Thru Hike Pack Weight - Quality of pack a factor? [Archive] - WhiteBlaze

Socrates

01-05-2007, 09:26

Johnny Swank

01-05-2007, 09:39

That's a load of crap, to a point. Carry less weight and you can use a glorified bookbag if you want. That's the real key. I have that pack and used it for about 700 miles of backpacking before realizing all my crap was beating me down. 40 pounds is 40 pounds.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you should go backpacking and getting some experience before trying to thru-hike. When the rubber meets the road, your gear has very little to do with actually finishing a thru-hike.

KG4FAM

01-05-2007, 09:40

40 lbs is 40 lbs no matter how you carry it. a good pack will transfer the load better and you will not feel it on your back as much, but it will not make any differance on your feet, knees, and legs. i carry a dana pack also, but i use the comfort factor to carry the weight if i have to, not because i can. i have carried one of those massive 10 man family carcamp tents on my little bomb pack for about a mile one time and was comfortable, but if still weighed a ton. just because i can doesn't mean i am going to do it for six months.

stumpknocker

01-05-2007, 09:42

terrapin_too

01-05-2007, 10:02

To a point. My ancient Mountainsmith Frostfire had a magnificent suspension. But the pack itself weighed over seven pounds. My GG Vapor Trails has a much flimsier suspension.. but weighs 2 lbs. In the middle is my ancient and beloved Camp Trails, at 4 lbs -- as comfy as any external frame pack can be. As you carry less load, the need for (and the role of) the suspension diminishes. And that's really where all this is heading.

Socrates

01-05-2007, 10:10

Johnny - In my defense, I've been raised in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee and have always enjoyed getting dirty, scraped up, and romping through the woods. I've hiked moutains in Hawaii so steep that death would have been a welcome embrace, but I pushed on and the views from the top made it worth every pain. My knowledge of equipment for a thru hike may be minimal, but my love for nature and strength to endure have been present long before my notion of hiking the AT. I'm no "city slicker" by any means. But you didn't know that so I understand your concern. Thanks.

Tipi Walter

01-05-2007, 10:11

Hello! My other thread consists more on the topic of gear options, but I found that that the overall concern ultimately led back to the overall weight of my pack while hiking.
So I've done some investigation and have READ that my Dana Design Glacier pack is designed for heavier loads in such a way that any given weight would seem heavier if it were in a pack of less quality. (I can only assume they mean padding and suspension system and such.)
I don't have another pack with me to compare it to so I was wondering what you think of this theory?
I loaded it to about 40 pounds and still felt comfortable with it on my back. So while one person may think a load that heavy would be torture, maybe he/she would change their mind if their pack was just designed differently?
Food for thought... ~ Socrates

I've heard this before, just can't remember if it was McHale who said it or Dana Gleason. Dana's new packs(Mystery Ranch), the G series, are big packs made for long trips without resupply hence they can haul up to 100 pounds. In fact, his biggest pack has been tested by the Navy SEALS and they decided to go with it as they found very few packs that could haul the 125 pounds they need to carry on missions.

So when Dana Gleason designed his big pack hipbelt he made it in such a way as to make a heavy load seem lighter with weight distribution, wrap around belt, etc. I routinely carry 75 pounds on long winter trips and use a Dana Terraplane model, the big brother to the Bridger, I think(or maybe it's the Glacier).

AT backpacking is a specialized form of backpacking where light small volume packs make sense since resupply comes often and predictably. But there is another important type of backpacking inwhich a person goes out for 3 weeks or more into a remote wilderness without resupply and so must have a large pack.

The AT could be seen in this light and an attempt could be made to spend 3 weeks on it without resupply(or town trips)thereby carrying a much heavier pack, but most nylon pumpers would laugh at such a thought.

terrapin_too

01-05-2007, 10:22

The AT could be seen in this light and an attempt could be made to spend 3 weeks on it without resupply(or town trips)thereby carrying a much heavier pack, but most nylon pumpers would laugh at such a thought.

