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:
So based on this comparison, the answer to the age-old question is:
The Whites are harder than the Adirondacks . . . but they're easier
!
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
!
Last edited:
