Re: Expedition 15 - Carneddau - Trip Reports



W

W. D. Grey

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Roger
<[email protected]> writes
>I am sorry you should feel that way Bill. It is the nature of the beast
>that some of us should want to walk further and/or faster than others
>and while I suppose I should be flattered to be considered a "hard
>*******" the truth is that even our harder walks tend to be rather
>modest affairs on an absolute scale. In any disparate group there should
>be a range of abilities and the possibility of several compatible groups
>doing their own thing. While it is a fact of life that when it comes to
>walking in a group it is the faster fitter walkers who have to
>compromise there can come a point where the walking loses its
>attraction. We have tried the one size fits all approach in the past and
>it was not a success.

The term "hardbastards" is one I plagiarised from The Expedition 1
postings I believe, and doesn't particularly refer to you Roger. You
like long walks and that is your choice. It doesn't necessarily mean
your a "hard *******". Each to his own, but there doesn't seem to be
much thought for those who can't come with you, David et al. As I have
said before rather than hold you and other good walkers up, then I
simply won't come, it's really as simple as that. I certainly don't want
fitter more competent walkers to compromise for me - it is their
expedition as well ,and there are usually enough to have a good walk of
their own. The problem is, it is their input that usually sways the
decision on the walk.

The one size for all sounds nice and cosy but obviously someone would
have to give way. It would be probably boring for the capable walkers
and possibly a bit hard on the lower end of the scale walkers. No, If
enough people of a differing range of ability turned up, then different
walks or different bits of the same walk could be planned.

The hard ******* comment was meant, I think to describe those who are
bung- ho to do walks to give the impression that they're up for anything
- which ultimately they're not. They must appear to be part of the gang.
What this means is that the honest walkers who know their ability don't
come into the picture, then after the walk it has been the case when
there may well have been a second group to consider.

Long may we meet on the expeditions and have or chats.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
 
W. D. Grey <[email protected]> wrote
>
>The one size for all sounds nice and cosy but obviously someone would
>have to give way. It would be probably boring for the capable walkers
>and possibly a bit hard on the lower end of the scale walkers. No, If
>enough people of a differing range of ability turned up, then different
>walks or different bits of the same walk could be planned.
>
The walking groups like the oft-maligned ramblers groups have A B and C
walks, because they have the experience with accommodating large numbers
of walkers with disparate abilities.

They also plan the walks well ahead of the day, so that everyone knows
what they are doing, and can decide which group to choose.

As a group, the expedition members here are disorganised and seem to
make up walks on the spur of the moment. Most of them have walked
alone or in small parties.

I and my partner walked with a large group from work 2 or 3 times, and
the only advantage was the coach which dropped us off at A and picked us
up at B, enabling a linear walk.

There were tigers who tore off ahead, there were the moderates in
between (us) and the stragglers. At least the tigers stopped from
time to time, and nobody was left behind, but the stragglers got no
rests!

We set our own pace, were soon joined by another couple doing the same,
and after that we met and walked as a foursome.
--
Gordon
 
Gordon wrote:

> The walking groups like the oft-maligned ramblers groups have A B and
> C walks, because they have the experience with accommodating large
> numbers of walkers with disparate abilities.

Mmm...

> They also plan the walks well ahead of the day, so that everyone knows
> what they are doing, and can decide which group to choose.

Uh-huh...

> As a group, the expedition members here are disorganised and seem to
> make up walks on the spur of the moment.

You reckon?

> There were tigers who tore off ahead, there were the moderates in
> between (us) and the stragglers. At least the tigers stopped from
> time to time, and nobody was left behind, but the stragglers got no
> rests!

Sounds like us.

How about this this grading system then;

Grade 1: Easy - up to 10 effort points (kilometre equivalent - 100m = 1
km)
Grade 2: Moderate - 11 to 20 effort points
Grade 3: Hard - 21 to 30 effort points
Grade 4: Very hard - 31-40 effort points
Grade 5: Extreme - 41-50 effort points

Your full walk stats of 12.9 miles - 4260 feet ascent this weekend
converts to 20.8km -1230m. In effort points that works out as 33.1,
which puts it into grade 4, very hard. It would have just made it into
grade 3 if you'd missed out the 2 miles of road walking back to the
campsite. It would have been well within grade 3 if you'd bypassed the
last summit

The "wimp-out" version done by myself and Judith was 11.2km - 660m
according to Anquet Maps(Naismith 3:20hrs, reality 5:50hrs). That's on
a par with the Pen y Fan horseshoe and works out at 17.8 effort points,
at the upper end of the moderate scale.