ISTM that's where a lot of the thinking has changed over the years. If you read all the journals in that ancient & huge Rodale Press anthology, you might get the sense of a thru-hike as an expedition. But if you observe current thru-hikers or serious section hikers in practice, you get an entirely different view. Lots of partying, frequent town stops, AYCE buffets, slackpacks, cell phones, etc. Walking the AT in certain parts of NY and CT, it's really hard to think of it as wilderness.

You can walk the trail and pretend that none of that stuff exists, I suppose. But that would take more self-delusion and cognitive dissonance than even I'm capable of. ;)

hopefulhiker

01-05-2007, 10:27

The weight is still going to bear down on your knees and ankles no matter how you distribute it. The main question is whether to put it on your hips or put it on your shoulders

Lone Wolf

01-05-2007, 10:31

Yo Socrates, if I were you I'd just take your pack, load it up with what you want and hit the trail. You've got too many experts telling you what to do. You shouldn't ask any more gear questions

TREE-HUGGER

01-05-2007, 10:35

Your getting good advice from everyone. 40 lbs is 40lbs. Design of the pack has nothing to do with making a load feel lighter. It will be more balanced and more comfortable to your hips and shouilders. I owned "12"
Dana Glaciers at one time when I was guiding 5 and 10 days trips in Northern Maine, and I chose them for my clients because they are a super comfortable pack. If you want to keep the pack, make everything else as light as possible and you will really have a high level of comfort. But when you do this, you will have a fair amount of extra room in your pack. Most folks who have thru hiked had quality packs and they would tell you,"Save every ounce you can". Remember, keep a little money to the side and plan an extra day at Neels Gap.

Peaks

01-05-2007, 10:36

I don't know if it's quality, but several internal frame packs are designed to carry a certain maximum weight. Overload the pack, the the frame doesn't support the load well, and perhaps the seams or fabric will fail quicker. Considering the beating that all equipment takes on a thru-hike, I'd rather have a pack rated for say, 40 pounds, and carry 30 pounds rather than use a 30 pound capacity pack to carry 30 pounds.

terrapin_too

01-05-2007, 10:38

You shouldn't ask any more gear questions

No, of course not! Better to arrive at Springer loaded like pack mule and leave the trail at Suches... forever. Less traffic that way.

Tipi Walter

01-05-2007, 10:41

ISTM that's where a lot of the thinking has changed over the years. If you read all the journals in that ancient & huge Rodale Press anthology, you might get the sense of a thru-hike as an expedition. But if you observe current thru-hikers or serious section hikers in practice, you get an entirely different view. Lots of partying, frequent town stops, AYCE buffets, slackpacks, cell phones, etc. Walking the AT in certain parts of NY and CT, it's really hard to think of it as wilderness.

You can walk the trail and pretend that none of that stuff exists, I suppose. But that would take more self-delusion and cognitive dissonance than even I'm capable of. ;)

The two volume set, "Hiking The Appalachian Trail" captivated me years ago and way before online journals it was the best read anywhere. I think of 3 time thruhiker Dorothy Laker and her heads of lettuce and cabbage she wanted to carry. She's in her late 70s now living in Florida, I think. Isn't Eric Ryback in there, too? First Man to Walk The Pacific Crest Trail or some such stuff. And good old Elmer Onstott who ate only raisins and sunflower seeds. You're right, back then the trail was like an expedition and though they still for the most part carried fairly light gear(Grandma Gatewood comes to mind)they sure didn't socialize much and hardly went into towns.

Lone Wolf

01-05-2007, 10:42

No, of course not! Better to arrive at Springer loaded like pack mule and leave the trail at Suches... forever. Less traffic that way.

Or get to Suches with not enuf stuff, frozen and starving and leave the trail forever.

Johnny Swank

01-05-2007, 10:44

That's a great set of books and I'd love to get ahold of them for my personal collection. Those early hikes were a far cry from what's going on now.

