What's a good way to measure hiking performance?
Horizontal trail speed (miles per hour)? Vertical speed (feet per hour)? What matters?
I started charting uphill segments of my hikes, looking for patterns, in order to help me plan length of future hikes, to help me determine if I'm improving, and to help me decide if I must acclimate by sleeping at elevation the night before.
So far the columns I have are:
start elevation, summit elevation, elevation gain (ft), distance, elapsed time, horizontal speed, trail slope (ft/mi), vertical speed (ft/hr), and acclimate (yes/no)
I know I'm highly susceptible to altitude sickness, so I want to find my "envelope." Am I overlooking any measurements? I don't seem to be affected by the amount of weight I carry, therefore I have not included backpack weight in my log.
What's a good way to measure hiking performance?
Once the trail gets steeper than 900-1000 ft/mile, my speed is so slow it can't be measured so I switch to vertical ft. per hour instead (1000 ft/hour sounds much better than <1 mph!). 
The data you are collecting seems adequate to help you predict future performance. Perhaps temperature or a hot/cool indication.
The data you are collecting seems adequate to help you predict future performance. Perhaps temperature or a hot/cool indication.
HikeUp, I wonder if I'm reinventing the wheel here.
As I stare at my hike data, it's obvious that (like you) my horizontal speed drops as my vertical speed increases. However, when I add together horiz + vert speed, I get a number that's kinda constant.
For example, last weekend I moved forward at .92 miles per hour (yes, Grandmas passed me) while climbing at 845 feet per hour. Take my vertical speed (845 fph) and multiply by a tenth of one percent. Take result (.845) and add to horizontal speed (.92), yields 1.77. That number (1.77) is sorta constant (+/-) for all of my hikes.
I need to spend more time on this analysis to refine my formula.
As I stare at my hike data, it's obvious that (like you) my horizontal speed drops as my vertical speed increases. However, when I add together horiz + vert speed, I get a number that's kinda constant.
For example, last weekend I moved forward at .92 miles per hour (yes, Grandmas passed me) while climbing at 845 feet per hour. Take my vertical speed (845 fph) and multiply by a tenth of one percent. Take result (.845) and add to horizontal speed (.92), yields 1.77. That number (1.77) is sorta constant (+/-) for all of my hikes.
I need to spend more time on this analysis to refine my formula.
Interesting Rob. At first glance that seems a bit of a coincidence, but there might be some real logic behind it. I'll look at my numbers and see if that holds true. If so then I'll put some thought into why 
.
The main reason I switch from mph to ft/hour is that when the trail gets steep enough (for me it's at about 1000'/mile), it no longer becomes just "walking uphill". Trail tread conditions become a significant factor in determining how much upward progress I can make - e.g. scrambling up scree or sand is slower than up solid rock. So a ft/hour vs. type of trail comparison makes more sense. When the trail is more gentle (less than 1000'/mile), my physical condition is the dominant factor and mph makes more sense. In this case, a mph vs. slope and or distance comparison makes more sense.
Not sure if this is completely logical but it works for me in being able to plan future hikes (namely how long I'll be out on the trail).
.The main reason I switch from mph to ft/hour is that when the trail gets steep enough (for me it's at about 1000'/mile), it no longer becomes just "walking uphill". Trail tread conditions become a significant factor in determining how much upward progress I can make - e.g. scrambling up scree or sand is slower than up solid rock. So a ft/hour vs. type of trail comparison makes more sense. When the trail is more gentle (less than 1000'/mile), my physical condition is the dominant factor and mph makes more sense. In this case, a mph vs. slope and or distance comparison makes more sense.
Not sure if this is completely logical but it works for me in being able to plan future hikes (namely how long I'll be out on the trail).
One gauge of how well you're doing is to routinely do a set training route, Mt. Wilson via Sturdevant Trail for example. You could track your time over the course of a training period and see how much improvement you can make.
It's a little boring to always do the same hike. To get an idea of how well you're doing on different routes, you could estimate the time to do a given hike and then actually do the hike and measure your time against the estimated time.
The time it will take to do a hike can be estimated with the following: Time=(Miles/MPH)+((Gain/1000)/2), where Time is the time it will take to do a hike in hours, Miles is the length of the hike in miles, MPH is your average walking speed in miles per hour, and Gain is the elevation gained on the hike in feet. The "((gain/1000)/2)" is just a fancy way of saying add half an hour for every 1000 feet.
For example if you do a 10 mile hike and your target average speed is 2 mph and there's 2000' of gain you would have:
(10mi/2mpg) + (2000'gain/1000)/2) which gives you 5 + 1, for an estimate of 6 hours.
If you hike it in less than 6 hours you're doing better than your target goal of 2 mph. If less, then you're not quite doing 2 mph.
