is about 1,129ft/hour. But I find my vertical speed is very constant on steep class 1-steep (but easy to navigate) class 2. I use my Suunto watch a lot to check my vertical speed to check my progress if I am really trying to do something fast. I'd say that's the most important metric besides heart rate.

Who ever claimed it was constant for all terrain?

EDIT: Furthermore, it is not true that steeper=slower climbing speed. There is a sweet spot.

[GregMiller]

For me at least, it's a ballpark guesstimate. And I don't know about 1k/hr over 3 miles, but I can usually do 1k/hr whether it's over 1 or 2 miles for class 1/2. Heck, on some scrambling routes I've done 1k/hr on class 3, but that really depends on how much route finding needs to happen, and certainly doesn't apply for me on class 4.

[DoctorBreaks]

Obviously it falls apart at the extremes. Say your normal climb rate is 3k/hour at altitude. Obviously, you cannot climb 3k in an hour over 13 miles, because you cannot run 13 miles in one hour, even on flat ground (almost no one can). And no one climbs 3k/hour on vertical rock. The speed record for The Nose is about 1,129ft/hour. But I find my vertical speed is very constant on steep class 1-steep (but easy to navigate) class 2. I use my Suunto watch a lot to check my vertical speed to check my progress if I am really trying to do something fast. I'd say that's the most important metric besides heart rate.

Who ever claimed it was constant for all terrain?

EDIT: Furthermore, it is not true that steeper=slower climbing speed. There is a sweet spot.[/quote]

Thank you for the response! So what I'm gathering is that this number usually used for class 1 hiking. See hiking on talus at least for me slows me down CONSIDERABLY. Not sure if I'm the only one but man doing Pyramid yesterday we made it to where the trail ends and where the talus begins in about 2.5 hours, but hiking to the beginning of the gully took an eternity. It took at least a few hours lol. I never said anyone explicitly claimed that it was constant. My question was to clarify how exactly people got this number. I usually hear/see people post their ft/hr numbers and it confuses me because there are never any disclaimers. If someone says "Yeah I averaged around 2k ft/hr!" It confuses me when they are talking about an entire route especially those with climbing sections. Great to have people explain it to me though.

For me at least, it's a ballpark guesstimate. And I don't know about 1k/hr over 3 miles, but I can usually do 1k/hr whether it's over 1 or 2 miles for class 1/2. Heck, on some scrambling routes I've done 1k/hr on class 3, but that really depends on how much route finding needs to happen, and certainly doesn't apply for me on class 4.

Thanks Greg! Yeah I mean when I did Wetterhorn it took us around 3 hours up and the same down. So I would average 1k ft per hour I suppose. For my part on Pyramid, I felt like it wasn't even relevant to worry about my ft/hr since it was constant for a while but then it went to hell once I started hitting the talus portions of the route.

[jdorje]

I wouldn't say that vertical/time is perfect, just that it's a ton more accurate than horizontal/time in the mountains. If you have a class 1 trail between 10% (5 degrees) and 100% grade (45 degrees) then your horizontal mph is going to vary greatly depending on the grade, but your vertical feet/hour will not vary much. I usually measure it in feet per minute using a GPS. It is just one method that you can use to pace yourself, but with practice pacing yourself with a GPS/altimeter becomes rather obsolete.

3000 vertical over 13 miles is 4% grade, well outside the target "uphill" zone. Obviously if you have a flat or up-and-down trail then vertical/time will not be very consistent. If you think a trail has some additional horizontal component outside of the "uphill" zone, add on extra time for it. More likely your 13 miles is 6 "uphill" miles (3000 vertical) and 7 flat miles.

I don't think it's a ballpark estimate though. I can ascend 1800 ft/hour at 10k feet for 2+ hours and 2500 ft/hour for 30 minutes. This is very consistent across terrain. In addition to variance based on grade, it also drops at higher elevations or for longer periods of exercise.

Almost nobody climbs 3k/hour. 1k/hour is "average". Many on this site can probably climb 2k/hour. My mother climbs 500'/hour. The winning time for the PPA last year was a bit over 3k feet/hour.

I would not expect to have the same pace on class 3+ terrain, but that's not due to strength limitations. Someone very efficient at scrambling can probably sustain the same vertical/time pace on a steep class 3 route as they do on an approach trail. The same amount of work is being done. If you don't have those skills (very dependent on the specific terrain/route) then climbing on difficult terrain will be slower.

If someone says "I climb X ft/hr" I would assume that means on (what is for them) optimal terrain.

[djkest]

My fastest ft/hour gain is on the Manitou incline, but you can't really relate that to 14er hiking. On a 14er, we got 1500-1600 ft/hr on a portion of Mt. Massive SW slopes, because that portion of the trail is steep class 1 / easy class 2.

