View Full Version : Leaving Springer Earlier vs. Later
I have a question and I am curious as to what others think.
IS THERE REALLY THAT MUCH ADVANTAGE TO TRYING AN "EARLIER" START TO A THRU HIKE?
Many people try to start their thru hikes "early" from Springer---leaving in January, February or early March. Yet, as I read their stories, several things become apparent (at least to me): 1) Their average miles hiked per day (especially early on) are often much lower than people who start later. 2) They end up "hunkering down" more frequently--either on the trail or in town--due to snow and other storms. 3) Their packs are heavier with more "winter" gear. 4) They would seem to spend more money on things like gear, lodging and food than people who start in late March thru mid-April. 5) They seem to be more miserable--especially early on in their hike. 6) There seems to be a higher "drop out" rate among early starters--especially inexperienced early starters. 7) I am not so certain that they get to Harper's Ferry or Maine that much earlier than people who leave Springer in late March thru Mid April (and they seem to be more "exhausted" and "broke down" when they get to Harper's Ferry).
Has anyone done any statistics comparing things like completion rates for those who start earlier vs. later or the duration of the thru hike (earlier start vs. later start)? What have been your experiences with what you have seen or heard?
It is my theory that leaving in early to mid April might actually increase a person's chances of completing a thru hike, decrease the duration of their thru hike and lower the overall costs of the hike.
max patch
10-29-2012, 16:03
I live just S of Springer and there is no way I'd leave that early.
I agree with your theory.
I have a theory that most people really hike early as they don't know how long the trip will take and they want to make sure they finish. Its easy enough to avoid people on the trail if that is what you want to do. There may be a benefit in having less populated hostels.
I started my first thru on 5/1 and finished on time. Next year I'm starting 4/1 only because I'm older and slower. If the weather happens to be bad on that date I'll start a week later.
One of the things that makes it difficult to gleen meaningful information from the data is the difference in weather from one year to the next. A mild Winter like this year makes an early start look smart. As a long time Trail journal junkie, I know that a bad Winter will cause a higher than normal drop out rate. A good start is key to finishing a thru-hike. I never advise starting before late March. The AT is hard enough all by itself without Winter storm after Winter storm.
If I were planning a thru hike and wanted to do everything I could to maximize my chances of finishing I would start the first week of May (as did Max).
You're behind the crowds, the weather is suitable for a summer pack, and you'd have maximum daylight hours.
Most likely I'd start in early May and finish in late August. Just about perfect.
But... if I were *really* thru hiking I'd want to start in early February because I like winter hiking and many of the things that people don't like about it, I do.
colorado_rob
10-29-2012, 17:17
I have a question and I am curious as to what others think.
IS THERE REALLY THAT MUCH ADVANTAGE TO TRYING AN "EARLIER" START TO A THRU HIKE? Just one more opinion for a "YES" answer, here are reasons I can think of:
- I don't care about the cold and snow, I can easily deal with that, as long as it's reasonable
- I do care about the heat, so I'd like to get through the mid-atlantic heat before the peak heat of mid-summer (yes I realize it will still be hot; I'm just trying to reduce the extreme heat as much as possible)
- I'm anxious as he|| to start, and just don't want to wait until April ! (this is the biggest reason)
- Alas, I do probably have to wait until late March or early April because of job situation (but if I did not, I'd start in very early March or even late February, reasonable conditions permitting)
Moose2001
10-29-2012, 17:44
While I would agree with much of what your hypothesis is, I don't totally buy the "absolutes" that you seem to suggest. Your comment, "I am not so certain that they get to Harper's Ferry or Maine that much earlier than people who leave Springer in late March thru Mid April (and they seem to be more "exhausted" and "broke down" when they get to Harper's Ferry)." I believe is not accurate. While it may be true that the April starters catch some of the early starters, I don't believe it's totally true. I also don't believe the early starters are any more "exhausted and broke down" than the later starters.
In my mind, the biggest factor affecting the start of the hike is the weather. You just never know, from year to year, what you're going to get. I've started on 3/20, 3/23, 4/3 and 4/20. The warmest and least snowy year was the first time I hiked and started on March 20. The coldest and snowiest was the year I started on April 3. So making blanket statements about starting early, or late, is not always an accurate assessment.
