pm
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by pm on Dec 15, 2011 17:02:29 GMT -5
This is a question for the members: Do you consider a FKT that does NOT include in it's cumulative time any extended rest periods or time off the trail (example: periods of sleep on multi-days), to be more legit than one that does? I've seen at least one FKT listed that only counted the time moving. Taken to extreme, with this formula one could simply break the course into many small sections with rest between. I believe the time clock should not stop for rest periods.
There are other reasonable guidelines to follow in achieving FKTs, but I've not read about this and am just curious what others think.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bakwin on Dec 16, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
The fkt is definitely total time, not time in motion. Which reported fkt is moving time only? I can't think of a case where that would be appropriate.
|
|
pm
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by pm on Dec 28, 2011 11:00:52 GMT -5
Peter, in one FKT's description you make a notation:
"His quoted time is for the [trail] (not car-to-car)."
This leads me to think that the listed FKT does not include time off-trail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bakwin on Jan 2, 2012 4:13:50 GMT -5
Some trails don't start/end at trail heads, which can cause confusion because people may quote car-to-car (trail head to trail head) time, or time for the trail itself. The John Muir Trail and High Sierra Trail are examples. So, the quote below refers to time for the whole trail (including breaks), rather than car-to-car, which would include travel time for trail segments that are not part of the named trail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jun 2, 2014 10:04:05 GMT -5
What is the age of the Oldest Known Finisher for a thru-hike on the John Muir Trail?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bakwin on Jun 2, 2014 14:57:37 GMT -5
What is the age of the Oldest Known Finisher for a thru-hike on the John Muir Trail? I doubt anyone knows this. Thousands of people thru-hike the JMT every year. I make no attempt to keep track of age-related FKTs. It just seems like adding way too much complication, and probably would stress the "Known" element vs. the "Fastest". |
|
|
|
Post by ultrademus on Feb 16, 2015 18:51:40 GMT -5
So in the instance of trying to break the FKT on the So Cal Triple Crown, where semi-extensive driving (and some LA traffic) is encountered is it best to provide 1) Total time (driving included) and 2) Total time (driving excluded/ time on trails only) ? Unknowns such as traffic ect...make it difficult in my mind to fairly include driving time. So I personally think it's best to include the driving time total and include a trail total. That way if the record is someday within "minutes" it's "minutes" on the trail and not "minutes" in traffic. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bakwin on Feb 16, 2015 19:56:30 GMT -5
My view, as above, is that it is ALWAYS and ONLY total time including driving. If you say it's trail time only that creates a very slippery slope since any time you are not on the trail is essentially rest time. What if you stop and sleep? For any FKT that requires driving between THs that's simply part of the deal - you need to plan to do it at a time when conditions on and off trail are optimal. This is a well-established principle for things like the Colorado & California 14ers, or our Cascades Trifecta (Rainier, Hood & Adams back-to-back):  |
|
