Elevation and Distance

[Root66]

Hello:

I understand a general formula is adding one hour of hiking time for every 1,000 feet gain in elevation. Is that a good calculation? Does that also make sense for loss of elevation? So for example, if the gain is 1,181 feet and loss of elevation is 1,763, would adding that together for 2,944 indicate an extra three hours of hiking to a distance of 8 miles? Does trying to average 2 miles an hour include the elevation gain/loss?

Sorry if this has been asked before... an advanced search did not bring it up.

Thanks,

John

[HooKooDooKu]

The rule of thumb I've heard was two miles per hour plus add an hour for every 1,000 in elevation climb both up and down.
The numbers are additive, so if you climb 1,000' in 2 miles, it should take you two hours.

In practice, I've found that going down hill only slows you down if it is really steep... and its got to be really really step for it to slow me down by an hour.

Hiking around the GSMNP, I've found the uphill rule to be reasonably close. On steep hills out there, I find I average around one mile an hour, with a typical hill to be about 500' per mile in elevation change (this is a huge gross estimation as obviously there are some hills steeper and some hills not as steep).

[Shutterbug]

Hello:

I understand a general formula is adding one hour of hiking time for every 1,000 feet gain in elevation. Is that a good calculation? Does that also make sense for loss of elevation? So for example, if the gain is 1,181 feet and loss of elevation is 1,763, would adding that together for 2,944 indicate an extra three hours of hiking to a distance of 8 miles? Does trying to average 2 miles an hour include the elevation gain/loss?

Sorry if this has been asked before... an advanced search did not bring it up.

Thanks,

John

There is no "general formula." Those who have a formula have worked it out for themselves based on experience. My own formula is 2 miles per hour plus 1/2 hour per 1,000 feet of elevation gain. I do not add time for elevation loss, but I do make adjustments to my estimate for trail conditions and pack weight. A lot of my experience is from the Grand Canyon which has good trails. I hike down the Bright Angel Trail (9.5 miles with 4,900 feet of elevation change) in 4.5 hours. I hike back out in 6.5 hours.

[Odd Man Out]

Hello:

I understand a general formula is adding one hour of hiking time for every 1,000 feet gain in elevation. Is that a good calculation? Does that also make sense for loss of elevation? So for example, if the gain is 1,181 feet and loss of elevation is 1,763, would adding that together for 2,944 indicate an extra three hours of hiking to a distance of 8 miles? Does trying to average 2 miles an hour include the elevation gain/loss?

Sorry if this has been asked before... an advanced search did not bring it up.

Thanks,

John

I was thinking about this on my last hike. I was keeping track of the time I reached all the mileposts on my data sheet. In the end, I wasn't able to come up with a formula. For one, I didn't have enough data (mileposts). Also, I didn't keep track of my rest and meal breaks. I think a formula would only apply to walking time. Plus the trail was so uneven. Some parts were very tricky, but others were smooth walking. Plus I think it would be different for every person. On my last day, I hiked the 8 miles from Trout Creek to the road crossing past Dragons Tooth. I think that had about a 1500' climb. With your formula, that should take 5.5 hrs. It took me 8.5 hrs, but the 0.5 miles down from the top is very slow (boulder scramble), I took a 45 min break for lunch at the summit. Plus I took a 15-20 min break after ever hour of hiking because my knee was causing problems. So if you add time for all that, it came out pretty close. But no matter how you do it, it's a pretty rough estimate.

[Kerosene]

My speed is much more dependent on the condition of the trail surface than on vertical elevation change. Given similar trail surface, I climb at about a 2 mph pace and descend about the same now that my knees are suspect. I pop up to 2.5-2.75 mph on the level. Now, if the trail is climbing/descending at something greater than 700'/mile for more than a half mile then my pace will slow. It will also slow if the trail surface is very rocky and/or rooty, a la the northern Long Trail or the AT north of Hanover, NH.

[fiddlehead]

I believe it different for each person.
Personally, it depends what kind of shape I'm in.
If I'm in the middle of a thru, I can pretty much figure on 4 mph on flat and downhills, 3 on uphills.
If I'm just starting out (first 1,000 miles), I figure a little less.