I actually use this on my hikes to see how well I'm doing compared to what I think I should be doing. I break out the major components of the hike (e.g: ascend to saddle, follow ridge to peak, descend via East trail, follow road back to car, etc.), and make the calculations for each leg. Then I can see where my weak spots are.
Of course, it's much harder to make good estimates in snow, heavy brush, in creek beds, etc. Still it's an interesting technique if you have a leg of a trip for which a reasonable estimate can be made.
It's a little boring to always do the same hike. To get an idea of how well you're doing on different routes, you could estimate the time to do a given hike and then actually do the hike and measure your time against the estimated time.
The time it will take to do a hike can be estimated with the following: Time=(Miles/MPH)+((Gain/1000)/2), where Time is the time it will take to do a hike in hours, Miles is the length of the hike in miles, MPH is your average walking speed in miles per hour, and Gain is the elevation gained on the hike in feet. The "((gain/1000)/2)" is just a fancy way of saying add half an hour for every 1000 feet.
For example if you do a 10 mile hike and your target average speed is 2 mph and there's 2000' of gain you would have:
(10mi/2mpg) + (2000'gain/1000)/2) which gives you 5 + 1, for an estimate of 6 hours.
If you hike it in less than 6 hours you're doing better than your target goal of 2 mph. If less, then you're not quite doing 2 mph.
I actually use this on my hikes to see how well I'm doing compared to what I think I should be doing. I break out the major components of the hike (e.g: ascend to saddle, follow ridge to peak, descend via East trail, follow road back to car, etc.), and make the calculations for each leg. Then I can see where my weak spots are.
Of course, it's much harder to make good estimates in snow, heavy brush, in creek beds, etc. Still it's an interesting technique if you have a leg of a trip for which a reasonable estimate can be made.
This is an interesting problem. I have never found a good formula that covers my own hikes, let alone other peoples' hikes, but I am inspired ot think about it some more.
One indication of the difficulty of applying one's personal formulas to others: I do Iron Mountain in about 3.5 hours. It's 7 miles and well over 6000' of elevation gain (6000' net gain plus a fair amount of up and down, resulting in over 7000' gained on the round trip).
If I use Jim's formula and plug in only 6000', I get Time=(Miles/MPH)+((Gain/1000)/2
==> 3.5 hours = (7 miles)/speed + 3
==> speed = 14 mph!
The discrepancy grows if I put in a more realistic figure for the gain. For example, if I use 7000', which is not all that far from the truth, I get speed --> infinity! Even Mr. Spock would be impressed.
I have a worse problem with the Bear Flat hike up Baldy, which is roughly 6000', 6 miles, <3 hours.
One indication of the difficulty of applying one's personal formulas to others: I do Iron Mountain in about 3.5 hours. It's 7 miles and well over 6000' of elevation gain (6000' net gain plus a fair amount of up and down, resulting in over 7000' gained on the round trip).
If I use Jim's formula and plug in only 6000', I get Time=(Miles/MPH)+((Gain/1000)/2
==> 3.5 hours = (7 miles)/speed + 3
==> speed = 14 mph!
The discrepancy grows if I put in a more realistic figure for the gain. For example, if I use 7000', which is not all that far from the truth, I get speed --> infinity! Even Mr. Spock would be impressed.
I have a worse problem with the Bear Flat hike up Baldy, which is roughly 6000', 6 miles, <3 hours.
Alan, you're an animal.
But looking at your numbers:
~1000'/mile for Iron, Bear Canyon and Ski Hut trails.
Iron: 7 miles, 3.5 hours, 2.0 mph
Bear Canyon: 6 miles, 2.9 hours, 2.1 mph
so...
Ski Hut trail to Baldy: 4.0 miles, X hours, 2.2 mph ==> X=1.8 hours???
But looking at your numbers:
~1000'/mile for Iron, Bear Canyon and Ski Hut trails.
Iron: 7 miles, 3.5 hours, 2.0 mph
Bear Canyon: 6 miles, 2.9 hours, 2.1 mph
so...
Ski Hut trail to Baldy: 4.0 miles, X hours, 2.2 mph ==> X=1.8 hours???
AlanK wrote: I do Iron Mountain in about 3.5 hours.
Alan, I think this formula, which I got from the Sierra Club, is meant for those traveling at sub-sonic speeds. It doesn't really work with di-lithium crystal powered shoes.
Seriously, I slow down a lot in steep terrain. In my formula, I'm adding 1/2 hour per 1000'. Maybe for you, the figure should be more like 15 minutes per 1000'. You could try Time=(miles/mph)+((gain/1000)/4). This works out to about 3.5 mph.