I believe the best time to start is whatever works for the individual hiker. If you do some serious thinking about how you feel about the cold and snow, how you feel about how much time you have to commit to the hike and what your schedule is, you can come to a decision on your start date that works best for you. Just dont' follow along with everyone else. Do what works for you.
Old Boots
10-29-2012, 17:54
I appreciated the fact that there were fewer persons to compete for camping sites, shelters and services along the way with the mob that begins in April.
While I would agree with much of what your hypothesis is, I don't totally buy the "absolutes" that you seem to suggest. Your comment, "I am not so certain that they get to Harper's Ferry or Maine that much earlier than people who leave Springer in late March thru Mid April (and they seem to be more "exhausted" and "broke down" when they get to Harper's Ferry)." I believe is not accurate. While it may be true that the April starters catch some of the early starters, I don't believe it's totally true. I also don't believe the early starters are any more "exhausted and broke down" than the later starters.
In my mind, the biggest factor affecting the start of the hike is the weather. You just never know, from year to year, what you're going to get. I've started on 3/20, 3/23, 4/3 and 4/20. The warmest and least snowy year was the first time I hiked and started on March 20. The coldest and snowiest was the year I started on April 3. So making blanket statements about starting early, or late, is not always an accurate assessment.
I believe the best time to start is whatever works for the individual hiker. If you do some serious thinking about how you feel about the cold and snow, how you feel about how much time you have to commit to the hike and what your schedule is, you can come to a decision on your start date that works best for you. Just dont' follow along with everyone else. Do what works for you.
I don't disagree with you at all--I was merely generalizing.
The four start dates you listed are all still closer to the "later" start category than the "earlier" start. I am guessing that January and February starts (in MOST years) would still seem to fall more within my hypothesis.
Happy hiking!
Mike2012
10-29-2012, 18:56
I started March 11 and am still on trail (flipping) thx to nagging knee injury, stubborness and maybe adhd. Give yourself a big window and savor every minute of it. Avoiding ths heat and frquent summer storms requires beating feet up to new england before it hits up there (which it does) and or having good data service and money allowing you to duck out during the worst weather.
I started March 11 and am still on trail (flipping) thx to nagging knee injury, stubborness and maybe adhd.
i don't have much to say about the 'when to start' thing...but to anybody who started 3/11 and is still out there trying to thru-hike the trail, this is just awesome. hope you reach your goal. I loved it but i would have gone bat-s#!^ crazy after 8 months on the trail.
Zippy Morocco
10-29-2012, 20:18
Yeah Mike, way go. I love the dedication.
We plan to start in the beginning to middle of March. We are going to let the weather decide. My parents live 40 miles from the trail so we will just visit the family until it's time to go.
yellowsirocco
10-29-2012, 20:24
Start early, give yourself more time to take a break every now and then. Hiking becomes your job and I personally need a full zero every 200 miles (I am a nero master) If it is cold then bundle up and don't try to have a stupidly UL pack during that time. It is about being comfortable in the woods. I mean winters in the south are not that bad.
I think a lot of the dropout comes down to inexperience. People read on the internet all this malarkey about UL and try to apply it without knowing if they are truly comfortable in that system. It is a lot harder to adapt during feb-mar than apr-may so the learning curve cuts out a lot of stupid early starters.
swjohnsey
10-29-2012, 20:47
My guess is that a greater percentage of the folks who are ultra-light (or maybe just light) and start a little later end up finishing.
Moose2001
10-29-2012, 21:17
My guess is that a greater percentage of the folks who are ultra-light (or maybe just light) and start a little later end up finishing.
Funny.....on four AT hikes, I've seen hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of ultra-light (or maybe just light) hikers quit the trail. There is no correlation between being ultra-light and finishing the trail.
swjohnsey
10-29-2012, 21:26
Didn't realize there was that many out there. Most of the folks I saw quit and most of 'em were carrin' a ton of crap.
Josh Calhoun
10-29-2012, 21:44
Im a winter hiker. Snow and cold do not scare me. I prefer it. When it comes to summer also realize your battling 90+ degree weather. Dehydration. Dried up water sources. Bugs. Snakes. Its all in what you like. None is better than the other. Its just what works best for you
I am liking the discussion. Thanks everyone.
