I’ve been wondering why my times are often way out compared to what Anquet predicts for the various summits I’ve been activating. Ascent times are sort of OK. Obviously if the terrain is awful (ie Dumfries & Galloway!) then of course the ascent times predicted are often too short but sadly Anquet, and all the other map programmes have height data but not bog/heather/bracken/daft animals data. But the greatest anomaly is with descent times where it often takes me much, much longer than predicted. This is especially so on the more steep descents which seems logical.
I’ve just checked and the reason is obvious as Anquet has Naismith’s rule set up for ascent but no descent factor. I have mine set for 5.0km/h for flat ground and an ascent of 600m adds 1hr to the time. As I’ve said, on OK ground I can meet the ascent times and even though I’m still 20kg more than my doctor would like me to weigh, I can often beat the predictions and that’s with 12-14kg of backpack! A quick google suggests that adding 10m for each 300m descended when the slope is steeper than 12degs. I’ve set that in and looking at the maps for routes I’ve done the increase in time feels ‘ok-ish’. Of course the time factor for more gentle slopes is different. I’d rather have the predicted time be longer than shorter as it gives more flexibility if I’m ahead of schedule.
What I really want to know is what values are other activators using? Or are many of you just bimbling along without too many worries?