Socrates

01-05-2007, 10:49

Wolf - As far as I know, I've only asked 2. One thread for a gear checklist and the other to see how others felt about the design of different backpacks which I thought would be educating to others as well. I certainly didn't come here for the approval of anyone. Are you insinuating that there are so many opinions that they're like buttholes... Everbody has one? Or are you insinuating that I'm not listening to their advice?

yappy

01-05-2007, 10:51

I am on board with the wolfster.. pack the pack, as smartly as you can, and start hiking... it will evolve over the next few days and weeks....don't worry too much about it. Everyone goes thur this.. just bring your common sense,imagination, inner strength and optimism and you will have a great chance of making it.

Tipi Walter

01-05-2007, 10:52

That's a great set of books and I'd love to get ahold of them for my personal collection. Those early hikes were a far cry from what's going on now.

Many pubic libraries carry them and the university library at Appalachian State in Boone has the two volume set. They ought to reissue them in paperback form - it would be a great backpacking book.

Lone Wolf

01-05-2007, 10:52

I certainly didn't come here for the approval of anyone. Are you insinuating that there are so many opinions that they're like buttholes... Everbody has one?

Pretty much. I got to Neel Gap my first time loaded down with 40+ lbs. and didn't buy any gear or send anything home.

bigcranky

01-05-2007, 10:52

Socrates,

Your analysis is correct, as far as it goes. If I load up 40 or 50 pounds in my old Gregory Shasta, and put the same load in my Six Moons Designs Starlite, the Shasta feels great and the Starlite feels like an angry monkey on my back. A really heavy angry monkey.

But there are two things working here. If my total load with my Shasta is 40 pounds (weight of pack + weight of contents), then the same gear in my Starlite is 35 pounds, since the Starlite weighs 5 pounds less empty than the Shasta. The Starlite starts to get comfortable at 35 pounds.

The second part of the pack equation is lightening the rest of your gear. If I drop my 6 pound tent in favor of a 2 pound tarptent, then my load in the Starlite is 31 pounds. You need to lighten the rest of your gear for a much lighter pack to work. I have seen several hikers (including my new partner) try to go to an ultralight frameless ruck while keeping all their regular gear. Trust me, this is painful.

That said, there is a large selection of packs in the 3-4 pound range that will carry the load well. Not 50+ pounds, but 40 isn't a stretch. The Osprey Aether 60 and the Atmos 50 or 65 are good choices. The Gregory G and Z packs too, along with a bunch of Granite Gear packs. (I'm missing some good packs on this list, sorry.) These packs all have padded hip belts and 'real' frames that put the weight on your hips. Oh, and I really like my Starlite (www.sixmoondesigns.com), which is a sub-2-pound pack with a real frame.

None of these packs will handle a traditional backpacking load -- heavy tent, giant heavy pad, 20-F synthetic bag, big white gas stove, tons of clothing, etc. You'll need to lighten up in some areas, though you already have started with your Jetboil and your WM down bag. With a smaller pack, you need to think more about your gear selection, and be careful what you take. (Which brings up another point -- if you have a big pack, there's always the temptation to add one more thing, just in case. Larger packs seem to beg to be filled all the way. Resistance is futile.)

So the point about the Dana packs carrying the load more comfortably is true -- if you have to carry a heavy load. We ran into a young hiker in Georgia at the Low Gap shelter who was carrying enough food to get to Hot Springs -- ouch. He had a huge pack, and needed it. You can do that, if you want, and you'll definitely want to take the Glacier in that case. But hiking the AT, as was pointed out above, is a special case, and you don't need the giant pack if you don't want it.

Hope this helps. Happy trails.

TREE-HUGGER

01-05-2007, 11:11

Yappy just told you the truth !

Socrates

01-05-2007, 11:12

This is all helpful info from everyone. Being a philospher, I love questions more than answers so I'm defintately enjoying the different views because it gives me plenty to think about. I'm not stressing over the issue, rather comtemplation is just so much fun!

terrapin_too

01-05-2007, 11:59

Or get to Suches with not enuf stuff, frozen and starving and leave the trail forever.

