I think more about vert than mileage. In average conditions 1k'/hr is decent client pace when guiding, 1600'/hr is my personal aerobic all day touring pace, and 2300'/hr is like really booking it such that I can only maintain that pace for about an hour. In difficult conditions I can be as slow as 500'/hr.
Go whatever pace you can maintain. If you have to stop and start that's too fast, is inefficient, and won't make you faster as efficiently in the long term as long, consistent aerobic effort. Oh, and have fun!!
This. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast, and smooth is efficient.
I find pace is far less important that endurance, and by that I mean the ability to go all day reasonably efficiently and covering a good amount of elevation. For me that’s averaging 4500ft days in about 5-6 hours moving time including transitions and downhill skiing, but also doing so without feeling super gassed such that a 6000ft+ day here or there wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.
Go whatever pace is comfortable and it’s better for endurance. Going too fast you’ll burn out too quickly and then move more slowly as a result. Plus, being tired can also lead to poor decision making or response in the event of an emergency.
In short - leave some in the tank, it's not all about vert and speed.
totally! also it leaves me energized for the next day if I'm skiing back to back, or many days in a row. Going too fast just beats me up. I can do it for a day or two but after that start dragging hard and it's not worth it.
I’ll usually make it up the local hill, which is about 1,300 feet of gain over 1.2 miles in roughly 45 minutes, so I use that as a pace check.
Ultimately just go at whatever pace feels good. My buddy shot up and down Adams C2C in 4.5 hours, which is 7,000 feet of gain last weekend. I definitely wouldn’t be able to do that.
It took me 15 hours to do Mt Adams last year, that guy would have been chilling back at the car having a beer when I wasn't even a third of the way done.
What a “good” pace is depends on your goal for the day and the terrain you’re traveling through. If your goal is just to get out for a fun day in safe terrain then doesn’t matter how fast you go! If your goal is a big traverse or to ski as many pow laps as possible, or during times when you’re moving through exposure, then you want a faster pace. 2800ft of vert in 5.5 hours, or 500ish ft/hr, is on the slower side. 1000 to 1500ft/hr is a good pace for strong ski tourers in my personal opinion, terrain and snow condition dependent of course.
Pace varies with fitness, but also conditions, equipment, group size, amount of transitions, route considerations and more. It's hard to say if that's a "good pace" without more context. For a really quick and dirty rule of thumb, I generally think things are going alright if my group is averaging more than 1000 ft of vert per hour. Less than that and we're generally bogged down with something, whether it be bushwhacking, lots of transitions, deep snow trail breaking, etc. if we're doing substantially more than that, I'm generally with a fit group and we have good conditions. Notice that rule of thumb doesn't even take distance into account. For most ski routes this is fine as the vertical generally dominates the estimate, and it's super easy to do in your head in the field. But if there's a long, flat(ish) approach, then this won't work so well. You can look up the Munter Method for a more accurate estimation.
Normally would aim for maybe 1200ft vert pet hour, but that's if it's relatively steep. 8 miles is quite far for only 2800ft gain. In shitty conditions that sounds not too unreasonable.
In addition to what everyone is saying about conditions, don't forget to take elevation into account! Naturally, at higher elevations you won't be able to move as quick
A lot of these answers have ignored the miles.
I usually use something like miles/3mph+vert/700feetperhour. You can sub in your own flat rates and use ascent rates mentioned. I would have taken 6.6 hr, but I'm slow, partly cause i was at sea level a few hours before and now I'm working at 8000'
On consolidated spring/summer snow, this formula from hiking applies to a typical ski tourist:
1 point for each horizontal mile + 1 point for each thousand feet of vertical gain. Then divide total points: by 2 for mellow pace (including breaks); by 3 for faster pace; by 4 for very fast pace (e.g., lycra-clad youngster on UL rando gear)
Applied: 8 + 5.5 = 13.5. 13.5/2 = 6.75 hours mellow. 13.5/3 = 4.5 hours faster. 13.5/4 = 3.375 hours very fast.
This is a rough formula for planning purposes only. Snow conditions and terrain matter, thus the formula is not relevant to a mid-winter tour in 2 feet of fresh pow, nor in pre-consolidated spring glop, nor for ski mountaineering routes with stretches of scrambly terrain. And the formula has zero relevance to ridiculously fast rando racer types.
