4 ms·

Naismith's Rule

getToTheChopin 3y ago
Naismith's rule helps with the planning of a walking or hiking expedition by calculating how long it will take to travel the intended route, including any extra time taken when walking uphill. This rule of thumb was devised by William W. Naismith, a Scottish mountaineer, in 1892. A modern version can be formulated as follows: Allow one hour for every 3 miles (5 km) forward, plus an additional hour for every 2,000 feet (600 m) of ascent.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  You just copied the first sentences at the very top of the linked article?
freetime2 3y ago
> Allow one hour for every 3 miles (5 km) forward, plus an additional hour for every 2,000 feet (600 m) of ascent. > In practice, the results of Naismith's rule are usually considered the minimum time necessary to complete a route. Yup that seems like a pretty aggressive estimation to me. Maybe doable by very fit hikers if they make a concerted effort. But not leaving any margin for error, lunch, taking photos, etc. For perspective I recently did a 13.5 km hike with 1800m climbing in 6.5 hours. This was a training hike, so there was very little stopping time, and I passed a lot of people along the way (and was only passed by one or two trail runners). The trail was also very well maintained. According to Naismith’s Rule it should have taken 5.7 hours. (Possibly because it’s not accounting for the 1800m of descent, which I feel is slower than walking on flat terrain when it’s sufficiently steep). I tend to just go with whatever times the map/information guide lists. Typically they are very conservative and allow far more time than we need - but worst case scenario is you can just spend more time at camp, take a scenic diversion, eat a long lunch, etc. Or get back to the car early and go find a hot spring to soak in. Much better than the alternative of not leaving enough time and having to hike through an unfamiliar location in the dark.
- LeftHandPath 3y ago
  I did a 12.61 mile hike in Algonquin with ~1520 feet of elevation gain back in July. The total time was 4 hours and 36 minutes - and my hiking partner and I were both exhausted afterwards. My heart rate ranged from 93 to 195 BPM, with an average of 154, according to my Apple Watch. We were doubly motivated by mosquitoes and the fact that my grandmother - aged 99 at the time, who has since passed - was going to leave without saying goodbye if we weren’t back by the right time (something we weren’t aware of until midway through the hike). Would have been much slower otherwise. I’ll definitely be using this rule in the future to sanity check the AllTrails estimates. edit: a more recent hike in Kansas - 20.04 miles with ~1600 feet of elevation gain - I did in 6:45:28, according to my watch. A bit faster than the 7:28 estimate I come up with using the rule.
  - freetime2 3y ago
    Agree it’s a useful rule of thumb to sanity check AllTrails estimates.
- mckn1ght 3y ago
  > descent, which I feel is slower than walking on flat terrain when it’s sufficiently steep I found Tobler’s hiking function linked in the article interesting, which reflects your observation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function There are so many other factors involved. What about cumulative altitude gain? Climbing 2000’ starting at 15,000’ is much harder than starting from sea level, even if you didn’t already climb those 15,000’ from sea level to start the next 2,000.
stevage 3y ago
Wow, 5km/h is very fast for any kind of loaded hiking. That's about the speed I walk to the shops when not carrying anything. The more useful part of this is the 1:8 ratio. Every 125m of climbing is equivalent to 1km of horizontal.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
It's not about Miles VorKosigan.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  Just reading the saga. Definitely one of the better Sci-fi series. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga
  - wiredfool 3y ago
    Have you hit the dinner party?
neilv 3y ago
IME, it's also a pretty good estimate of urban 3-mile walking, at a typical adult pace. Sidewalks are easier than dirt trails, but add significant time waiting to cross some streets.
photonthug 3y ago
This dude might be uniquely qualified to come up with such a thing given the rare combination of mountaineer / accountant
alok-g 3y ago
Tobler's hiking function [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function] linked in the 'See also' section is also very interesting. E.g., says that maximum speed is around 2 degrees sloping downwards and that speed comes down to about a tenth at around 30-40 degrees slope upwards or downwards.
wiredfool 3y ago
Works for cycling too -- I can estimate at ~ 15mph + 30min/1000ft of climbing for long rides. The hour for 2000ft of ascent works out to 1.6 w/kg for just vertical potential energy -- that's in the reasonably fit adult range, not elite athlete.