True enough, Wolf. I see problems with both extremes. And I've seen a lot of ill-equipped hikers who figured things out along the way, made adjustments, and did just fine. Still doesn't hurt to ask questions before you start. ;) Back when you & I started schlepping the AT, there was no Internet...

Lone Wolf

01-05-2007, 12:01

Back when you & I started schlepping the AT, there was no Internet...

And that was a damn good thing.

terrapin_too

01-05-2007, 12:02

And that was a damn good thing.

6,805 posts and you can say that with a straight face? ;)

Lone Wolf

01-05-2007, 12:05

6,805 posts and you can say that with a straight face? ;)

As far as gear and such. I've never asked for advice on here in all those posts. I do things my way. It works.

terrapin_too

01-05-2007, 12:06

As far as gear and such. I've never asked for advice on here in all those posts. I do things my way. It works.

..... For you.

yappy

01-05-2007, 12:14

here we go again.....:sun like the philosophy goes about hiker boxes... " take whatcha need and leave the rest ..".....and I am talking about your gear AND all the posts..you will find what works for you.. or you will go home... Just enjoy all of it... even the hard times.. keep it in perspective and NEVER EVER quit on a rainy, lonely and frustrating day.

terrapin_too

01-05-2007, 12:19

... NEVER EVER quit on a rainy, lonely and frustrating day.

By all means. If you're gonna quit, do it on a clear, cool day with a bright sun shining, birds chirping, and surrounded by supportive friends and well-wishers. :rolleyes:

4eyedbuzzard

01-05-2007, 13:44

Socrates,
As you have chosen such an enlightened moniker;) :
Your namesake is often credited with teaching and popularizing the concept of "everything in moderation" (including moderation :-? ). At the Temple of Delphi one of the the inscriptions at the Oracle reads "gnothi seauton" - "know thyself", with a better modern translation probably being "know your limitations"(Dirty Harry would approve).

To me, a true ultralight pack would probably leave too much weight of my shoulders. I need a pack to put as much weight as possible on my hips, below the L4-L5 disc which I have injured twice(know thyself). The 2 lb difference between raw pack weights from a frameless to a better framed and padded pack is more than made up for in carrying comfort and load transfer dynamics. At the same time a 6 lb+ pack is just too much dead weight. I love my old Super Tioga radial pack, Moss Stargazer tent, etc for backcountry camping, but at 6 lbs+ each they are way too heavy for a long AT hike given what is now available. I'd be looking to get to 7 lbs total for pack and tent/shelter/bug bivy, giving me approx a 10 - 11 lb load with sleeping bag/pad dependent upon temperatures/comfort. I think by applying common sense you can stay well within in the sub 20 lb range with cookgear, clothing, hygiene, first aid, etc. All the little "nice stuff" like extra dry socks, personal hygiene, clothing etc really adds up fast. This would give me enough "luxuries" to not feel like I was completely depriving myself just to make miles, and would leave 15 lbs for food/water in an internal with decent suspension, staying under 35 lbs wet and loaded out of a resupply. I know that I couldn't go the true minimalist route, it just wouldn't be enjoyable (TO ME! - HYOH).

rickb

01-05-2007, 21:37

40 lbs is 40 lbs no matter how you carry it.

By that logic loosing 10 pounds of beer gut would have the same effect as lowering your pack weight by a like amount. :-?

Drala Hiker

01-11-2007, 23:53

To what 4eyedbuzzard had to say in regards to how one's body reacts to carrying weight, I will add wear and tear on joints. Specifically, the knees. I know first hand, as I recently had surgery for a torn cartilage - over use starts to show with age (50+), the orthopedic said.

Knee wear will vary with the person, of course, but carrying less weight would certainly reduce knee joint wear over time. Feet and ankles also suffer from heavy loads carried over time.

If I'd used trekking poles starting 30 years ago, carried a sub-25 lb. load instead of 50+ lb., I "possibly" could have added a few more years to my knees.

Of course that's nothing more than speculation, as I've been a runner since high school, a cyclist, and a lover of long, steep mountain trails. Throw in 20+ years of martial arts, too.