Bill's walk with Fran was 4.7km - 285m, so that rates as 7.6 effort
points, comfortably within the easy grade.

So what do you reckon, is this grading system acceptable? Should we
plan walks properly in advance and grade them accordingly?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> So what do you reckon, is this grading system acceptable? Should we
> plan walks properly in advance and grade them accordingly?
>
> Paul

Absolutely. Can your system also factor in such variables as how much
unecessary kit you are carrying in your pack and how hungover you are
from the night before?

Ian.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>
>Bill's walk with Fran was 4.7km - 285m, so that rates as 7.6 effort
>points, comfortably within the easy grade.

As an ad hoc effort it was a lovely walk - never mind the formula. In
any case the formula hardly applied to Emily and Nicky - they probably
did a Very Hard walk. (Nicky did scamper about like mountain goat even
when we were glad to see the car park :)
>
>So what do you reckon, is this grading system acceptable? Should we
>plan walks properly in advance and grade them accordingly?

You are keen to get the expedition rationalised, and more power to your
elbow, but I'm a bit sceptical about formula walking. Agreed it may well
give a person some indication about the potential effort required, but
where does the formula tell us how nice a walk is.

There are a few walks around which one could do in the various
categories, but would one want to do the walks simply because of the
effort or lack of effort required.

For example - a walk to Fan Brycheiniog would require more effort than
one to Llyn-y-Fan Fawr. Personally I would prefer the Brycheiniog walk
even though it requires more effort.

Your points system has a lot going for it, but surely there has to be
another included factor - the desirability factor. Given two similar
walks in respect to effort points, you probably would prefer the one
with the better photographic potential.

I'm not criticising your attempts but perhaps trying to see if an even
better system can be evolved.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
 
W. D. Grey <[email protected]> wrote
>
>I'm not criticising your attempts but perhaps trying to see if an even
>better system can be evolved.

If you want something complicated, leave it to Paul. :)

A = 12m or over

B = 9 to 12m

C = 5 to 8m

If there are any contours lines crossed - forget it!
--
Gordon
 
Gordon wrote:

> If you want something complicated, leave it to Paul. :)

Why thank you...

> A = 12m or over
>
> B = 9 to 12m
>
> C = 5 to 8m

Ah, so these are the classifications they use?

> If there are any contours lines crossed - forget it!

Unfortunately, where hillwalking is concerned, the contours are usually
more relevant than the distance. Take C for example.

On the Gower coast, 5-8 miles is an easy bimble.

In the Brecon Beacons, 5-8 miles is a decent walk.

On the Snowdon Horseshoe, 5-8 miles is a bloody hard walk.

To take an extreme example, climb Tryfan. Only 2.3 miles for the entire
route back to the car. 2000ft of ascent though, straight up!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
W. D. Grey wrote:

>> Bill's walk with Fran was 4.7km - 285m, so that rates as 7.6 effort
>> points, comfortably within the easy grade.
>
> As an ad hoc effort it was a lovely walk - never mind the formula.

The formula has nothing to do with the quality of the walk.

> In
> any case the formula hardly applied to Emily and Nicky - they probably
> did a Very Hard walk.

Indeed. So are you suggesting we add an inside leg measurement into the
formula? ;-)

> You are keen to get the expedition rationalised, and more power to
> your elbow, but I'm a bit sceptical about formula walking. Agreed it
> may well give a person some indication about the potential effort
> required, but where does the formula tell us how nice a walk is.

It doesn't. It's not supposed to. It's just a way of getting an idea
of the likely effort involved. It also doesn't take into account the
roughness of the ground, the weather conditions, how fit you are, how
much you carry or how much you had to drink the night before, so at best
it can only be a very rough guide. But a rough guide is better than
nothing at all. And a formula that includes ascent is much better than
one that only considers distance.

The great thing is that software like Anquet allows us to estimate this
very easily.

> There are a few walks around which one could do in the various
> categories, but would one want to do the walks simply because of the
> effort or lack of effort required.

You're putting the cart before the horse Bill. The idea is not to plan
walks that fit the formula, but to plan walks that look interesting.
Then we can apply the formula to see what grade they fall into.

> For example - a walk to Fan Brycheiniog would require more effort than
> one to Llyn-y-Fan Fawr. Personally I would prefer the Brycheiniog
> walk even though it requires more effort.

