14ers.com

I have most often correlated correctly to the following:

Ascent - 2mph over a flat area. for every 1,000' of gain, add 30-40 minutes to your time, depending on pitch of the slope.
Descent - 3 mph, for every 1,000' of loss, add 10-20 minutes to your time, depending on degree of difficulty.

Grays Peak (example) - 4.0 miles distance to summit from TH should be 4.0 mi/2 mph = 2 hours, if it were flat. Since it's a simple uphill with no real extreme pitches, conservatively say 30 minutes per every 1,000 feet of gain - so for 3,000' it's 1 hour 30 minutes added. So that's 3 hours 30 minutes. This is my average speed, with a break or two built in, at Grays, but I am not out looking for speed records. So 3:30 time over 3,000' is 857' per hour.

Descent - 4.0 miles / 3 mph = 1 hour 20 minutes, add 10 minutes for every 1,000' for simple descent on a good trail, so in total: 1 hour 50 minutes descent.

RT time estimate: 5 hours 20 minutes, minus summit time and other unanticipated stops.

And really, this equates to most things lower than class 3. Once class 3 and 4 come into play, the pitch changes and people can actually speed up since using 4 limbs may be more efficient than just legs... Likewise, descents may increase in time due to complexity of the downclimb.

ezabielski wrote:I wouldn't say "almost nobody" does 3k/hr if a mere mortal like me does it!

Yep, you're just a blue collar ramblin' man. Just a regular, everyday climbin' stiff trying to make his way in this harsh ol' world. Just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm. Joe Six-pack.

Here's to you, Mr. Average-Mountain-Climber:

DoctorBreaks wrote:So this is probably a stupid question, but how exactly do people get this number?

Simple - they make it up and then spray about it.

So get started!

When you're part of a community like the Colorado running/climbing/outdoor badassery, it's very easy to realize how mediocre we ALL are compared to some, regardless of our accomplishments, however much they mean to us.

That's what makes Colorado such an inspiring place to live. There are a lot of big fish in the pond.

Eza, you make some good points. 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.

The main purpose of the number is to allocate time for a climb. If you know you are climbing class 1-2 and want to get to the summit by 11am, when do you leave the trailhead?

Bill's math is pretty similar, but attempts to separate time for the horizontal component. I would separate the horizontal differently, by breaking a hike into uphill miles (measured by vertical feet) and flat miles (measured in horizontal miles). It's all just an attempt to more accurately guess how long the hike will take you.

My math for the descent remains much simpler: 50% faster than the ascent rate, so 2/3 the descent time. Descent is much more affected by terrain than ascent though as it is limited by your agility rather than by your strength.

Bill's method is a pretty popular one too in addition to ft/hour. The key is figuring out the amount of time to add on for each additional 1k of climbing. This will vary per person between 15min and 60min+. Then use your walking speed on flat ground. Works on class 1/class 2.

In my opinion, there is a big difference between running up Bear Peak with half a liter of water, in a shorts and t-short, and ascending a big mountain with the proper gear. Carrying the "ten essentials" plus a first aid kit, helmet, crampons, ice axe, snow shoes, etc. often means 20-40 lbs of gear. In the summer I *might* take only 15 lbs of gear for a short 14er hike but that is still a lot more than I will around the foothills. The difference ends up being an ascent rate around 1/2 the speed (vertical), even on a trail.

ezabielski wrote:When you're part of a community like the Colorado running/climbing/outdoor badassery, it's very easy to realize how mediocre we ALL are compared to some, regardless of our accomplishments, however much they mean to us.

That's what makes Colorado such an inspiring place to live. There are a lot of big fish in the pond.

"People living in competition. All I want is to have my peace of mind. " - Boston

Doug Shaw wrote:Yep, you're just a blue collar ramblin' man. Just a regular, everyday climbin' stiff trying to make his way in this harsh ol' world. Just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm. Joe Six-pack.Here's to you, Mr. Average-Mountain-Climber:

That's funny.

I timed myself going up Belford (on my way over to Oxford) many moons ago.
It took me 2 hrs and 15 minutes.
It's 4,650 in elevation gain, so that averages out to a little more that 2,000 vertical per mile.
That's about as fast as I can go with a daypack on my back.

Average rate of feet per hour when climbing 14ers also depends a lot on how well acclimatized you are. Climbers who live in Colorado have a tremendous speed advantage over climbers who live in the Flatlands. And even Flatlanders who vacation in Colorado typically climb faster after spending time up high in the mountains than they do at the start of their climbing trip. For this reason, average rate of feet per hour on the 14ers needs to be assessed in relation to one’s level of acclimatization.

So many great responses as usual! I started to really think about the number, and it seems different people use different ways to come up with their number. Like what has been said, if people can keep a consistent pace on talus or with class 3 scrambling then the average would be fine. For me I am considerably slower. I figure I can average my gain by class 1/2 on easy terrain. For the more difficult ones I can also keep an average of let's say how fast I can scramble and gain 500'. For me I can gain over 1k ft/hr on most class 1/2 trails. I'm a slow scrambler.