None the less, carrying a heavier load definitely abuses the body more than a lighter load over the span of time (also uses more energy, i.e., requires more food). There is a reason you don't see porters in Peru and Chile much past their mid 40s - their knees wear out from carrying daily loads of 50-60 lb. That's what the porters told me while trekking there last year.

I do plan to be hiking well into my 80s, if not longer. I hear those new titanium knees kick butt! They even have screws that dissolve inside your body in 16-18 weeks!

Wolf - 23000

01-13-2007, 15:40

Hello! My other thread consists more on the topic of gear options, but I found that that the overall concern ultimately led back to the overall weight of my pack while hiking.
So I've done some investigation and have READ that my Dana Design Glacier pack is designed for heavier loads in such a way that any given weight would seem heavier if it were in a pack of less quality. (I can only assume they mean padding and suspension system and such.)
I don't have another pack with me to compare it to so I was wondering what you think of this theory?
I loaded it to about 40 pounds and still felt comfortable with it on my back. So while one person may think a load that heavy would be torture, maybe he/she would change their mind if their pack was just designed differently?
Food for thought... ~ Socrates

Socrates,

There is a lot of truth to your believe. As Johnny Swank point out with his whopping amount of experience, 40 lbs is 40 pounds but you feel it more with a less quality pack compare to something like a Dana or others design for heavy loads. If you feel it more, you become more likely to take something out, extra that you don’t need. Johnny Swank there is nothing wrong with hiking the AT with a bookbag. It a great way to travel that left a lot of hikers jealous.
<O:p</O:p
L. Wolf hit the nail on the head. There are too many “experts” here giving all source of “good” advice. So good last year, I saw a riddles number of hikers traveling lightweight and freezing their butts off.

Wolf

chicote

01-13-2007, 20:24

By all means. If you're gonna quit, do it on a clear, cool day with a bright sun shining, birds chirping, and surrounded by supportive friends and well-wishers. :rolleyes:

Exactly Terrapin. One probably wouldn't quit if that were the case. ;)

stranger

10-11-2007, 07:32

The weight of a pack should be directly related to the integrity of the suspension system (although often they are not unfortunately). So a Dana Bridger will carry a heavy load well because it has a good suspension system and will transfer whatever amount of weight you are carrying to your lumbar and hips. It also comes in 3 sizes, has 3 different hipbelts that can go on it and 5 different shoulder harnesses so it fits pretty well too.

A lighter pack, without a solid suspension system, will hang on your shoulders more and your shoulders and back cannot handle weight the same way your lumbar, hips and legs can. So yes, 30 pounds in a Dana Bridger will feel lighter and be less fatiguing for most people than say 30 pounds in a pack that hangs on your shoulders all day, although your total weight would be less. The point being that it's easier to carry 30 pounds with your hips and legs then with your shoulders and back. In my experience I would rather carry 30lbs on my hips than 25 on my shoulders. Obviously if you have knee or ankle issues you should avoid heavier loads at all costs, but most hikers don't have that problem in my experience.

Where this gets a bit blurry is when you start getting down to lighter loads. I don't know if you need a Bridger to carry 15lbs of gear, but thats up to each person. When your pack weight empty approaches 15-20% of your total pack weight it's probably a bit excessive and overkill. So yes, 30lbs is 30lbs, but it's absolutely possible to be more fatigued by 25lbs than 30lbs depending on how the pack transfers weight.

A good way to test this is to go to a gym and bench press 50lbs, see how many you can do. Then go to the leg press and press 80lbs and see how many you can do. Just because you are pressing more weight doesn't mean it's harder, it's relative to the strength of the muscles you are using.

LIhikers

10-11-2007, 14:00

It takes a certain amount of work to move any given amount of weight no matter how comfortably it's hanging from your back. Want to do less work? Then carry less weight.
If on the other hand you know what gear you want to take then find a pack that can do it comfortably.
Every situation has it's advantages and disadvantages. You make your choices and live with the outcome.