I appreciate some of you bringing up another aspect of this topic that I already knew (but was forgetting). Specifically, I keep forgetting that some folks have quite a bit more time available to them for a thru hike and they also have an adequate amount of money to fund a hike that goes 6-8 months (as opposed to 4-5 months). If you have the extra time and money available to you--an extra 20-40 days of hiking is not a big deal.
Sadly, when I finally get to do a thru hike, my life responsibilities are such that I will need to strive for the 4-5 month type of thru hike (as opposed to a 6-8 month thru hike). I have to be able to keep my job open for me upon my return from the trail and I need to maintain health insurance coverage for my two special needs kids.
I also appreciate people reminding me that some folks actually PREFER winter hiking to hiking in extreme heat and humidity. Thus, they purposely start early because the WANT to hike in winter.
ChinMusic
10-29-2012, 22:57
Most likely I'd start in early May and finish in late August. Just about perfect.
You just like passin' people.........
Your question intrigued me enough that I decided to spend some time going over the data I gleaned from studying 240 completing NOBO thru-hikers in the classes 2001 to 2010 who kept thorough journals at trailjournals.com for my article here at WB on hiking rates. I divided them into five groups and here's how many hikers I have for each time period for hikers leaving Springer:
Jan. 1 -- Feb. 24 (22 hikers)
Feb. 25 -- March 10 (51 hikers)
March 11 -- March 24 (78 hikers)
March 25 -- April 7 (56 hikers)
April 8 -- May 20 (33 hikers)
Here's how many mean zero days and mean total days to complete each group took:
Zeros~~~Total Days~~~Departure Date
26.0.............170.2..........Jan. 1 -- Feb. 24
23.3.............174.2..........Feb. 25 -- March 10
21.1.............173.2..........March 11 -- March 24
18.4.............167.4..........March 25 -- April 7
16.1.............151.0..........April 8 -- May 20
As you can see, the earlier hikers started the more zero days they took. Also, The earlier that hikers left the longer it took them to get to Katahdin (as a group) with the exception of that very first group. It's my guess that the early group has many experienced hikers that know they can handle winter conditions and that these hiking veterans would tend to hike a little faster than others. I'm curious what others think.
You also speculated that later departing hikers would do a fair amount of catching up to other earlier hikers as they made their way north, so here is another table. It's got the mean departure date and arrival date for each of these five groups:
Departure~~~Arrival~~~~Departure Range
Feb. 13...........Aug. 2...........Jan. 1 -- Feb. 24
March 3..........Aug. 25.........Feb. 25 -- March 10
March 17.........Sept. 6.........March 11 -- March 24
March 31.........Sept. 15.......March 25 -- April 7
April 21...........Sept. 18........April 8 -- May 20
In my earlier study I found that women keeping a journal just for themselves, or those hiking as part of a male/female pair, took almost two weeks longer to complete the trail on average than men keeping a journal just for themselves. So I looked at these departure groupings to see if gender composition could have anything to do with the differing hiking speeds. I found that the first four groups were fairly similar in percentages of females in the group, but that the very last, late leaving group had significantly fewer women in it, for some reason -- only about 12% of the group rather than the 28% to 37% varying compositions of the other groups. Nevertheless, I'm guessing that only partially accounts for the speediness of the latest leaving group (who only took an average of 151 days to complete).
There are some limitations to the group I studied. Since no one who dropped out along the way is included I have no way of answering your question about whether earlier starters are more likely to quit. Also, I don't include flip-floppers so anyone seing they are going too slow to complete by the middle of October but who complete the trail by jumping to Katahdin partway along and going south are effectively selecting themselves out of my study group. And that phenomenon might also help explain why the "days to complete" are so much lower for the later starting hikers in my study.
Anyway, I thought it would be useful to introduce some quantitative evidence to shed some light on your question.
I was a fat ass and out of shape when I left Springer on April 4th. I was close to 300 lbs. I was hiking 5 days a week and taking days off in town. (by choice)
I made it to Clingmans Dome in 3 weeks before I came off the trail. I think I had 5 zero days. (I was only taking a 3 week vacation.) By the time I got off the trail, I had lost 20 lbs and could do 10 mile days no problems in the Smokies. If I kept going and wanted to make it to Katandin, I have no doubt that I would have been able to finish by Oct 1st.