It's fun to figure your own pace out, but just for fun.
Go with your instincts and breath.
And I never stop on an uphill (if possible). Ruins my pace big time.

[lemon b]

Different for each person at different stages in life and as always in hiking there is the weather factor. Used to fly downhill now my knee factor and fear of tumbling makes me a bit slower on the downhills. Also the pace count going uphill is shorter than down hill when counting out clicks.

[FlyPaper]

Hello:

I understand a general formula is adding one hour of hiking time for every 1,000 feet gain in elevation. Is that a good calculation? Does that also make sense for loss of elevation? So for example, if the gain is 1,181 feet and loss of elevation is 1,763, would adding that together for 2,944 indicate an extra three hours of hiking to a distance of 8 miles? Does trying to average 2 miles an hour include the elevation gain/loss?

Sorry if this has been asked before... an advanced search did not bring it up.

Thanks,

John

I am not a fast hiker, but I generally estimate for myself about 2MPH plus 30 minutes for each 1000' uphill. But this is only time with my pack on. So for example if I stop and take my pack off, then whatever time I rest is going to be additional time. But if I stop for a quick breather that's usually accounted for in the 2MPH plus 30 per 1000'. The reason I don't factor time with my pack off is that depends so much on factors aside from actual fatigue from the trail such as whether I'm eating, whether I'm getting water, whether there is a view, and even how much time I have before dark.

Going downhill is more tricky to estimate. I've got bad knees (have had surgery on both of them). The steeper the slower when going down hill. I haven't worked out a good system yet, but I just know it is much slower that flat ground. Even if I had a good system, it would be hard to use because rarely to my elevation profiles provide much accuracy in steepness.

[colorado_rob]

I am not a fast hiker, but I generally estimate for myself about 2MPH plus 30 minutes for each 1000' uphill.

This rule of thumb is closest to my experience for full overnight packs, but it is sooooooo pack weight dependent. A non-light pack really starts slowing down the uphill times, whereas I don't see much of a difference for myself and wife/friends with ultra-light packs (AKA: easy day hikes).

[Gambit McCrae]

I ussually hike the same speed flat or up hill(Day hiking) and I ussually divide my miles for the day by 2.5. and then my miles per day by 3. add the 2 numbers found and divide by 2. I find this more accurate then diviing mpd by 2.5.

I use 2.5 and 3 because I feel that those are what I hike the most often. MPH that is

[HooKooDooKu]

Here's another rule of thumb... it comes from the National Park Service for people hiking the Grand Canyon corridor trails (such as Bright Angel):
Up hill = 2 x Down hill

A quick look at a section of Bright Angel shows that the trail climbs about 1,500' in 2 miles.

If you look at FypPaper's suggestion, that 2 miles should take you 1 hour down hill and 1 hour 45 minutes up hill.
If you look at my suggestion (killing of adjustment for down hill), that 2 miles should take you 1 hour down hill, and 2 hours 30 minutes up hill.


So here's my suggestion:
Estimate 2 MPH, and add 1 hour for each 1,000' in ascent... and allow that time to include all rest periods, and consider that a conservative estimate.

[Another Kevin]

Different for each person at different stages in life and as always in hiking there is the weather factor. Used to fly downhill now my knee factor and fear of tumbling makes me a bit slower on the downhills. Also the pace count going uphill is shorter than down hill when counting out clicks.

Nice to see another bushwhacker! (I don't think most A-T hikers ever bother with pacing out the klicks, or even know what we're talking about.)

On reasonably clear trail, I figure the rule of 30 min/mile, add 40 min per 1000 feet of elevation change, up or down. Then adjust if I expect scrambling, heavy brush, stream crossings, difficult route finding, and so on. Yeah, I know, that's a little slow, but it comes in pretty close for me. I'm kind of tall, so I count 540 paces to the klick (or 54 to the 100 metre bead) on the level, anywhere between 75 and 90 on steep grades - I just try to guesstimate how much I'm shortening stride. On good trail I don't worry much about pace count. I keep my count off trail, but my altimeter usually tells me more. I depend on it more than I ought to.