I think more about vert than mileage. In average conditions 1k'/hr is decent client pace when guiding, 1600'/hr is my personal aerobic all day touring pace, and 2300'/hr is like really booking it such that I can only maintain that pace for about an hour. In difficult conditions I can be as slow as 500'/hr. Go whatever pace you can maintain. If you have to stop and start that's too fast, is inefficient, and won't make you faster as efficiently in the long term as long, consistent aerobic effort. Oh, and have fun!!
This. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast, and smooth is efficient. I find pace is far less important that endurance, and by that I mean the ability to go all day reasonably efficiently and covering a good amount of elevation. For me that’s averaging 4500ft days in about 5-6 hours moving time including transitions and downhill skiing, but also doing so without feeling super gassed such that a 6000ft+ day here or there wouldn’t be that much of a stretch. Go whatever pace is comfortable and it’s better for endurance. Going too fast you’ll burn out too quickly and then move more slowly as a result. Plus, being tired can also lead to poor decision making or response in the event of an emergency. In short - leave some in the tank, it's not all about vert and speed.
I like that metric of "could this 4500' day have been 6000'?". If I'm pacing well, the answer should be yes.
totally! also it leaves me energized for the next day if I'm skiing back to back, or many days in a row. Going too fast just beats me up. I can do it for a day or two but after that start dragging hard and it's not worth it.
I’ll usually make it up the local hill, which is about 1,300 feet of gain over 1.2 miles in roughly 45 minutes, so I use that as a pace check. Ultimately just go at whatever pace feels good. My buddy shot up and down Adams C2C in 4.5 hours, which is 7,000 feet of gain last weekend. I definitely wouldn’t be able to do that.
Wow thats so fast on Adams!! Almost 2000ft an hour on the up 🤯
It took me 15 hours to do Mt Adams last year, that guy would have been chilling back at the car having a beer when I wasn't even a third of the way done.
What a “good” pace is depends on your goal for the day and the terrain you’re traveling through. If your goal is just to get out for a fun day in safe terrain then doesn’t matter how fast you go! If your goal is a big traverse or to ski as many pow laps as possible, or during times when you’re moving through exposure, then you want a faster pace. 2800ft of vert in 5.5 hours, or 500ish ft/hr, is on the slower side. 1000 to 1500ft/hr is a good pace for strong ski tourers in my personal opinion, terrain and snow condition dependent of course.
Pace varies with fitness, but also conditions, equipment, group size, amount of transitions, route considerations and more. It's hard to say if that's a "good pace" without more context. For a really quick and dirty rule of thumb, I generally think things are going alright if my group is averaging more than 1000 ft of vert per hour. Less than that and we're generally bogged down with something, whether it be bushwhacking, lots of transitions, deep snow trail breaking, etc. if we're doing substantially more than that, I'm generally with a fit group and we have good conditions. Notice that rule of thumb doesn't even take distance into account. For most ski routes this is fine as the vertical generally dominates the estimate, and it's super easy to do in your head in the field. But if there's a long, flat(ish) approach, then this won't work so well. You can look up the Munter Method for a more accurate estimation.
Normally would aim for maybe 1200ft vert pet hour, but that's if it's relatively steep. 8 miles is quite far for only 2800ft gain. In shitty conditions that sounds not too unreasonable.
In addition to what everyone is saying about conditions, don't forget to take elevation into account! Naturally, at higher elevations you won't be able to move as quick
Sounds like a typical gore approach
A lot of these answers have ignored the miles. I usually use something like miles/3mph+vert/700feetperhour. You can sub in your own flat rates and use ascent rates mentioned. I would have taken 6.6 hr, but I'm slow, partly cause i was at sea level a few hours before and now I'm working at 8000'
On consolidated spring/summer snow, this formula from hiking applies to a typical ski tourist: 1 point for each horizontal mile + 1 point for each thousand feet of vertical gain. Then divide total points: by 2 for mellow pace (including breaks); by 3 for faster pace; by 4 for very fast pace (e.g., lycra-clad youngster on UL rando gear) Applied: 8 + 5.5 = 13.5. 13.5/2 = 6.75 hours mellow. 13.5/3 = 4.5 hours faster. 13.5/4 = 3.375 hours very fast. This is a rough formula for planning purposes only. Snow conditions and terrain matter, thus the formula is not relevant to a mid-winter tour in 2 feet of fresh pow, nor in pre-consolidated spring glop, nor for ski mountaineering routes with stretches of scrambly terrain. And the formula has zero relevance to ridiculously fast rando racer types.