56 replies to this topic

[Veik]

The Difficulty Index is a rating of the approximate difficulty for hikes in RMNP. The higher the number, the more difficult the hike. A hike with a rating of 10 will be roughly twice as difficult as a hike with a rating of 5 for example. The rating is for the entire hike, from the trailhead to the featured destination and back to the original trailhead, or to a second trailhead if a one way hike.

How difficult a hike is depends on many factors; distance, altitude, altitude gain, terrain, weather, hikers age and physical conditioning etc. These ratings are only a rough guide to relative difficulty with ideal conditions. Each hiker needs to try one of these hikes to get an idea of what rating is easy or moderate or difficult for them.

13.0 Black Lake
17.6 Bluebird Lake
14.3 Chasm Lake
3.7 The Crater
9.2 Deer Mountain
3.2 Dream Lake
6.1 Emerald Lake
10.9 Estes Cone (Thanks AliceH)
4.0 Eugenia Mine (Thanks AliceH)
14.6 Flattop Mountain
6.4 Gem Lake
16.6 Hallett Peak
21.8 Mt Lady Washington
5.8 Lily Mountain
7.7 The Loch
26.5 Longs Peak
6.9 Mills Lake
1.5 Nymph Lake
14.0 Odessa Loop (Fern Lake to Bear Lake TH)
12.7 Odessa Loop (Bear Lake to Fern Lake TH)
8.0 Ouzel Falls (Thanks AliceH)
13.5 Ouzel Lake
13.3 Sky Pond
16.2 Solitude Lake
18.5 Thunder Lake
11.5 Timberline Falls
14 Twin Sisters
4.9 Ute Trail (Alpine Visitors Center to Milner Pass)
5.9 Ute Trail (Milner Pass to Alpine Visitors Center)

The Difficulty Index formulas are:

(One way hike) Difficulty Index = (C * 0.0015) + (D * 0.0005) + M
(Two way hike) Difficulty Index = ((C + D) * 0.001 + M) * 2

Where:
C = Climbing elevation in feet (one way)
D = Descending elevation in feet (one way)
M = Distance in miles (one way)

This is a variation on a formula that I found in the Rocky Mountain National Park Dayhiker's Guide. The original formula only considered elevation gain as the difference between the trailhead elevation and the destination elevation. I tried to improve on that because we all know that trails go both up and down on their way "up".

If you would like something added to the list, post your request here.

Tom

This post has been promoted to an article

Edited by Veik, 09 August 2011 - 05:47 PM.

[Aaron]

If I didn't say it before...

The TV Index is cool! B) A very useful item to use for planning hikes.

Thanks for sharing this Tom!

--Aaron

[ProfHall]

Way, way cool! Thanks for putting this on the boards...

I have a request or two for getting some ideas for next summer...

Ouzel Falls (and on to Ouzel Lake, but give the numbers separately)
Flattop without going on to Hallet
Odessa Loop starting from the Bear Lake side (!!)
Mills Lake (without going on any further)
Old Ute Trail, starting at visitors' center going downhill to Milner pass
The Crater
Adams' Falls up the east inlet into the meadows for views of "Baldy"


From another thread I got the idea (maybe from lovesthemtns?) to get the kids to help plan the hikes for our next trip. I'm going to order one of the cd-rom paks from RMNA so they can start "seeing" the hikes and deciding where they want to go...and having the ultra-cool TV index will be part of our planning, now, too! :D

[workrelease]

TV...very informative and useful stuff!

If it's not too much trouble, could you show:
The Loch
Thatchtop
Lady Washington
Chiefs Head
Deer Mtn

... and all other potential destinations in the park :D

Really though, thanks a lot!!

-work

[lovethemtns]

get the kids to help plan the hikes for our next trip.

My husband always says: "It's their vacation too."

I had wanted to stay in a cabin this year, but my son really loves the "hotel swimming pools" when on vacation. My husband said "It's their vacation too." So we ended up staying at a hotel. Which actually was okay, we spend little time in our hotel room while on vacation and I confess at the end of a day of hiking I didn't mind the jacuzzi they also had .

[GLENNinPA]

My wife always has to remind me of that. My youngest is 3 so our hikes are mostly limited to 5.0- 9.0 on the TV index. Next year should be a little different.
Glenn

[ProfHall]

my son really loves the "hotel swimming pools" when on vacation

Yep, that's for sure. But, we usually have a "front end" night as well as a "back end" night at a hotel/motel near DIA for the next morning's flight home...so those pools work for us. Besides, the water in the pools up in EP is COLD!!!! :D Which is a big change for us, since by the first of August the neighborhood pool here is usually only slightly cooler than air temperature. And who really gets refreshed swimming in 85 degree (or warmer) water?!?! :P


Oh, and back on topic: seems we've given tlviek quite the assignment! Do we have a "due date"??

[lovethemtns]

Get out your red checking pen Professor!!! (And your TI-83 calculator).

[workrelease]

TV,
I really like your idea and was just brainstorming on it a bit...

I'm curious if you have ever considered an 'altitude weighting factor' into your formula? The AWF could be used to factor in the added difficulty that comes with increased altitude. For example, a 5 mile hike in Morraine Park is not as physically challenging as say a 5 mile hike above treeline.
I'm not sure where to start but there are probably tables which show the typical volume of O2 at various altitudes. I'll look.
A decrease in O2 could be represented by an increase in the AWF.
Something like:
TV-Index = (C + D) * 0.001 + (M * AWF)

Anyway, I'm just fooling around with your very good notion. I'm already using 'The TV Index' to help plan some hikes. Thanks!

cya,
work

[workrelease]

Well, it sounded okay in theory but it would be difficult in practice. I just did a little research and here's what I found out...

Indeed, at any given altitude, we all experience the same absolute O2 volume/pressure, but its effects are a relative thing based on some reference altitude. The reference altitude is based on where you live and spend most of your time.
So for me, living near sea level, I would experience about 58% of my "normal" O2 on top of Longs. But for someone who lives in say, Denver, they would be getting about 70% or their normal O2. Therefore, the 'straining' effects on the Denver-ites aerobic efficiency would be less than us poor flatlanders.

Finally, none of this takes acclimation into consideration. Slowly but surely, even the flatlanders can acclimatize.

Sorry if this was all boring.

So...nevermind

-work

[Aaron]

Not boring at all to me. Very interesting!

--Aaron

[lovethemtns]

Not boring at all. I find it very interesting how the human body adapts to its environment. So for a real challenge, somehow compute in the formula some value that represents what altitude you live at. What the heck, then factor in another value that represents how many days you have been at a higher altitude and your body has had time to adjust. Then . . . add in another value that represents how many EP Brewery beers you had the night before.

If you guys can read a binary clock - then there has got to be a way to do this. I'll check back later.

Anne

[Veik]

add in another value that represents how many EP Brewery beers you had the night before.

I hadn't even considered that one since I usually don't drink while I'm there. I did visit the Estes Park Brewery the last time I was there though.

I never put much effort into adding an elevation factor because I have no idea what it would be. Heck, it might even be non-linear. And like it was mentioned above, it would be different for different people and for different times.

I've noted all the suggestions for additions and I'll get those added. Except maybe some of those that are off trail like Chief's Head. We would first have to define a route.

Tom

[Veik]

Added Ouzel Falls, Ouzel Lake, Flattop Mountain, Odessa Loop, Mills Lake and Mt Lady Washington. Will add some more later.

Tom

[workrelease]

TV,
Thanks so much for doing this. It really is very helpful.

-work