[pct-l] Re: pct-l-digest V1 #1136

[BLISTERFREE@delphi.com]

While I agree that the Planner's elevation gain figures may run the risk of
underestimation, I have a harder time believing altimeter-derived readings like
the "34,950" feet of elevation gain between Idyllwil and Big Bear.  There's
a fair bit of climbing in that stretch, but it's no Everest ascent from seal level. Actually I would think that elevation gain and loss would be about equal 
between those two points considering the drop from the Fuller Ridge, heading north. The only way to reach a figure like 35,000 feet would be if the trail were 
to nickel and dime us with elevation gain and loss. Let's assume "Idyllwild
area" of trail is of approximately the same elevation as "Big Bear area," which
it essentially is. I believe that stretch is around 90 miles in length. In
order to travel the 90 miles and to arrive at a similar elevation as we began at, we must climb and descend equally throughout, apportioned however. Let's
conservatively assume that the trail's grade does not exceed 500 feet +- to
the mile. And let's overestimate greatly and assume that the trail only
climbs and descends at that grade, and that there is no flat walking. This
would mean that half of those 90 miles would involve climbing at 500 ft. to the mile. 500 ft. x 45 miles = 22,500 fet of elevation gain. No way does the trail
do that, through there, so certainly 35,000 feet is out of the question.

Even the AT doesn't accomplish "feat" like that, although it does come close at times, over the short haul. Perhaps we're misinterpreting Jim's data, or
am I misinterpreting them, or Craig's planner data which I haven't studied in
any depth?

Apologies in advance should this note arrive garbled. VAX text editor hard
to deal with.

- Blisterfree
* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================