[pct-l] (no subject)

[Mike Saenz]

Yeah, that slope is pretty steep. It's been re-routed, though, to
switchback a couple times to reduce the slope, but it still feels like a
grunt to get up to Spitler from Fobes Saddle.
I've heard that that piece of steep is the steepest on the PCT? Luckily,
it's only a short run.

Michael  Saenz
Associate Partner

MVE & Partners, Inc. | Architecture + Planning + Interiors 
Irvine + Oakland + Honolulu

1900 Main Street, Suite 800 | Irvine, California 92614-7318 | T
949.809.3388 | www.mve-architects.com

-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net
[mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net] On Behalf Of Steve Courtway
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:09 PM
To: pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] (no subject)

Maximum grade on the PCT is 15% to accomodate horse travel.

I'd swear the approach to Apache Peak on Mt. San Jacinto is alot steeper

then that though.



Regards,

Steve Courtway
BPA Architecture Planning & Interiors
(858) 453-1200 x128
(858) 453-1913 fax
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Saenz" <msaenz at mve-architects.com>
To: "Steve Courtway" <scourtway at bpa-arch.com>; <Slyatpct at aol.com>
Cc: <pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: RE: [pct-l] (no subject)


> Getting WAY of topic, but:
>
> Mathematically speaking, a perfectly vertical surface isn't a "slope"
by
> definition (it's all coming back to me now!), therefore there would be
> no gradient, or it would be an "undefined slope".
>
> But to pull this back on-topic:
>
> The PCT seems to always be the same grade... I think I heard once that
> this is by design. Granted, some parts of the trail are obviously
> steeper than others, but overall, the average slope is usually
somewhere
> around (in my rough estimation) 6-8%. Is there any definitive info on
> this?
>
> Michael  Saenz
> Associate Partner
>
> MVE & Partners, Inc. | Architecture + Planning + Interiors
> Irvine + Oakland + Honolulu
>
> 1900 Main Street, Suite 800 | Irvine, California 92614-7318 | T
> 949.809.3388 | www.mve-architects.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Courtway [mailto:scourtway at bpa-arch.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:48 AM
> To: Slyatpct at aol.com; Mike Saenz
> Cc: pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] (no subject)
>
> Trying to divide a vertical rise by no run results in a.........
>
>
> divide by zero error !!!
>
>
> s.c.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Slyatpct at aol.com>
> To: <msaenz at mve-architects.com>
> Cc: <pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] (no subject)
>
>
>>
>> You still got it, but I'm still confused.  If I were to climb El
> Capitan
>> at
>> a 90 degree angle (right?), what would the gradient be?
>>
>> Sly
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 2/13/2007 2:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>> msaenz at mve-architects.com writes:
>>
>> A 45 DEGREE ANGLE  does not equate to a 50% gradient. 1 unit rise in
1
>
>> unit
>> run = 1/1=1 (100%),  so a 45 degree angle, half a 90 degree angle
> (your "
>> straight up") is 100%  gradient.
>> Yeah... I still got  it!
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pct-l mailing list
>> pct-l at backcountry.net
>> unsubscribe or change options:
>> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>>
>
> 

_______________________________________________
pct-l mailing list
pct-l at backcountry.net
unsubscribe or change options:
http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l