Of course, but if you felt that the overall effort was beyond your
capabilities then walking up to the lake would be the next best thing.
In this case you are comparing an easy walk with a moderate walk.
Obviously you can handle a moderate walk, but Fran and co may not.
She'd still enjoy a walk up to the lake though.

The advantage of the grading system is not to force you to avoid doing a
harder walk that you *are* capable of, but to help you avoid doing a
harder walk that you *aren't* capable of. So it's not a question of
whether you'd prefer to do a harder walk, but whether you physically
can.

In retrospect I realise now that I couldn't have done the full planned
walk on the weekend, but I didn't realise it at the time because we
hadn't worked out the numbers. Four people turned back early on that
walk. If we'd all known the numbers beforehand we might have planned an
easier grade walk instead and had a separate "moderate" group.

> Your points system has a lot going for it, but surely there has to be
> another included factor - the desirability factor.

No, I don't think so. That's not what the formula is about. It's
simply an estimate of the effort involved. How could you rate
desirability anyway? There are too many factors to consider and
different people consider different things desirable. I'd add
desirability points for scrambling, Judith would subtract them. There's
no way a desirability system could work IMO.

> Given two similar
> walks in respect to effort points, you probably would prefer the one
> with the better photographic potential.

Of course, but how could you measure that? A brilliant photographic
walk could be **** in bad weather, while a supposedly boring walk could
yield excellent photographs if you get good weather conditions (this has
happened to me). So much depends on the weather. It also depends what
you want to photograph. A forest walk could be deadly boring from one
point of view, but present excellent opportunities for say mushroom
photography in the right season.

I really don't think you can rate desirablity, there are too many
different factors and too many different opinions.

To turn your question around, given two similar walks in respect of
photographic potential, would you prefer a moderate walk or a hard walk?
That's a more likely situation. In Snowdonia you're going to have great
photo opportunities wherever you go, whether the walk is hard or not.

> I'm not criticising your attempts but perhaps trying to see if an even
> better system can be evolved.

It may be possible for a particular individual with very specific
desirability requirements, but I doubt that any desirability system
could suit a whole group.

The main reason for rating walks by effort is simply to avoid the
problem of the hares and the tortoises taking part in the same walk.
Desirability is not the problem, fast and slow walkers are the problem.
A grading system for walks would help to split walkers of different
abilities up and provide a better walking experience for everyone.

Naturally all walks would be planned to be as desirable as possible,
whatever their grading.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Paul Saunders <[email protected]> wrote
>Gordon wrote:
>
>> If you want something complicated, leave it to Paul. :)
>
>Why thank you...
>
>> A = 12m or over
>>
>> B = 9 to 12m
>>
>> C = 5 to 8m
>
>Ah, so these are the classifications they use?
>
I have no idea!

>> If there are any contours lines crossed - forget it!
>
>Unfortunately, where hillwalking is concerned, the contours are usually
>more relevant than the distance. Take C for example.
>
>On the Gower coast, 5-8 miles is an easy bimble.
>
Probably,

>In the Brecon Beacons, 5-8 miles is a decent walk.
>
It is almost anywhere!

>On the Snowdon Horseshoe, 5-8 miles is a bloody hard walk.

That's not a walk.
>
>To take an extreme example, climb Tryfan. Only 2.3 miles for the entire
>route back to the car. 2000ft of ascent though, straight up!
>
That's unclassified. ;-)
--
Gordon
 
W. D. Grey <[email protected]> wrote
>In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
><[email protected]> writes
>>You're putting the cart before the horse Bill. The idea is not to plan
>>walks that fit the formula, but to plan walks that look interesting.
>>Then we can apply the formula to see what grade they fall into.
>
>And if the prescribed walk exceed the fitness required according to the
>formula, then you redesign the walk I suppose.
>
>Paul, why bash your brains out on all this pseudo technical stuff - it
>gets you nowhere. Get out and enjoy walking some time - too much PC
>stuff is not good for you.

You can't change people, Bill, Paul will always get deeply into the fine
detail of anything, that's why he's an exceptional photographer, whilst
I'm just satisfied with what I take.

I spent 21 years in computers, and remember team planning meetings for
complex and risky projects, where I used to say "But what if we can't do
X, supposing it just doesn't work? The boss always said "Look, don't
worry about the fine detail, we have people with the expertise to make
it work, and if we haven't, we'll find them"!