Basically, unless you are fat and out of shape, you'll be fine waiting until early or mid April.
Mapman--Thanks! Great data. I just knew that someone either already had this stuff sitting in their computer or someone would take my question as a challenge and actually research it! I am very appreciative! THANK YOU!
Your statistical research--seems to confirm much of what I was seeing as I read various anecdotal sources. To GROSSLY oversimplify things, it appears that (on average) the hikers who start April 8th (or later) tend to complete their thru hikes in approximately 20 fewer days than the people who start prior to April 8th. The very earliest hikers also take approximately 10 more "Zero Days" than the April/May starters.
What shocked me most was the difference that just 2-3 weeks can make. Those who started between April 8th and May 20th finished their thru hikes 16.4 days FASTER than those who started between March 25th and April 7th. And, on average, the earlier starters tended to arrive at Katahdin just three days earlier than those who left between April 8 and May 20th. (September 15th vs. September 18th).
It would seem that there is some documentable evidence to support the idea of delaying one's Late March/Early April start until sometime in Mid-April or even early May.
Thanks Map Man!
P.S. I would agree with you that the group of VERY EARLIEST starters includes some very experienced hikers--who really know what they are doing. Some of them have VERY fast thru hikes--and their fast hikes lower the average number of hiking days for the entire group of very earliest starters.
It would seem that there is some documentable evidence to support the idea of delaying one's Late March/Early April start until sometime in Mid-April or even early May.
We essentially have just five data points here, insofar as we don’t know too much about what’s baked into the per-group data. I wouldn’t have too much confidence in any conclusions based on that.
No question that starting early slows you down some. But I'm not comfortable with the idea that the first group is an outlier to be discarded from the analysis because they're assumed to have a lot of more experienced/faster hikers, while at the same time the latter group (with or without any gender differences factored in) should be used as proof of the starting hypothesis.
What did strike me instead related to comments I've heard before (including before I hiked with a late Feb start) that starting early doesn't help much in getting there sooner. What I see instead is that in every case an earlier departure range results in an earlier mean arrival. And that for the first three groups, the total time to hike the trail isn't very different. Should we conclude that starting in Jan or early Feb is not much harder than starting in March? I don't think so. I think there isn't enough data there to know.
I'd also suggest that any report of number of zeros is questionable. Certainly in my own hikes I've tried very hard to sort out afterwards how many full hiking days I had, how many zeros, how many neros. Heck, you have to then get into short vs. long neros. And how do you factor in folks that left the trail for a little or a lot of time? I hosted a just-finished PCT hiker (I live in the general Seattle area) earlier this month; he took a month off in the middle of his hike for personal reasons. Do you just throw him out of the statistics entirely, or really skew the results? That writ smaller, I think, pretty much always factors in when you're trying to count "time off the trail". If I'm stopped for a couple of days, do you factor in that the rest I get makes it easier to do bigger miles when I resume?
Even for the person who hiked the trail, counting zeros is tricky. Gleaning such data from a large number of trail journal entries means to me that this particular data item is inherently less reliable.
Perhaps Mapman will agree with me (?) that the person who actually gathers the data has as a result somewhat less confidence than others might in any sweeping conclusions --- just because that person has become intimately familiar with the challenges and compromises and guesstimates involved in assembling such data into tidy rows and columns.
I think there's a natural human tendency to see in statistics that which we're looking for. So what I see is that folks that start earlier, end earlier. For a person with some experience at cold weather hiking, I think that an early start is a fine way to get done earlier in the year. It certainly worked that way for me.
Looking at the OP's initial thesis:
"It is my theory that leaving in early to mid April might actually increase a person's chances of completing a thru hike, decrease the duration of their thru hike and lower the overall costs of the hike. "
prain4u, I want to add that I have no argument with your logic there --- I agree with the above statement. In re-reading what I wrote just above, please understand that I don't mean any attack on your ideas or logic or anything (!) --- just sort of enjoying the thought process, plus a sort of human reaction to see the other sides of things I guess.