Naismith's rule helps with the planning of a walking or hiking expedition by calculating how long it will take to travel the intended route, including any extra time taken when walking uphill. This rule of thumb was devised by William W. Naismith, a Scottish mountaineer, in 1892. A modern version can be formulated as follows: Allow one hour for every 3 miles (5 km) forward, plus an additional hour for every 2,000 feet (600 m) of ascent.

jjtheblunt 3y ago
You just copied the first sentences at the very top of the linked article?

freetime2 3y ago

> Allow one hour for every 3 miles (5 km) forward, plus an additional hour for every 2,000 feet (600 m) of ascent. > In practice, the results of Naismith's rule are usually considered the minimum time necessary to complete a route. Yup that seems like a pretty aggressive estimation to me. Maybe doable by very fit hikers if they make a concerted effort. But not leaving any margin for error, lunch, taking photos, etc. For perspective I recently did a 13.5 km hike with 1800m climbing in 6.5 hours. This was a training hike, so there was very little stopping time, and I passed a lot of people along the way (and was only passed by one or two trail runners). The trail was also very well maintained. According to Naismith’s Rule it should have taken 5.7 hours. (Possibly because it’s not accounting for the 1800m of descent, which I feel is slower than walking on flat terrain when it’s sufficiently steep). I tend to just go with whatever times the map/information guide lists. Typically they are very conservative and allow far more time than we need - but worst case scenario is you can just spend more time at camp, take a scenic diversion, eat a long lunch, etc. Or get back to the car early and go find a hot spring to soak in. Much better than the alternative of not leaving enough time and having to hike through an unfamiliar location in the dark.

LeftHandPath 3y ago
I did a 12.61 mile hike in Algonquin with ~1520 feet of elevation gain back in July. The total time was 4 hours and 36 minutes - and my hiking partner and I were both exhausted afterwards. My heart rate ranged from 93 to 195 BPM, with an average of 154, according to my Apple Watch. We were doubly motivated by mosquitoes and the fact that my grandmother - aged 99 at the time, who has since passed - was going to leave without saying goodbye if we weren’t back by the right time (something we weren’t aware of until midway through the hike). Would have been much slower otherwise. I’ll definitely be using this rule in the future to sanity check the AllTrails estimates. edit: a more recent hike in Kansas - 20.04 miles with ~1600 feet of elevation gain - I did in 6:45:28, according to my watch. A bit faster than the 7:28 estimate I come up with using the rule.
- freetime2 3y ago
  Agree it’s a useful rule of thumb to sanity check AllTrails estimates.
mckn1ght 3y ago
> descent, which I feel is slower than walking on flat terrain when it’s sufficiently steep I found Tobler’s hiking function linked in the article interesting, which reflects your observation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function There are so many other factors involved. What about cumulative altitude gain? Climbing 2000’ starting at 15,000’ is much harder than starting from sea level, even if you didn’t already climb those 15,000’ from sea level to start the next 2,000.

stevage 3y ago

Wow, 5km/h is very fast for any kind of loaded hiking. That's about the speed I walk to the shops when not carrying anything. The more useful part of this is the 1:8 ratio. Every 125m of climbing is equivalent to 1km of horizontal.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

It's not about Miles VorKosigan.

jnsaff2 3y ago
Just reading the saga. Definitely one of the better Sci-fi series. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga
- wiredfool 3y ago
  Have you hit the dinner party?

neilv 3y ago

IME, it's also a pretty good estimate of urban 3-mile walking, at a typical adult pace. Sidewalks are easier than dirt trails, but add significant time waiting to cross some streets.

photonthug 3y ago

This dude might be uniquely qualified to come up with such a thing given the rare combination of mountaineer / accountant

alok-g 3y ago

Tobler's hiking function [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_hiking_function] linked in the 'See also' section is also very interesting. E.g., says that maximum speed is around 2 degrees sloping downwards and that speed comes down to about a tenth at around 30-40 degrees slope upwards or downwards.

wiredfool 3y ago

Works for cycling too -- I can estimate at ~ 15mph + 30min/1000ft of climbing for long rides. The hour for 2000ft of ascent works out to 1.6 w/kg for just vertical potential energy -- that's in the reasonably fit adult range, not elite athlete.