He proved to be correct every time, and I learned to leave the clever
stuff to the boffins, and concentrate on my humble contribution. :)

I glance at the map, plot the route, have a general look at the contours
covered, and assess whether it is within my capabilities. Innocent,
undulating terrain can soon sap your strength as much as a straight
climb, and is more deceptive, but if I had to apply mathematics to
determine the maximum walk I could achieve, I would need to know how to
factor in the unexpected.

How does Naismith do that?

Of course , when I was 40 and just starting hill climbing I followed a
leader up the Langdales, the Coniston Fells, Striding Edge, and later
did Sharp Edge with a small group of my own ability level.

Everyone is different, and age takes it's toll at different rates on
different people.

How does Naismith deal with that problem?
Or is his Rule calculated on the average walker, who doesn't actually
exist?

(Stand by for technical diatribe). ;-)
--
Gordon
 
W. D. Grey wrote:

>> plan walks that look
>> interesting. Then we can apply the formula to see what grade they
>> fall into.
>
> And if the prescribed walk exceed the fitness required according to
> the formula, then you redesign the walk I suppose.

The formula doesn't require anything, it just gives you a rough idea how
hard a walk may be. You could redesign it if you want, but many walks
are what they are. The Snowdon Horseshoe is a well defined route. The
formula gives you an idea how much effort is involved (23.2). If it's
too hard for you, don't do it. You can't shorten it. You can't force a
hard walk into the easy category.

Other walks can have many variations, so you can choose a variation that
suits you.

The point is not to make walks fit a particular effort level, but to
choose walks from the effort level you are interested in. So we'd plan
a few walks of various lengths, each of which would fall into a
particular category, then those who want to do a moderate walk would
choose one from that category, those who want to do a hard walk would
choose one from a different category and so on.

It's all about choice, the choice of different walks of different effort
levels. It's not about forcing square pegs into round holes. You can't
turn a hard walk into an easy one, but you can choose a different walk
instead.

> Paul, why bash your brains out on all this pseudo technical stuff

Because you were complaining about the expedition walks being too hard.
You were saying that there was a hard walk and an easy walk and nothing
in between. I'm just trying to be helpful in figuring out a simple
system to rate walks in advance, so that people have a better idea of
what they're letting themselves in for and can choose a walk to suit.

Besides, I'm not bashing my brains out. It's dead easy to do this, all
it takes is a minute or two in Anquet. You just draw a route quickly
and add a couple of numbers together.

> - it gets you nowhere.

On the contrary, it can save a lot of time and effort, which is the
whole point. I'm sure that a number of us wouldn't have done the
Saturday walk if we'd known how hard it would be in advance. We'd
probably have planned a moderate walk instead, which you could have
joined in on.

> Get out and enjoy walking some time

I'd love to, but I'm dying with a cold at the moment.

> - too much PC stuff is not good for you.

Depends whether you like computers or not. I love computers. It would
take far longer to work this out without a computer. That would be
bashing my brains out. Waddel did all the hard work in figuring out his
effort formula, I've just simplified it. Describing a walk as one
number rather than two simply makes it much easier to compare different
walks. The effort number is simply a kilometre equivalent - the number
of kilometres you'd have to walk on flat ground to consume the same
energy.

For example, some walks that you are familiar with (measurements in
imperial);

Bannau Sir Gaer - 5.5 miles, 1800ft
Fan Brycheiniog & Fan Foel - 5.5 miles, 1500ft
Disgwylfa & Carreg Goch - 5.3 miles, 1400ft
Cefn Cul - 2.1 miles, 625ft
Fan Frynych - 4.6 miles, 975ft
Y Gyrn, Corn Du & Pen y Fan - 5.2 miles, 1725ft
Graig Ola - 2.8 miles, 625ft

Using the simple point system to compare those walks;

Grade 2 - 14.4 Bannau Sir Gaer
Grade 2 - 13.6 Pen y Fan
Grade 2 - 13.5 Fan Brycheiniog
Grade 2 - 12.8 Carreg Goch
Grade 2 - 10.5 Fan Frynych
Grade 1 - 6.5 Graig Ola
Grade 1 - 5.3 Cefn Cul

Adding a few Snowdonia walks to help put this into context;

Grade 4 - 33.1 Creigiau Gleision (expedition 15) full walk
Grade 3 - 23.2 Snowdon Horseshoe (scrambling involved)
Grade 2 - 19.0 Tryfan & the Glyders (scrambling involved)
Grade 2 - 17.8 Creigiau Gleision shortened walk (Paul & Judith)
Grade 1 - 7.6 Llyn Idwal (Bill & Fran)

Note that two of the above walks involve scrambling, which makes them
much more difficult than normal walking. This is where the grading
system breaks down. There are so many other factors to consider that
this grading system is only a rough guide at best.

