Whites vs. Adirondacks

[JoeCedar]

As long as there have been hikers in New England and New York, there has been the controversial question: which group of 4000 foot peaks are harder to climb? Last year a long and interesting VFTT thread discussed this question, but dealt mostly with qualitative differences, observations, and impressions such as rough vs. smooth, steep vs. switchbacks, long vs. short approach hikes, etc., even "culture". See:

http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=26151

I hiked a round of the Adirondack High Peaks last August and finished a round of the White Mountain 4000 Footers this month, so I wondered if I could finally answer this question. The primary data I had to work with were time and total ascent/descent from altimeter logs and the distances from the trail guides (or from GPS tracks for unmarked trails). For both itineraries, I tried to design routes with combinations of peaks and to develop "efficient" (not necessarily easy) routes for day hikes (no huts, overnights, or camping) less than 25 miles and maximum of 9000 feet ascent, mostly returning to the same trailhead. Obviously, one could design easier/harder routes to get a desired result, i.e., to show that one range was more difficult than the other. This wasn't my intent at all, and the similarity of the itineraries is more a reflection of the designer than a prospective desire to compare matched hikes in the two mountain ranges. But as it turned out, I think the itineraries are comparable in the types and difficulty of hikes. The data and results are summarized in the attached PDF file View attachment 2737.

The conclusions are:

The overall degree of difficulty of climbing the Whites and Adirondacks was very similar​

For most itineraries, the Whites would probably have greater miles and total ascent​

Even though the miles and total ascent were higher in the Whites, the time to complete the hikes was the same​

So based on this comparison, the answer to the age-old question is:

The Whites are harder than the Adirondacks . . . but they're easier !

 

[Paradox]

I agree completely. I think the Adirondacks are beautiful, and I am glad I have access to them, but I prefer the Whites for the views and there is only one "Owl's Head" hike. By that I mean you hike for miles gaining a few hundred feet, then there is a very steep climb of 1500' to limited views. The privilege wears thin after a while.

 

[Little Rickie]

Come on, it's obvious the Adirondacks are harder. MPH is slower because it's tougher and feet per hour is lower because it's tougher. Less miles and less ascent in about the same time says the same thing.

I bet the Adirondacks has more mud & rockie trails too.

I think we need more scientific studies done with some control groups.

 

[Craig]

<“The twilight zone”>

When I came up with similar results I surmised this precise correlation in data could not be the result of random chance.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they are one in the same.

</“The twilight zone”>

Edit: These were my findings.

 

[Peakbagr]

This thread was started by a very strong ADK hiker who just did the Whites in a relatives short period of time. I moved it from the ADK section to the New England section and then a redirect back to where the thread originated.

Joe and I discussed his findings before he started the thread. I love both sets of mountains and share his conclusion.
I asked him to start this with the idea of having a fun discussion with the hope people don't get defensive about 'their' mountains.

 

[Little Rickie]

This reminds me of a similar question: Which of your children do love the most?

 

[dr_wu002]

I'd probably love whichever was closest and whichever I was most familiar with. If I were equidistant to both I'd be happy to have two cool and different mountain ranges so close to me.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Little Rickie]

I'd probably love whichever was closest and whichever I was most familiar with. If I were equidistant to both I'd be happy to have two cool and different mountain ranges so close to me.

-Dr. Wu

Are you a Libra?

 

[giggy]

where and what are these Adirondacks? There is nothing tougher than the presidentials anywhere - ask any new englander..

 

[skiguy]

I think they are both hard. Which is harder is a hard question. Which is easier that is hard because it is hard question to qualify. I do admire the OP's criteria but everyone finds different ways to play their game. So I go out and play the game and perceive each hike in and as itself which can be hard or easy.

 

[hikem'all]

I think the whites are harder alone just because of the weather. When I'm set to hike a Mountain I do it accept in the whites the few times I've been there I was turned around twice. In the Dacks I've never have been turned around. I've seen bad weather but not the same. I am a 46er and working on my winter. I plan on hiking alot more in the whites this summer so I hope I'm wrong.