If focused on "odds of completion", I agree that --- especially for less experienced folks --- starting more along the traditional time is recommended. For me it's more an issue when it's suggested that it doesn't make sense for anyone to start early; somewhat apples and oranges (or pumpkins) I guess! :-)
ChinMusic
10-31-2012, 12:24
More experienced folks start early.
More experiencedfolks start late.
Newbs are more likely to start in the middle.
1) All else being equal, an individual should clearly be able to make better time without snow and ice, and with longer daylight hours.
2) An individual "on the margin" of being able to complete the thru-hike increases his chances by avoiding snow and ice, and seeking longer daylight hours.
3) Some individuals possess capabilities exceeding what is necessary to complete a thru-hike whether they start in January or May.
I think the above statements are logical and true, and would restate the premise in that manner. As much as map man knows that I am a fan of his data, it is not statistically significant and likely highly skewed by the individual capabilities in the sample set. :)
I am basically agreeing with what folks are saying in the past several posts--much is dependent upon a hiker's experience level and their personal preferences (and a bunch of other variables).
I might add, that part of my reason for discussing this general topic in the first place, was the naive hope that perhaps some NEWBIES might take a moment or two to read this thread--and to read a bunch of Trail Journals from multiple years--before they grab a bunch of untested lightweight gear and head to Springer in January through March--simply because "they just can't wait to start" or because they are "afraid they won't finish if the don't start super early". Hopefully, they are learning that the southern mountains can sometimes be a harsh place in winter---especially for an inexperienced winter hiker--and that they perhaps have an EVEN BETTER chance of reaching Katahdin more quickly and more economically--if they wait just a few weeks longer to start their hike.
Thanks to everyone for contributing your opinions.
The Solemates
10-31-2012, 15:53
I have a question and I am curious as to what others think.
IS THERE REALLY THAT MUCH ADVANTAGE TO TRYING AN "EARLIER" START TO A THRU HIKE?
Many people try to start their thru hikes "early" from Springer---leaving in January, February or early March. Yet, as I read their stories, several things become apparent (at least to me): 1) Their average miles hiked per day (especially early on) are often much lower than people who start later. 2) They end up "hunkering down" more frequently--either on the trail or in town--due to snow and other storms. 3) Their packs are heavier with more "winter" gear. 4) They would seem to spend more money on things like gear, lodging and food than people who start in late March thru mid-April. 5) They seem to be more miserable--especially early on in their hike. 6) There seems to be a higher "drop out" rate among early starters--especially inexperienced early starters. 7) I am not so certain that they get to Harper's Ferry or Maine that much earlier than people who leave Springer in late March thru Mid April (and they seem to be more "exhausted" and "broke down" when they get to Harper's Ferry).
Has anyone done any statistics comparing things like completion rates for those who start earlier vs. later or the duration of the thru hike (earlier start vs. later start)? What have been your experiences with what you have seen or heard?
It is my theory that leaving in early to mid April might actually increase a person's chances of completing a thru hike, decrease the duration of their thru hike and lower the overall costs of the hike.
I'm sure we broke the trend, but 1) we finished the trail in 5 mos, 2) we never "hunkered down" despite 3 foot snow drifts, 3) yes, our packs were heavier, 4) we actually spent less money than what most call normal ($3500 for both of us), 5) we had the time of our lives, 6) we never thought of dropping out, and 7) we were the 2nd and 3rd thru-hikers to start that year that we know of, and the 6th and 7th to finish that we know of - only people hiking the trail in 3.5 mos passed us.
If I were to hike again, I wouldnt consider leaving after the first of february or before the 1st of may.
There is also a fair number of hikers who end up hiking as a "group". I have to believe this tends to slow the pace of progress up the trail.
Hairbear
10-31-2012, 16:57
If I were planning a thru hike and wanted to do everything I could to maximize my chances of finishing I would start the first week of May (as did Max).
You're behind the crowds, the weather is suitable for a summer pack, and you'd have maximum daylight hours.
Most likely I'd start in early May and finish in late August. Just about perfect.
