Howard makes some good points.
The psychological aspects could go either way; know yourself.
With respect to wind, I think the odds favor west to east but any week can be an exception in
any location.
With respect to the mountains, I found the passes out west at the beginning of my tour less
difficult than US 40 in Maryland at the end of my tour, when I was substantially stronger. On the
other hand, many people would have avoided those Eastern mountains by taking the trails between
Pittsburgh and D.C. So route choice is also a big factor.
On balance, I think starting from home, if possible, has the advantages of having the bike in good
shape and having help nearby for a day or two if something important has been forgotten, and west to
east has slight advantages of terrain and wind.
If the choice were absolutely clear cut, then it wouldn't be worth discussing.
On 15 Nov 2003 13:06:52 -0800,
[email protected] (Howard Bishop) wrote:
>The wind is likely to be the least of your worries, IMO. The biggest obstacle is neither weather
>nor geography, but ones self. Having said that, I'd recommend starting at the coast nearest home
>and heading to the other. The sense of discovery, anticipation, and the magnitude of the thing can
>help keep you going.
>
> For example, if you live in the DC area, and rode from Oregon as far as Kentucky and were tired,
> it would be possible to rationalize stopping because Kentucky isn't that far away, and you could
> easily finish off the trip some other time. On the other hand, again supposing you lived in DC
> but were heading west, by the time you get to the Tetons, you know that it will be harder to get
> out there again to finish the job. This little bit of extra motivation might be enough to get the
> job done.
>
>Other arguments for starting near and heading far include the response you will get to the common
>question "where ya' from?" The respect you get is roughly proportional to your distance from home
>(I think Douglas Adams might have covered this in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy?).
>
>Also, problems of getting your equipment to the point of origin intact are greatly simplified by
>starting near. Maybe it's a matter of throwing the bike in the back of the van and driving a day.
>But if you have to pack it and fly/bus/train to the other coast, you run an additional risk of a
>mission disabling hardware disaster. If the bike gets banged (bent?) up on the long flight home,
>that's a drag, but in terms of the trip it's a non-event.
>
>If you live right in the middle of things, say Hays KS or so, I'd recommend going east to west.
>Stores/facilities are more plentiful in the east, and by the time you get to Wyoming you'll have a
>pretty good idea of what 40-60 miles without facilities is all about. Further, you can (in theory)
>hit the road just after the crack of dawn, but you want to be stopped before dark as much as
>possible. It's cooler in the morning, there is typically less traffic too. By heading west you'll
>be more visible with the sun behind you. Also, and this isn't a totally trivial thing, you get
>roughly three extra hours of daylight by heading west. I've done each for a couple weeks at a time,
>and personally, I noticed the difference. The psychological effect of getting up at 4:30 AM in
>eastern Maine was real. YMMV.
>
>As far as the prevailing winds...yes weather patterns do move generally west to east. However,
>surface winds tend to move across isobars rather than along them. One solution (if you really are
>worried about wind - but I wouldn't be, particularly on a GRR), would be to pick up an airport
>facilities directory and examine the layout of small airports along your general route of travel.
>With very few exceptions, runways are laid out per the prevailing *surface* winds. Although even
>here there will be seasonal variations. Except in the high plains. Ask someone from Amarillo or
>western Oklahoma what a compass tree is
Or just sock your Rush.