 

[cushetunk]

I think they are both pretty easy, even when they are challenging.

 

[AOC-1]

Proximity can influence our perceptions about difficulty because we tend to hike in more varied conditions in our home range. The Adirondacks are relatively close for me. There, I've endured endless rain, sweltering heat, and (once - never again!) a minus 40 degree F night. I've suffered its shoe-swallowing mud and fallen into its bottomless spruce traps.

The White mountains are 6 hours away so I tend to be choosy about the forecast when I go there. I've probably canceled as many trips to New Hampshire as I've taken. Consequently, the Whites seem considerably easier to me - but probably only because I have made it so by self-selecting the conditions under which I've hiked there.

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

This discussion is not original in any way, and has been beaten into the ground numerous times. There is no point in doing all this again, just read the link to last year's thread.

 

[cushetunk]

I'd probably love whichever was closest and whichever I was most familiar with. If I were equidistant to both I'd be happy to have two cool and different mountain ranges so close to me.

If you were equidistant to both ranges you would be in Waterbury, Vermont, and you might never leave The Alchemist, except possibly to climb Camel's Hump occasionally.

 

[snickers]

Owls head is similiar to Allen, long flat slog, short climb up and both are about 18 miles round trip.

As Joe stated, both ranges are very similiar. Both have great slide climbs, great rock scrambling routes. Whites has more above treeline exposure. Daks has much more mud. To me the mud makes the daks more challenging both mentally and physically, but then again, a bad day above tree line can be just as challenging both mentally and physically. I am less likey to go above tree line in bad weather, but will slog thru that damn black mud and calf high water. You ain't seen mud till you've hiked in the Daks.

If you haven't been turned back in the Daks in winter, count yourself lucky. This past winter is the first winter I have not had any turn backs. It was an awesome snow winter and trails stayed broken out, so you weren't breaking trail every time you went in. Prior winters, total white out conditions and 50/60mph winds on Algonquin. We made Wright, but not Algonquin. Three people breaking thru 3' of snow for many miles, and it was just getting deeper the higher we went, ran out of steam. Very few made their peaks that weekend. Ice storm and trees hanging down in the trails, crawling on your hands and knees to get through, only getting some of the peaks we were after. Just got sick of crawling and getting smacked in the face with ice laden trees, but I have to say they were some fun trips.

I have done both and only have 12 left for the W46 and my conclusion: They are both beautiful, great places to hike.

I am partial to the Whites, they and Katahdin were my introduction to the mountains.

We are fortunate to have such great mountains so close to us to choose from.

Happy Trails - Cindy

 

[SteveHiker]

I can sum this discussion up in 4 words

less filling, tastes great

 

[Toe Cozy]

If you were equidistant to both ranges you would be in Waterbury, Vermont, and you might never leave The Alchemist, except possibly to climb Camel's Hump occasionally.

Here, here! I'll drink to that! Hopefully this Saturday evening after a hike just south of Camel's Hump!

 

[PA Ridgerunner]

Respectfully disagree...

This discussion is not original in any way, and has been beaten into the ground numerous times. There is no point in doing all this again, just read the link to last year's thread.

It may have been discussed many times in the past, but there may be different people contributing to the discussion or at least some with newer more informed perspectives to offer, the O.P. for example. Certainly there are new people reading the thread. I think this is a very interesting topic. (Maybe there's some history of these discussions getting ugly...don't know.)

I live a long way from the whites (heck, i'm 4.5 hours from the Adirondack high peaks) and I hope to do some hiking in NH some day, so I'm finding this information helpful. For me it's interesting to hear these sorts of perspectives and comparisons which you might not necessarily garner from TRs.

 

[funkyfreddy]

As one who has done the ADK46 and the NH48, I find IN GENERAL that the trails in the ADK's are tougher and longer. The weather can certainly be bad in both ranges.