But... if I were *really* thru hiking I'd want to start in early February because I like winter hiking and many of the things that people don't like about it, I do.hi can you give us the scoop as to whether or not resupply would be dwindled from the pack ahead,are service providers a little more snippy after the wave,will there be more heat in the mid atlantic states,what is the increased rate of timing out in main?
hi can you give us the scoop as to whether or not resupply would be dwindled from the pack ahead,are service providers a little more snippy after the wave,will there be more heat in the mid atlantic states,what is the increased rate of timing out in main?
Late in the season service providers get "a little more snippy" with "needy" hikers.
HermesUL
10-31-2012, 17:47
We have established (tentatively) a correlation between length of successful thru-hikes and start date. HOWEVER, this is not, in any way, a proven causation. There are several other factors at play. I'll list a few:
1. Hikers who do not finish are excluded. If they start May 20, then they can't take more than 148 days to finish before the closing date. That's already about 25 days before the earlier AVERAGE.
2. Hikers who know that they hike slow will not start late. Therefore, a carefully planned 190 day hike will not start in April or May, because they are aware of their limitations. If they do, they don't finish on time anyway and will not appear in these statistics. This could contribute to the phenomenon you observed that few women are starting late in the season, based on your observation that they typically hike slower.
These two factors could easily account for the difference in speeds without there necessarily being a difference.
I do agree, however, that those who start early are going to encounter more obstacles in the beginning of their hike in terms of weather conditions. I would imagine that timing has less effect up North, because the conditions on Mt Washington and the other Whites aren't necessarily better in July than they are in September...I think their average frost is sometime in mid-August and I've heard stories of ice storms in July.
AllTheWayToMordor
10-31-2012, 18:33
So I plan on starting march 1st. I figured I'd add my reasoning to the discussion.
I am relatively inexperienced, but not completely. I walked the Colorado Trail in '11, and with the exception of a few weekend trips that is all of my experience backpacking.
When we initially planned the trip I had to be back by mid August, so we decided to start earlier. Those schedule constraints have since evaporated, but we are keeping the start date. For one, we are from CO and therefore are familiar with snow. Just because I only have limited backpacking experience, does not mean I have limited hiking experience and snow experience. It would be nice to avoid as much hot weather as possible. But I guess the main reason we're starting early is that we are both pretty stoked to start (and will be more or less homeless for a month or two before we start).
Also a comment on the statistics presented, I would be willing to guess that people starting later generally have the mindset that they will or need to finish in less days then those who start early and could skew the statistics. Also, as for the trend of more zero days for the early starters, that again could come down to the mentality of a more leisurely hike and is not necessarily indicative of a tougher time hiking. I won't argue though that weather makes things more difficult, but over the course of a 5 month hike, I don't know how much affect 1-3 weeks of weather has.
So I plan on starting march 1st. I figured I'd add my reasoning to the discussion.
I am relatively inexperienced, but not completely. I walked the Colorado Trail in '11, and with the exception of a few weekend trips that is all of my experience backpacking.
When we initially planned the trip I had to be back by mid August, so we decided to start earlier. Those schedule constraints have since evaporated, but we are keeping the start date. For one, we are from CO and therefore are familiar with snow. Just because I only have limited backpacking experience, does not mean I have limited hiking experience and snow experience. It would be nice to avoid as much hot weather as possible. But I guess the main reason we're starting early is that we are both pretty stoked to start (and will be more or less homeless for a month or two before we start).
Also a comment on the statistics presented, I would be willing to guess that people starting later generally have the mindset that they will or need to finish in less days then those who start early and could skew the statistics. Also, as for the trend of more zero days for the early starters, that again could come down to the mentality of a more leisurely hike and is not necessarily indicative of a tougher time hiking. I won't argue though that weather makes things more difficult, but over the course of a 5 month hike, I don't know how much affect 1-3 weeks of weather has.
I'm am not going to necessarily try to talk you out of a March 1st start ---because.....
1) Hike Your Own Hike
2) I probably couldn't talk you out of it----even if I paid you!
3) You are not proposing something that is absolutely foolish.
4) Many less-skilled people have already successfully accomplished the same feat .
5) In the end--it is none of my darn business.
However, I would encourage you to read many different hiker's Trail Journals from several different years (just google "Trail Journals"). Particularly read the journals of the early starters to better prepare you for what to expect).
