ft per hour

[shredthegnar10]

So, based on previous posts, and throwing my own 2 cents in, "vertical ascent speed" is affected by (in addition to cardiovascular fitness):
1) Grade of the trail
2) Actual elevation of the summit/point to which one is hiking
3) Acclimatization of the hiker/climber
4) Total elevation gained (climbing for 7 hours will result in a drastically different "average" over the whole day than climbing for 2 hours)
5) Technical skill level of the terrain and/or stopping for routefinding purposes
6) Weight of your pack.
7) Residual fatigue from not sleeping well at altitude (probably not an issue on Colorado 14ers, but throwing it out there anyway).

There are probably even more factors/things that cause exceptions/etc.

I'd say the average Colorado 14er hiker (excluding the "extremes" from both end of the spectrum) probably hikes between 1000' and 2000' per hour -- an estimate based on variations in most of the above things.

[TravelingMatt]

Hikers in the Northeast have the concept of "book time". This is calculated by allowing one hour for every two miles and one hour for every 2000 feet of elevation gain. The "book" refers the Appalachian Mountain Club guides, specifically the White Mountain Guide, which use it prominently. The standard route on Elbert is 4.5 miles and some 4500' of gain, so book time to the summit would be 4½ hours, 2¼ hours each for the distance and elevation portions.

This does not mean the "expected" elevation gain is 2000'/hour, because some of the elevation portion is embedded in the distance portion. Most of us go a good bit faster than 2mph on flat or downhill terrain. Of course it refers to Class 1 or easy 2 hiking, which is what most of the Northeast has. (There's occasional scrambling, especially in the Adirondacks, but it tends to be short and with minimal exposure.)

In practice, anyone more fit than Melissa McCarthy can beat book time. But it is easy to calculate and provides a reference point, and most people know what fraction of book time they hike in. It also automatically adjusts for steepness, up to a point. I do around 60% of book in the NE but closer to 75% in Colorado, and use this to plan my outings and gauge my fitness.

[mtree]

So, based on previous posts, and throwing my own 2 cents in, "vertical ascent speed" is affected by (in addition to cardiovascular fitness):
1) Grade of the trail
2) Actual elevation of the summit/point to which one is hiking
3) Acclimatization of the hiker/climber
4) Total elevation gained (climbing for 7 hours will result in a drastically different "average" over the whole day than climbing for 2 hours)
5) Technical skill level of the terrain and/or stopping for routefinding purposes
6) Weight of your pack.
7) Residual fatigue from not sleeping well at altitude (probably not an issue on Colorado 14ers, but throwing it out there anyway).

There are probably even more factors/things that cause exceptions/etc.

I'd say the average Colorado 14er hiker (excluding the "extremes" from both end of the spectrum) probably hikes between 1000' and 2000' per hour -- an estimate based on variations in most of the above things.

Remove items 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 and it sounds about right. I'm referring to strictly average vertical feet per hour and omitting overall distance and any other variables. Most people walk at around 2 mph on flat terrain. Minimal variance. What's important is knowing your average climbing speed on a class 1-2 trek. Then you can more accurately assess how long it should take to reach a particular summit. Class 3 and up change the game entirely.

[SchralpTheGnar]

I expect to do around 2000 vertical feet per hour, I actually do around 1000. I sometimes prefer italics for emphasis.

[ezabielski]

Most people walk at around 2 mph on flat terrain. Minimal variance.

I've always heard 3mph, especially for long distance backpacking.

[wildlobo71]

Most people walk at around 2 mph on flat terrain. Minimal variance.

I've always heard 3mph, especially for long distance backpacking.

That's the speed I walk at with my dog around Sloans Lake, without a 40 pound pack on my back.

I think this just proves, not this specific reply, but this thread in general, is don't judge how "well" you are doing by the results of others... I am very happy with a 5-6 hour day up Grays Peak. Some would be embarrassed with that - to them, we all can't be you. And those who would love to be within two hours of that number, it's just a number... you are probably not enjoying the mountain or trail any less.

[mtree]

Most people walk at around 2 mph on flat terrain. Minimal variance.

I've always heard 3mph, especially for long distance backpacking.

Most hikers don't march up a trail. They stop, rest, adjust gear, whatever. 2-3 mph with pack on most trails is typical. I average just under 3 mph unless I make a conscious effort to move faster. On most 14ers this difference in time isn't a huge factor as you don't get much more than one or two miles of relatively flat terrain. San Luis being an anomaly!

This is all just an exercise in assessing your average ascent speed. Everyone is different. Knowing if you should hit the trail at 3am or 5am is important. Otherwise, doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying yourself. It's also a good measure of who may be an equivalent hiking partner in terms of speed...whether its slow or fast or whatever.

[jmanner]

Most people walk at around 2 mph on flat terrain. Minimal variance.

I've always heard 3mph, especially for long distance backpacking.

Most hikers don't march up a trail. They stop, rest, adjust gear, whatever. 2-3 mph with pack on most trails is typical. I average just under 3 mph unless I make a conscious effort to move faster. On most 14ers this difference in time isn't a huge factor as you don't get much more than one or two miles of relatively flat terrain. San Luis being an anomaly!

This is all just an exercise in assessing your average ascent speed. Everyone is different. Knowing if you should hit the trail at 3am or 5am is important. Otherwise, doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying yourself. It's also a good measure of who may be an equivalent hiking partner in terms of speed...whether its slow or fast or whatever.

+1

[jdorje]

Book time math seems pretty consistent - or rather my book time percentage seems consistent across recent hikes. Another good tool. You could probably refine or personalize it by changing the two variables separately to account for your individual speed on horizontal versus vertical.

[ColoradoEd]

LOL at SchralpTheGnar.

[JeffR]

I use most of the suggestions already posted (along with my past results) and reality still often doesn't match my calculation. So I usually SWAG it and don't plan anything for an hour or two after my planned return time.

This is why my reply (if I replied) to "How long should xxx route take me?" threads would always be "Depends how fast you hike".

[bob863]

this is an interesting thread...i'm going to go on the record...."as long as i get to the top, i really don't care about ft/hour"....(I'm only speaking for my 66 y/o, Airborne Ranger self)...