Total vertical - Pacific Crest Trail

imported
#1

Just for the sake of it, anybody was crazy enough to add up all the ups and downs of the 3 major trails or of the PCT. Anybody has an idea of what it could add up to ?

Northern Strider

#2

Actually, I went through every data point before my 2006 thru hike (I’m such a data nerd).

The guide books show ~338,500 vertical feet of elevation gain (a bit over 64 vertical miles). BUT…

The guide book doesn’t even come close to showing all of the climbs you’ll do. It mostly captures the bigger climbs - 500’ or more, but misses quite a few smaller climbs. In the end though, while annoying at times (like when you’re tired and are expecting flat to downhill to camp and encounter a 200’ climb), usually you’ll hardly notice the smaller climbs.

Its hard to say what factor one should apply to the above number to get an estimate of the ‘real’ elevation you’ll do. I’d guess somewhere in the 10 to 20% range.

I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of the the GPS traces that have been done over the last few years? That would give a better estimate of the ‘true’ elevation gain on the trail.

Token Civilian

#3

Adventure Mag did a comparison on the 3 trails. The AT had the most elevation gain. (I’ll look for the article later today)

We have hiked all 3 trails and just finished the Arizona Trail. We talked about total vertical gain of trails while hiking the AZT sky islands and were going to figure out the gain/mile. We think there was LOTS of climbing on the very gorgeous, but rough, AZT.

Later,
Marcia

Marcia

#4

~~ eArThworm knew where to look:

Looks like it was the June/July 2004 issue of National Geographic
Adventure. Take a look at:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0406/excerpt2.html
and:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0406/excerpt1.html
They’re excerpts, but they do how the ‘elevation’ graphic.

Marcia

#5

I knew it. There was somebody crazy enough to do it;).

Thank you for the craziness and the info Token civilian.

I agree with your diagnostic that the data book is underestimating the “real” elevation and the only way to have the true elavation gain would be by GPS’ing the whole trail. But with the trail variation from year to year (fire and or flood rerouting, etc.)what you came up with is acurate enough for me.

Unless somebody did GPS the whole trail.

Marcia, thanks for the info it is going to join all the useless fact that someone collect when planning for a long distance hike. I am glad to see that according to them the PCT will be a romp trough the park :slight_smile: Because my feet and hips hurt for a long time after my AT thruhike in 2002

Northern Strider

#6

CDT is 108 feet of elevation change for every mile. PCT is 104 feet of elevation change for every mile. AT is 198 feet of elevation change for every mile. data comes from an '04 adventure magazine or backpacker I can’t remember. So the AT has about double the elevation change for every mile. Still the AT sucks and only goes to 6,000 feet and through every redneck back yard and mole hill it can find where as the PCT and CDT both go to 14,000 feet and pretty much avoids mole hills for the best back country wilderness this country has to offer.

hellkat

#7

I carried an altimeter on the AT last year and it said that the total elevation gain was 155,600m or 510,000 feet. I recorded from camp to camp and sometimes included excursions to water. And weather of course affects that.

Kea

#8

According to Schlimmer’s long distance hiking guide, the LT is 67,000 vertical for 270 miles, that’s 248 vertical feet per mile, while the JMT is 224 ft. per mile, and the CT only 162 ft. per mile. These “short” trails have their ups and downs, or as one guy on the LT told me, if the trail looks level ahead of you, your probably not on it…

fishngame

#9

Mile for mile, the northern part of the LT (past the Maine Junction) was the hardest hiking I’ve done.

Of course, that was nearly a decade ago, with a heavier pack and being in worse shape than currently… :slight_smile:

Paul Mags