Practice, Practice, Practice your winter backpacking and winter camping--using the exact same equipment that you plan to use on the AT. Get used to using your gear in winter conditions--but in such a way that you can easily get to indoor conditions if you encounter a problem. Try to do some multi-day practice trips if possible.
I would (personally) say that there is a BIG difference between backpacking /camping in snow and day hiking in snow. (I grew up in Northern Wisconsin and did lots of winter hiking and camping). If the weather turns real "crappy"--it sometimes feels like you can never quite get away from the cold, the snow, the sleet and/or the cold rain (24/7 for a few consecutive days). Setting up a tent or hammock is much harder with icy cold hands. Lighting a stove and cooking is more of a challenge. Water sources can freeze. Boots, packs and tents can stay frozen for multiple days in a row. Definitely not fun. Getting experience with winter backpacking BEFORE you start your thru hike can help to make such rough winter days on the AT both safer and more enjoyable.
Good luck on your hike. Have a great time. If you keep an online trail journal--we can perhaps try to follow your progress.
If I were planning a thru hike and wanted to do everything I could to maximize my chances of finishing I would start the first week of May (as did Max).
You're behind the crowds, the weather is suitable for a summer pack, and you'd have maximum daylight hours.
Most likely I'd start in early May and finish in late August. Just about perfect.
But... if I were *really* thru hiking I'd want to start in early February because I like winter hiking and many of the things that people don't like about it, I do.
Ditto. I think a May 1st start would be perfect. The mid-atlantic would be muggy and hot, but think would otherwise be about right.
Less gear, better weather and less people. :)
The early May start means, though, you can't do 10 MPD on average and spend a lot of time in towns.
I think a lot of the dropout comes down to inexperience. People read on the internet all this malarkey about UL and try to apply it without knowing if they are truly comfortable in that system. It is a lot harder to adapt during feb-mar than apr-may so the learning curve cuts out a lot of stupid early starters.
This is true. Too many people read about how great a certain gear set up is without using it. Bad mojo! :)
Seldomseen
11-01-2012, 19:18
The easiest way to thru hike is to flip flop. Start at springer on the 1st of may and hike until July, then flip to Maine and go south. When you do this you avoid the crowds, bugs, and cold weather. Remember it is all about the journey not the mountain.
bigcranky
11-01-2012, 20:51
The easiest way to thru hike is to flip flop. Start at springer on the 1st of may and hike until July, then flip to Maine and go south. When you do this you avoid the crowds, bugs, and cold weather. Remember it is all about the journey not the mountain.
Sure, but if it were me I would start at Harper's Ferry on May 1 and hike to Katahdin, then flip back and hike to Springer. You get to "finish" twice that way.
Kaptain Kangaroo
11-01-2012, 22:11
Ditto. I think a May 1st start would be perfect. The mid-atlantic would be muggy and hot, but think would otherwise be about right.
Less gear, better weather and less people. :)
ha ha.......this is why you really need to think about what matters to you. For Mags, a May start gives the preferred weather........... but I would probably die hiking through the mid-atlantic in July & August :)........... early March start for me and a nice constant pace with few zeros got me to Katahdin in early July.......slightly cool at the start (OK the odd snowstorm, but I like the cold) and only a few hot days along the way.......... Nice !
max patch
11-01-2012, 22:57
early March start for me and a nice constant pace with few zeros got me to Katahdin in early July
You missed New England in the fall which is the highlight of the AT....
Kaptain Kangaroo
11-02-2012, 01:23
You missed New England in the fall which is the highlight of the AT....
Yeah, that would have been nice, but my daughter was due to be born in August & I figured I should probably be home for that ! Consider myself pretty lucky to get the leave pass for a thru hike in the first place !!!!!
I think the significant variable that the data of the 240 hikes excludes is that less experienced hikers that attempt a very early start (Jan- Feb) are MUCH more likely to not complete the trail - an experienced hiker may have similar type and number of issues, but is better able to use the "this will pass" mindset
the less experienced hiker who is with the "surge" is better supported by both service providers and fellow hikers
IMO this combination distorts the statistics to show that the very early starters do not take significantly longer for completion - because usually only a veteran (potentially faster) hiker will complete a beginning of season hike - the same veteran would also tend toward a faster than average hike if they chose a later start