We recently did Kelso ridge and I was surprised how slow we went. Apparently between routefinding, scrambling, and waiting for other people it wasn't the speediest ascent.

[ezabielski]

I don't think it's a ballpark estimate though. I can ascend 1800 ft/hour at 10k feet for 2+ hours and 2500 ft/hour for 30 minutes. This is very consistent across terrain. In addition to variance based on grade, it also drops at higher elevations or for longer periods of exercise.

Almost nobody climbs 3k/hour. 1k/hour is "average". Many on this site can probably climb 2k/hour. My mother climbs 500'/hour. The winning time for the PPA last year was a bit over 3k feet/hour.

That's just not true. But first, we have to agree on a time span. I can bound up 20 feet of stairs in a few seconds, but that's meaningless compared to vertical feet/hour over an hour or more. So let's talk about ft/hour for one hour. At altitude, I've climbed at around 3k/hour for Handies (55m), Huron (1h7m). My personal best is 3,500 feet/hour from Bear Creek on the Mesa Trail to the summit of Bear in ~40 minutes. I don't know of a low-altitude mountain nearby with 3,500' of gain to go for a true hour long effort (but I'm going to sea level in Alaska soon so we'll see!). I know that probably most other mountain runners on this website can climb faster than that, and do.

If we look at elite runners, Sage Canaday did about 4,100 feet/hour to set the FKT on Elbert, including the rolling mile on the Colorado Trail!
Anton Krupicka regularly does 4k/hour in training on class 1/class 2 terrain. He did 3,500 ft/hour for the G/T FKT via Kelso Ridge (Torrey's summit in 52m30s)!

The reason the PPA/PPM vertical speeds are so "low" is because the Barr Trail is simply too flat. It's 7,900 feet over 13.1 miles, which I believe is about 11%. Kilian Jornet won the PPM in 2012 at a rate of 3,400ft/hour. He also climbs at 6,400 feet/hour in Vertical Kilometer (3280ft). He did 4100ft/hour for almost two hours for the Matterhorn FKT. As a fun fact, he did 5492 ft/hour for his 14m12s run up Sanitas.

(Please excuse any errors I've made in the math)

[mtree]

Pretty much what jdorje said.

I think vertical ft/hour is a critical number for every serious hiker/climber. It takes some experience in getting to know your climbing rate. Some good nearby peaks to get a general frame of reference include Quandary and Bierstadt (from the creek). Measure these consistently and you'll figure it out. Ignore mountains where route-finding, scree or talus, and difficulty become factors. The more careful and focused climbing will naturally be slower. The higher you get the slower you get so get an average from 10,000ft to 14,000ft.

Like most experienced hikers on this site, I typically climb averaging 1800 ft per hour from 10,000ft, but this will slow as I get above 13,000ft depending on mileage. I can manage 2000 ft/hr for short durations (30 minutes or so). Sustained climbing above this is not desirable. Burns too much energy. Typically over a full climb I'll average 1600 ft/hr, a bit more if its less than 6 miles round trip.

Knowing your average climbing rate gives you a good measure of ability when hiking with others. I know if I'm going with someone who averages 1000 ft/hr I'll be leading and stopping a lot. If I'm going with someone who averages 1800 ft/hr - unless its short mileage - I'll be the beta dog most of the way. If you hike consistently you'll get faster as the season gets later until you reach that 'set point'. I'll be at 1800ft/hr by September. My legs just aren't long enough to sustain 2000ft/hr!

Great question, by the way!

[mtree]

Eza - true, and good points. But, I think the poster is more concerned with the average 14er hiking and not the outliers like elite runners and ultra distance or mountain runners.

[ezabielski]

Right. Most people aren't crushing themselves to fly up 14ers, but I wouldn't say "almost nobody" does 3k/hr if a mere mortal like me does it! The "almost nobody" category is reserved for the big guys.

[rijaca]

Like most experienced hikers on this site, I typically climb averaging 1800 ft per hour from 10,000ft, but this will slow as I get above 13,000ft depending on mileage. I can manage 2000 ft/hr for short durations (30 minutes or so). Sustained climbing above this is not desirable. Burns too much energy. Typically over a full climb I'll average 1600 ft/hr, a bit more if its less than 6 miles round trip.

Most experienced hikers I know are NOT averaging 1800 vertical ft/hour above 10,000'. And we're not slow hikers either.

I think 1000-1200 ft/hour is a good estimation. The fit, young and strong can do better.

[12ersRule]

I think vertical ft/hour is a critical number for every serious hiker/climber.

Agreed. I can't take you seriously unless you can tell me your stats for every hike you did this summer. It makes for a scintillating conversation on the trails.

Now back to the D**k measuring contest.