Really the formula is:
Time=(Miles/MPH) + (Gain/1000)/Gain_Adj_Factor)
I normally just use a 2 as a gain adjustment factor, but it looks like you don't even blink going up steep stuff. A factor of four gives you a much more reasonable number.
The key to my personal formula is knowing how fast I can average on a trail of a given steepness. Therefore the important numbers to keep track of for me are ave. ft./mile and average mph. The other info (total distance, temperature, altitude, etc.) go into tweaking the final result. It's simple as it gets, but it works for me so far. Others might require more complicated formulas.
On flat ground I can average 3.5 mph for long stretches, at 400 '/mile I can average 3 mph, at 750 '/mile I can average 2 mph, 1000'/mile I average 1.3 mph. Any steeper than that and I would switch to a formula that uses vertical feet/hour. I don't have enough personal experience at that steepness to know what the formula is though.
So I am planning on taking 5 hours to get up to Baldy via Bear Canyon trail (1000'/mile, 6 miles at 1.3 mph ==> 4.6 hours + .4 hours of tweak time to account for never having been on the trail and a planned break 2/3rds the way up).
Jim's formula probably only works in a certain range of mph and on relatively normal grade (say, flat to 750'/mile), but I haven't checked. Clearly it breaks down for Alan's combination of mph and steepness. Maybe it only applies to us mere mortals. (edit: see HJ's comment above)
On flat ground I can average 3.5 mph for long stretches, at 400 '/mile I can average 3 mph, at 750 '/mile I can average 2 mph, 1000'/mile I average 1.3 mph. Any steeper than that and I would switch to a formula that uses vertical feet/hour. I don't have enough personal experience at that steepness to know what the formula is though.
So I am planning on taking 5 hours to get up to Baldy via Bear Canyon trail (1000'/mile, 6 miles at 1.3 mph ==> 4.6 hours + .4 hours of tweak time to account for never having been on the trail and a planned break 2/3rds the way up).
Jim's formula probably only works in a certain range of mph and on relatively normal grade (say, flat to 750'/mile), but I haven't checked. Clearly it breaks down for Alan's combination of mph and steepness. Maybe it only applies to us mere mortals. (edit: see HJ's comment above)
Well, of course, do what works best. No one formula is going to cover the world unless God is your mathematician.
The formula, such as it is, tries to adjust your time estimate for elevation gain. Average mph is not meant to be your average mph on that hike but rather your average mph on relatively flat ground.
I normally average about 2 mph on relatively flat ground; I'll bet Alan averages far more than that. The formula then tries to factor in the gain. Play with it; see if it's helpful. If not, you now where the delete key is.
Even in ideal conditions, the formula just gives you a baseline number. You always have to adjust for wx, rock, snow, brush, tree fall, soil conditions, and health. Time estimates are far more art than science.
The formula, such as it is, tries to adjust your time estimate for elevation gain. Average mph is not meant to be your average mph on that hike but rather your average mph on relatively flat ground.
I normally average about 2 mph on relatively flat ground; I'll bet Alan averages far more than that. The formula then tries to factor in the gain. Play with it; see if it's helpful. If not, you now where the delete key is.
Even in ideal conditions, the formula just gives you a baseline number. You always have to adjust for wx, rock, snow, brush, tree fall, soil conditions, and health. Time estimates are far more art than science.
-
EManBevHills
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:40 am
As a comparison -- and more realistic IMHO for mere mortals -- is the formula by Paul Richins used in his book "50 Classic Backcountry Ski and Snowboard Summits":
Time in hours = (distance hiked in miles/2 MPH) + (elevation gain in feet/1000 feet per hour). Note that this formula "assumes a 35-40 pound pack on a hiker in good shape".
Naturally this doesn't take a lot of other variables into account such as altitude or terrain condition.
FWIW, I've found this works pretty well if your aren't travellin' light....
Time in hours = (distance hiked in miles/2 MPH) + (elevation gain in feet/1000 feet per hour). Note that this formula "assumes a 35-40 pound pack on a hiker in good shape".
Naturally this doesn't take a lot of other variables into account such as altitude or terrain condition.
FWIW, I've found this works pretty well if your aren't travellin' light....
The formula(s) makes sense, but for me the gain adjustment factor is different for different slopes (e.g. a factor of 4 works for most "normal" slopes - say up to 750'/mile - but a factor of 2 works for 1000'/mile slopes). That is why I just go straight to my average mph for a given slope (which is based on data I keep track of for my hikes). Two paths to the same bit of information! 
Hope this discussion has helped Rob figure out what data is relevant to measuring and predicting his performance. It's helped clarify things in my addled brain
Hope this discussion has helped Rob figure out what data is relevant to measuring and predicting his performance. It's helped clarify things in my addled brain
-
Janice
Interesting conversation. I've never heard anybody try and figure out a formula for performance with all the math equations.