Note however that the formula does not rate technical difficulty, it
rates effort, so although some walks may be technically difficult, that
doesn't necessarily mean that they expend more energy.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> W. D. Grey wrote:
>
> >> plan walks that look
> >> interesting. Then we can apply the formula to see what grade they
> >> fall into.
> >
> > And if the prescribed walk exceed the fitness required according to
> > the formula, then you redesign the walk I suppose.
>
> The formula doesn't require anything, it just gives you a rough idea how
> hard a walk may be. You could redesign it if you want, but many walks
> are what they are. The Snowdon Horseshoe is a well defined route. The
> formula gives you an idea how much effort is involved (23.2). If it's
> too hard for you, don't do it. You can't shorten it. You can't force a
> hard walk into the easy category.
>
> Other walks can have many variations, so you can choose a variation that
> suits you.
>
> The point is not to make walks fit a particular effort level, but to
> choose walks from the effort level you are interested in. So we'd plan
> a few walks of various lengths, each of which would fall into a
> particular category, then those who want to do a moderate walk would
> choose one from that category, those who want to do a hard walk would
> choose one from a different category and so on.


One should also add that this thread is also somewhat unusual in actually
being on-topic for the newgroup - it should therefore be encouraged! I can't
see anything wrong in posting a method for grading walks on a walking
newsgroup. As he implies - if you aren't interested, don't bother reading
it! Personally a comparative list of walks I have done or might do, with a
grading, would be of passing interest. Sometimes those of us blessed with a
family try to gauge the difficulty of a walk before telling our children how
difficult it would be - a measure of the effort involved would actually be
quite useful.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gordon wrote:
>
> > but if I had to apply
> > mathematics to determine the maximum walk I could achieve, I would
> > need to know how to factor in the unexpected.
>
> There are too many factors. A rough guide is the best you can hope for.
>
> > How does Naismith do that?
>
> He doesn't. And it's important to note that Naismith's formula is an
> estimate of time, not effort. The two are not the same thing. It's
> possible to do a harder walk more quickly than an easier one.
>
> > Everyone is different, and age takes it's toll at different rates on
> > different people.
> >
> > How does Naismith deal with that problem?
>
> He doesn't deal with it. Tranter applied corrections to it based on
> fitness level, but even that didn't take into account things like how
> heavy your rucksack is or what the weather is like.

You can deal with it yourself rather tha using Tranter, it's not rocket
science - I often use OFP when calculating routes (Old Fart's Pace) which is
4km/hr and 45mins/300m as this (often) suits the level of fitness of people
I am with (not me obviously, being an all round athlete, ho ho). Yes, it's
only a rough guide, but, if you use a proper routeplan and fill in the
numbers,

a) you can plan your day, rendezvous etc., better
b) you can tell people when to worry about you
c) you can fulfil your obligations to others in the party (if you are the
most experienced) by matching the outing to their capabilities

Naturally, if you are on your own, prefer freedom and are prepared for and
accept the consequences, you can just set off and enjoy yourself without
knowing what route you are taking or how long you will be and I wouldn't
want to stop anyone doing that if that's their thing.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
 
Bob Mannix wrote:

> You can deal with it yourself rather tha using Tranter, it's not
> rocket science - I often use OFP when calculating routes (Old Fart's
> Pace) which is 4km/hr and 45mins/300m as this (often) suits the level
> of fitness of people I am with

That sounds more like my usual pace, but not including stops.

I just checked Saturday's walk in Anquet and by fiddling with the
Naismith numbers I got the correct time for my version of the walk by
using 3kph and 300m per hour. Mind you, that did include rests, and one
rest stop was pretty long.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>Because you were complaining about the expedition walks being too hard.

UI do not complain that they are too hard - I accept they are too hard,
no point in complaining is there. No one takes any notice anyway. It is
a fact that others do think the same way but go along and fail rather
than try something more suitable.

OK if you think I'm complaining, why do you think I came in the first
place. It would be nice to have other slightly lesser walks available,
but no one is interested even though some of the participants obviously
would have been happier doing a lesser walk. There's a bit of hypocrisy
going on here somewhere.