Dirtygaiters

10-13-2007, 14:01

As has already been said, the difference in comfort for a heavy duty pack loaded with 40 pounds of gead, vs a light duty pack loaded with this much gear, is the amount of pain you will have in your shoulders and hips from rubbing and narrow unpadded straps cutting into your flesh. The stiffer design of the heavy duty pack will also keep the overloaded backpack from banding backwards, putting backwards torque on your shoulders. When it comes down to hiking any distance, 40 pounds is the same 40 pounds on your feet and legs. Unless you area a sprightly and fit 17 year old, then so much weight will make hiking anywhere from somewhat to extremely uncomfortable.

It sounds like you could benefit from some experience backpacking to find this and some other things out for yourself. Once you get on the trail and hike a number of miles, these things become quite clear.

dessertrat

10-13-2007, 14:20

I think more important than anything else (after the weight in the pack) is how it fits you. Some people are more comfortable with more padding, less padding, more wrap-around on the hip belt or less, etc.

The pack has to fit. That does not change the fact that you are carrying forty pounds, but makes it more bearable. Honestly, if I were thru-hiking, I would be shooting for a pack weight around 15 pounds, roughly, without food and water, and then carry whatever food and water I thought I needed to get to resupply. If it happens to be forty pounds, that's unfortunate, but has to be. If it's less than that, great.

Jack Tarlin

10-13-2007, 14:46

I think the folks who are saying "40 pounds is 40 pounds" aren't necessarily right. There are all sorts of packs out there that can carry 40 pounds, but they are NOT all constructed the same. Some have more back padding, or more shoulder strapping, or better hip builts.

I think people should try out several different packs, and thet should load 'em up with their actual gear, so they have a good idea of how their stuff will carry. This is where a a good outfitter comes in, as well as a salesman who knows what he's doing and is willing to spend some time with you..

40 pounds (or 35 or 32 or whatever) will feel VERY different in Pack A than it will in Pack B, and I think it's a good idea to try out several backpacks before making a final decision.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

10-13-2007, 14:53

Jack and agree on something :D.

Most of the very light packs are designed to carry ultralight loads (under 25 lbs including food and water). Most packs with internal frames will allow you to comfortably carry more than a frameless pack. External frames rule for those who plan to carry heavier loads for long distances.

However, the most important thing is how the pack fits your body. I load a book bag with 30 to 40 pounds when I go shopping for a pack. I put that book bag into packs as I try them on. It gives me a really good idea of exactly how well a particular pack works with my body.

BrianLe

10-14-2007, 14:56

Put me in the camp of "try it out for yourself", and I'd add "plan to do that multiple times --- including long solo shakedown trips".

My intent is to thru-hike the PCT next year, and I did a number of trips this summer, some as part of a group but *definitely* some solo trips where I aimed for around 20 miles per day. Each and every solo trip I ran into a new problem, mostly foot problems. I'm hoping I've found the last one (famous last words), but I have no doubt that if I hadn't pushed this in 2007, I would have been fairly quickly off the trail in 2008. That could happen anyway --- but hopefully not from any of the issues I learned about this year.

Including how I personally fall into the "more/more-comfortable versus lighter gear" debate on a per-item basis. I'm using a 21 oz backpack, and for me, saving extra pounds is definitely worth some compromise over having the most comfortable & feature-rich & durable pack available.

I hope your trip works out wonderfully well!

Programbo

10-16-2007, 19:21

I think the folks who are saying "40 pounds is 40 pounds" aren't necessarily right..

This is VERY true...If this were true then why have a waist/hip belt?...Because it DOES matter how a pack is constructed and how it transfers the weight and carries it over your bodies center of gravity...With a well designed pack you walk in a more natural manner and conserve more energy...So in effect with 40 pounds in a 5-6 pound pack it will feel lighter/You`ll walk more naturally/You`ll conserve more energy, then that same 40 pounds would in a 2-3 pound pack......ALL of the bigger pack companies are selling "ultra-light" 2 pound packs because they want to cash in on the craze but if you actually look at their entire product line you`ll see most of their mainline packs are up in the 5-6 pound range...... Unfortunately it`s hard to fight years of slick marketing