[Root66]

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. Obviously time will vary based on all the factors mentioned. The real answer is in experience which we are just starting. We are doing some day hiking this month on the Superior Hiking Trail and Kekebabic Trail in Minnesota and see how our calculations work out.

[Del Q]

My experience on this thread? Generally agree with these calculations

I get up when I get up........break camp as soon as I can, then I start hiking. More and more I try to time things to be tenting about an hour before sunset.

My goal is around 12 miles per day. Depending on the terrain, hydration, caloric intake, weather, beautiful spots for breaks.............add in that some UPS really kick my butt, others not so much, some DOWNS slow and careful, others easier.

I used to try and plan my hikes and mileage.......now I just start and end, do the best that I can in between.

[MuddyWaters]

Unfortunately it depends on pack weight, trail condition, weather, etc. There is no way to generalize IMO. It would give a fit lightweight hiker a conservative estimate in most cases I think. I have rarely approached the 1 hr per 1000 ft figure added to 2 mph except in hot conditions, horrible rocky trail, orr totally wiped out at end of day. I avg about 2 mph including uphill portions most of the time.

[Malto]

Hello:

I understand a general formula is adding one hour of hiking time for every 1,000 feet gain in elevation. Is that a good calculation? Does that also make sense for loss of elevation? So for example, if the gain is 1,181 feet and loss of elevation is 1,763, would adding that together for 2,944 indicate an extra three hours of hiking to a distance of 8 miles? Does trying to average 2 miles an hour include the elevation gain/loss?

Sorry if this has been asked before... an advanced search did not bring it up.

Thanks,

John

go go out and hike and figure out your own rules of thumb. The one you listed is not at all valid for in shape hikers. There will be less change in speed for elevation gain or loss than what you listed. Will it work for you, who knows.

[bigcranky]

The only way that a 1000' gain adds an hour is when it's really steep and/or terrible trail. Or when we're exhausted, or it's pouring rain and the trail is rocky and thus slippery.

I do slow down a lot going downhill, moreso if it's rocky or rooty and I expect to fall down (personal experience tells me that's likely .) I watched some kids flying down the trail north of Jay Peak on our LT hike last month and I was simply amazed - no way I could do that. They were almost running, straight downhill on nothing but slick rocks, in a downpour and with full packs. Dang.

[Traveler]

go go out and hike and figure out your own rules of thumb. The one you listed is not at all valid for in shape hikers. There will be less change in speed for elevation gain or loss than what you listed. Will it work for you, who knows.

This is an interesting topic, probably one of the more connective trail topics between hikers due to its nuanced nature.

Calculation of time over distance and elevation has a lot of variables, most of which are highly individualized as has been pointed out. Personal factors can be different on a daily basis. For example; general health of the day (soreness, blisters or other minor injury, level of rest, allergies/illness symptoms, regularity), diet, level of hydration, pack weight/balance, gear condition/nuisances, heat shedding/retention, gawk time (photo ops and short breaks/general view enjoyment), and motivation. Some of these are beyond our control, others are well inside our control.

These individualized factors combine with factors beyond ones control like age, weather, terrain, trail/footing condition, and nuisances like bugs.

Then there are personal technique(s) that are part of the mix. Normal stride/gait on level ground/up and downhill, rhythm or rate of stride/climb/descent can change with improving or waning conditioning, or with the use of trekking poles.

Rules of thumb (thumbs?) are typically the result of estimations from a group of people, which may not consider a lot of these factors, or have comparative differences that won't make them very accurate like using rule of thumb for a group of 24 year olds with 55 year olds or vice versa.

All this to agree with the fact one has to figure out their own estimations in covering distances over various terrain. One should have an idea of fast they move over varied terrain without a load and how fast they move with a load of say 30 lbs. This is fairly easy to develop over a short time with a map and watch or GPS. Once you have an idea of the basics, adding or subtracting time from your estimates based on the above factors can be more easily made and more accurate.