I admire Roger for his ability to do longer harder walks than I,and I
would never be accused of holding him up by pretending I could keep up
with him. At least I'm honest about that. I don't get involved with his
walks and quit later. If some of the group were more honest about their
ability then perhaps the true essence of the expedition would be
evident.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
 
The message <[email protected]>
from Gordon <[email protected]> contains these words:

> Everyone is different, and age takes it's toll at different rates on
> different people.

> How does Naismith deal with that problem?
> Or is his Rule calculated on the average walker, who doesn't actually
> exist?

If you search this ng for previous years you will probably find the
message in which I quoted the origin of Naismiths Rule. I cannot now
remember the exact wording but Naismith reported in the SMC journal some
time in the closing decades of the 19th century that he had discovered a
rule that was surprising successful in calculating the overall time for
a full days walk in the hills. Part at least of its success is that a
full days walk for the average walker is but a half day outing for the
hard man. ISTR that the walk Naismith used as an example included over
6000 feet of ascent. Personally I usually find these days when I am out
on my own that Naismith is a good enough guide without modification.
Sundays walk is a good example (if rather short to be considered a full
days walk). 9.09 miles and 3000 feet of ascent in 4 hours 26 minutes.
Naismith 4 hours 32 minutes.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 39 summits
New - 22 (Marilyns 8, Sweats 5, Outlying Fells 11)
Repeats - 17( Marilyns 6, Sweats 12, Wainwrights 11)
Knackered knee - 4 times
 
W. D. Grey wrote:

> UI do not complain that they are too hard - I accept they are too
> hard, no point in complaining is there. No one takes any notice
> anyway. It is a fact that others do think the same way but go along
> and fail rather than try something more suitable.

If they really do think the same way then why didn't they suggest
something easier? It's not my fault if people don't make suggestions.
Myself and Roger are the only ones who did make suggestions for the
weekend. My suggestion was a response to Roger's and was intended to be
shorter and easier, although it didn't quite work out that way -
probably because it wasn't measured properly beforehand. Biggles
originally estimated it to be just 8 miles.

Besides, people rarely "fail" on the expedition walks. Everyone walked
the 11 miles across the Rhinogs and no-one dropped out. We've had very
few actual "failures".

I admit to failing on the Saturday walk because my leg muscles started
playing up (which was very unusual), and Judith was happy to take the
opportunity to turn back with me. Phil and Paul then turned back to
follow us after bagging the next summit, but I'm pretty sure they could
have continued to the end of the ridge and probably would have if we
hadn't turned back. It was only 2km more to the end of the ridge, with
hardly any more ascent. Without my unexpected muscle problem I'd
certainly have done the whole ridge myself, and probably the others too.

Having reached the end of the ridge a number of of us would certainly
have taken the easier option of returning along the edge of the
reservoir rather than scaling the last summit (an option which was
planned beforehand), so the walk was not as extreme as you are assuming.
Most of the extra distance came from unnecessary road walking which
could have been avoided with better planning, specifically if we'd
started from Capel Curig instead.

> OK if you think I'm complaining, why do you think I came in the first
> place. It would be nice to have other slightly lesser walks available,
> but no one is interested even though some of the participants
> obviously would have been happier doing a lesser walk. There's a bit
> of hypocrisy going on here somewhere.

You say that some "would have been happier doing a lesser walk" yet "no
one is interested", That's a contradiction. I suspect that the former
is true in retrospect, but the fact is that no-one really knew how hard
the walk was going to be beforehand. I also suspect that the bad
weather was a factor in persuading some to turn back. In good weather
there'd have been more incentive to continue.

I tend to think that the pace was probably more of an issue than the
distance. That may well have been what caused my muscle problems. Had
I been doing that walk alone I'd have been walking at a much slower
pace, and could probably have completed the whole walk. Roger, David &
Martin do tend to walk at quite a fast pace, or at least they don't stop
for rests so often (if ever!). I think that's the big difference with
the fitter walkers, they don't just walk further, they walk faster and
stop less often. This quickly tires out the less able walkers who could
probably walk a lot further if they took more time over it. An early
start, a plodding pace and frequent rests would be an ideal recipe for a
long walk IMO, although it would probably bore Roger & Co to tears.