I think every person on this board knows where they rank on a scale of 1 to 10 in hiking performance. You know your strong points, and you know your limitations.
To ask others for a formula of some sort is not going to ever give an acceptable solution to your question.
Alan K's times definitely do not make him an animal in my book. (Well I guess a sea slug is an animal).
My advice is to strive to improve your OWN times on hikes. Don't worry about what other people's times are on the same hike.
Maybe if there is one comparison that might be note worthy - If you can't keep up with Alan K's time on a hike, you are in the 3 or 4 range on a 1 to 10 rating scale as he would generously rate a 4. But who cares? Hike your own hike.. Improve your own time.
I think every person on this board knows where they rank on a scale of 1 to 10 in hiking performance. You know your strong points, and you know your limitations.
To ask others for a formula of some sort is not going to ever give an acceptable solution to your question.
Alan K's times definitely do not make him an animal in my book. (Well I guess a sea slug is an animal).
My advice is to strive to improve your OWN times on hikes. Don't worry about what other people's times are on the same hike.
Maybe if there is one comparison that might be note worthy - If you can't keep up with Alan K's time on a hike, you are in the 3 or 4 range on a 1 to 10 rating scale as he would generously rate a 4. But who cares? Hike your own hike.. Improve your own time.
I have slow and slower days - no formula needed - just put one step in front of the other and enjoy the hike/climb. If you're averaging 2 mph or 1000 feet of gain per hour for an extended period of time then you're doing pretty good in my book. I suppose if the trail is flat then at least 3 mph would be pretty easy for most.
-
Janice
Well put Kathy W. By no doubt the most experienced hiker on this board. You're MY HERO Kathy W...
Thank God for you Kathy W. You are a true inspiration.
Thank God for you Kathy W. You are a true inspiration.
Holy sheet!Janice wrote: (Well I guess a sea slug is an animal).
If Alan is a sea slug, then I'm a sloth trudging through 12 inches of molassas in January with lead shoes on. Anyone who can do 2mph on Iron Mtn is pretty darn good in my book.I agree with "hike your own hike and all," but for planning (say I've got a dinner to go to at 5:00 PM) and such, I try to get some kind of a time estimate on a hike to see if it's within the realm of reason given that day's time constraints.
If I'm backpacking, then I'm trying to make sure I've got time to get into camp with a couple of hours of light still left.
HJ
HJ, exactly. Although my time estimates are improving as I learn from my mistakes, estimates could be better. Not only a question of whether or not I might return home in time for dinner, but at what time should my family call SAR? On one of my hikes I was happy to find a moment of cell phone service near Poopout Hill. Honey, I'm going to be late. Six hours late.Hikin_Jim wrote:. . . but for planning (say I've got a dinner to go to at 5:00 PM) and such, I try to get some kind of a time estimate on a hike to see if it's within the realm of reason given that day's time constraints.
-
Cy Kaicener
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:19 am
Hiking times is just one way to measure hiking performance. I find that if I get at least 10,000 feet of elevation gain per week you cant get out of condition. The big advantage of going fast is that you can carry less weight on your back.
Yes, I am definitely on the slow side so I have to carry more food, water and clothing, etc. At one point I tried to improve my speed but nothing much changed and so it only took the fun out of it for me. My speed is pretty much set - and I’m very fortunate to have a hiking partner with a very similar pace. So we relax and enjoy the journey. When I climbed Iron Mtn I made the mistake of estimating my hiking time based on some very impressive times posted on a message board. Needless to say we took more than 5 hours longer, into darkness, and my family made the first call to SAR. SAR asked a lot of questions my husband did not immediately have the answer to. So now I fill out a form each week where I provide info such as where we’ve parked, trail and peak names, estimated time I’ll call and estimated time I’ll return home. It also includes color of clothing worn, contact numbers, vehicle information, hiking supplies on hand and vital statistics for me and my hiking partner. It may be overkill but it gives everyone a little peace of mind 
Leslie
Leslie
Leslie, the form sounds like a great idea. I'll make one today.Leslie L wrote:So now I fill out a form each week where I provide info such as where we’ve parked, trail and peak names, estimated time I’ll call and estimated time I’ll return home. It also includes color of clothing worn, contact numbers, vehicle information, hiking supplies on hand and vital statistics for me and my hiking partner.
One of the mountain rescue sites recommends leaving at home info on my hiking shoes, too, such as brand name and perhaps a photo of the tread.
-
Janice
No Kathy W. I don't know Christina, but I feel like I almost know you personally after looking at your awesome website. That's why you ARE my inspiration.
I may be a faster hiker than you are, but I bow to your history.
I may be a faster hiker than you are, but I bow to your history.