> I admire Roger for his ability to do longer harder walks than I,and I
> would never be accused of holding him up by pretending I could keep up
> with him. At least I'm honest about that. I don't get involved with
> his walks and quit later. If some of the group were more honest about
> their ability then perhaps the true essence of the expedition would
> be evident.

The true essence depends to a large extent on who turns up and thus
varies from one expedition to the next. The character of the "wild"
expeditions has been very different to the ones on proper camp sites.

Anyway, the problem, as ever, comes down to planning beforehand. This
expedition was unusual in that no-one really seemed interested in
suggesting any walks, but even on other expeditions, the tendency, as
you say, does tend to be that long walks get emphasised. All it takes
is for people to make suggestions for shorter walks, there's no shame in
that. We just need to try to emphasise "moderate" walks in future and
try to encourage others to join in who may otherwise be staying away
because the thought of doing a long walk discourages them.

BTW, I hope that those who weren't there aren't getting the impression
that the weekend was a bad one for any reason. The walks could have
been better planned but we all had a good time. Even though I had to
turn back I thoroughly enjoyed the walk up to that point.

More photos very soon.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
Roger <[email protected]> wrote
>
>If you search this ng for previous years you will probably find the
>message in which I quoted the origin of Naismiths Rule. I cannot now
>remember the exact wording but Naismith reported in the SMC journal some
>time in the closing decades of the 19th century that he had discovered a
>rule that was surprising successful in calculating the overall time for
>a full days walk in the hills. Part at least of its success is that a
>full days walk for the average walker is but a half day outing for the
>hard man. ISTR that the walk Naismith used as an example included over
>6000 feet of ascent. Personally I usually find these days when I am out
>on my own that Naismith is a good enough guide without modification.
>Sundays walk is a good example (if rather short to be considered a full
>days walk). 9.09 miles and 3000 feet of ascent in 4 hours 26 minutes.
>Naismith 4 hours 32 minutes.
>
A nine mile walk would take me about 5hrs these days, but with a much
more modest ascent! Most walks tend to be about 4 hrs 30 anyway,
regardless of distance, because on a shorter walk we tend to use the
time to soak up the view and enjoy the whole experience, rather than get
back to the car sooner. If we are doing nine miles we would keep
moving.
--
Gordon
 
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>The true essence depends to a large extent on who turns up and thus
>varies from one expedition to the next. The character of the "wild"
>expeditions has been very different to the ones on proper camp sites.

The only "wild" expedition of which I have any knowledge was the one
last October. I feel that I contributed in my own way to some
considerable extent ( and enjoyed so doing) even though I didn't do
your walk. For me it was good to meet the "new" lads and then for Roger
to turn up and for me to meet Phil again albeit on his departure from
the site. The attendees obviously affect the outcome of an expedition.
Make no mistake I thoroughly enjoyed last weekend - as I've previously
said the social event was a total success.
>
>Anyway, the problem, as ever, comes down to planning beforehand. This
>expedition was unusual in that no-one really seemed interested in
>suggesting any walks, but even on other expeditions, the tendency, as
>you say, does tend to be that long walks get emphasised.
....and herein lies the problem. Without appearing to place any place any
responsibility for these more "strenuous/long" walks an anyone in
particular, these are the predominant suggestions and do have the effect
of leaving some out in the cold.

> All it takes
>is for people to make suggestions for shorter walks, there's no shame in
>that. We just need to try to emphasise "moderate" walks in future and
>try to encourage others to join in who may otherwise be staying away
>because the thought of doing a long walk discourages them.

It would take some bottle to suggest a short route in such gatherings so
stuffed with testosterone - you have to agree. If I suggested another
walk less than the one on the table I would be in a minority of 1
>
>BTW, I hope that those who weren't there aren't getting the impression
>that the weekend was a bad one for any reason. The walks could have
>been better planned but we all had a good time.
Hear! Hear! I've already stated as such.

>Even though I had to
>turn back I thoroughly enjoyed the walk up to that point.
For you that must have been hard to bear - now perhaps the lack of
energy feeling gives you an insight into the problem I had at Pont-Neath
Vaughan when I had to stop.
>
>More photos very soon.

Looking forward to them.

--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
 
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:38:23 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The character of the "wild"
>expeditions has been very different to the ones on proper camp sites.

I'm a convert to wild camping but do have to plod (more than usual)
because of the weight on my back.

On a URW wild camping exped, would you all still bag peaks or do you
do a flatter walk? What have you done in the past? I don't know how
many wild expeds there have been.

Judith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back