Old School vs. Light, UL Dilemma

[ATWillow]

I thruhiked in 97 with my Dana Terraplane carrying 25-35 lbs. I loved it, could carry anything, and it was and is very comfortable. I start my 2009 thruhike in a month. I just bought a Golite Odyssey online after lots of research thinking it would be the perfect upgrade for me saving me 2 -3 plus pounds. I know it is lighter which is great but the Golite just feels awful, especially on my hips. Any advice would be most appreciated as time is critical.

I have lightened up in other areas= lighter stove, Western Mountaineering bags, clothes, etc. but choosing a pack has paralyzed me!!! Help! I feel like a newbie again.

[4eyedbuzzard]

1) Return the Golite. Nobody needs an uncomfortable pack.
2) Try a Granite Gear Vapor Trail or Nimbus or other make like an an Osprey or Gregory or ???. There's a pack out there that fits you somewhere.

EDIT: Or just stay with the Terraplane, at least to start if you're pinched for time. A comfortable 7 lb pack is way better than an uncomfortable 3 lb pack.

[BR360]

A comfortable 7 lb pack is way better than an uncomfortable 3 lb pack.

You are SO right!

I went from a 7 lb. gregory to a 2 lb. Granite Gear Vapor Trail. It is awesome! VERY comfortable with 20-25 lbs...they say it tops out at 30 lbs.

I tried on a few other UL's, and they did not fit me worth beans.

I am in the middle of making a top-pocket for the Vapor Trail, which I sorely miss for incidentals during the day. They make one you can buy as an accessory, but I wanted the DIY challenge.

If I did it again, I'd go with the GG Meridian Vapor:
http://www.granitegear.com/products/backpacks/ultralight/meridianvapor.html

Hope this helps. Good luck.

[JAK]

You need a comfortable pack.
A comfortable pack for carrying 30 pounds shouldn't have to weigh more than 2 pounds.

Most of the weight over 2 pounds is to make it sell for more money.
Comfort is just an excuse they use to justify the extra weight.

Get a comfortable pack under 2 pounds.

[skinewmexico]

If it is uncomfortable because it doesn't fit, return it. If it is uncomfortable because, possibly, it's not what you're used to, give it some time. Tough to tell which though. But there are too many lightweight packs out there for none of them to fit you, just keep trying. Fit is King.

[High Life]

I thruhiked in 97 with my Dana Terraplane carrying 25-35 lbs. I loved it, could carry anything, and it was and is very comfortable. I start my 2009 thruhike in a month. I just bought a Golite Odyssey online after lots of research thinking it would be the perfect upgrade for me saving me 2 -3 plus pounds. I know it is lighter which is great but the Golite just feels awful, especially on my hips. Any advice would be most appreciated as time is critical.

I have lightened up in other areas= lighter stove, Western Mountaineering bags, clothes, etc. but choosing a pack has paralyzed me!!! Help! I feel like a newbie again.



you must have been a real UL'er isnt that dana pack like 5 lbs ?

[JAK]

Also if one light pack doesn't work, try another. The way you pack it matters. I use the blue foam tube method so rigidity and lumpiness if not an issue. If you don't use that method it might be a little harder, but you shouldn't need bulletproof nylon and aluminum stays to get it shaped and supported. The other issues like padding have more to do with fit and the width of the straps than weight. Thick padding isn't needed if it fits. Light packs should be more comfortable, if done right, because they are lighter.

[JAK]

The GoLite Odyssey is to heavy anyways. Return it and find something lighter.

[garlic08]

So do you know how much the load weighs? You said you lightened things up, but how much? Have you tried food and water in the new pack yet?

Personally, I've never liked GoLite, but other light packs have worked fine for me. I agree with Jak that the pack shouldn't weigh more than 2 lbs, if you're really carrying less than 30 lbs total, including food and water.

ULA makes a great line of mid-weight packs, very popular on the Trail. If you really get desperate, I don't think anyone's ever been unhappy with ULA.

[JAK]

I like the Jam2, but it just happened to be the only light decent sized pack I've had a chance to try.

It would be nice to see more light packs in stores. They all seem too interested in selling more expensive packs.

[SteveJ]

I got my son a Jam2 for Christmas - he's worn it on one trip. It carried very well. The women's small fit his winter gear, including a WM 0 deg bag (altho it was tight!), carrying weight of about 18 lbs.

[maxNcathy]

I vote for gossamer gear gorilla pack..www.gossamergear.com

[Gaiter]

my back doesn't hurt w/ my gregory carrying 35-ishlbs but it does w/ anything else carrying much less

[DAJA]

If you love the Dana at 30lbs, and say you've upgraded to lighter gear then why not stay with the Dana and enjoy the weight savings from the lighter gear? Cost's you nothing plus you get your money back from the Go-lite...

[Tipi Walter]

If you love the Dana at 30lbs, and say you've upgraded to lighter gear then why not stay with the Dana and enjoy the weight savings from the lighter gear? Cost's you nothing plus you get your money back from the Go-lite...

Plus, when you're on the trail you may want to load up with 10 or 12 days worth of food and stay out longer w/o resupply and the Dana will allow you to do so.

[Pringles]

You can return the one you just bought, and hike with your old favorite to Neel's Gap, then get the good folks there to fit you with something new and wonderful. Oh, and send your treasured old pack home to sit in a place of honor.

Just my two cents.

[hpowers]

I would carry the comfortable and bomb proof Terraplane instead of any of the UL packs. You have done this before, and you KNOW the Terraplane will get you there.

[Tipi Walter]

I would carry the comfortable and bomb proof Terraplane instead of any of the UL packs. You have done this before, and you KNOW the Terraplane will get you there.

I agree, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

[Bootstrap]

I agree, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

Yup. The worst backpack is the one someone tells you to use, when your back tells you otherwise. If a heavier backpack makes the rest feel lighter, use it.

I'm using an Osprey, which just works for me. I know there are lighter packs, but I haven't found one to carry like this on my particular back.

Jonathan

[ATWillow]

Thanks so much!!! This was my first post out to the White Blaze community and I am grateful for all the excellent advice. I will return the Golite and take my Dana. I know a 5 lb pack sounds like a huge amount to the UL's, but I know it will get me to Neels Gap where I will try to find something else that fits (I just shipped my first pair of boots from 97 to Neels Gap for their museum!). The problem is we have EMS and REI in CT, but no one carries Granite Gear or Golite. Even Campmor was out of everything to try on last month.

[skinewmexico]

I agree, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

Oh, sure you did. You love saying it.

[Feral Bill]

Taking the Terraplane (a spectacularly comfortable pack), you can always save some weight by leaving the "Hip Lid" home. Enjoy your trip.

[SGT Rock]

Lightweight is a tool, not a religion.

Take what you want. Maybe someday you will find a lightweight pack you like. Try going to Trail Days and trying out a bunch of different vendors. But until then get your money back on the pack you do not like.

[Tipi Walter]

Thanks so much!!! This was my first post out to the White Blaze community and I am grateful for all the excellent advice. I will return the Golite and take my Dana. I know a 5 lb pack sounds like a huge amount to the UL's, but I know it will get me to Neels Gap where I will try to find something else that fits (I just shipped my first pair of boots from 97 to Neels Gap for their museum!). The problem is we have EMS and REI in CT, but no one carries Granite Gear or Golite. Even Campmor was out of everything to try on last month.

And the Terraplanes will be harder to get over time, too, since they haven't been made in several years, at least by the Dana Design brand. But they were and are a popular pack and there seems to be thousands of them floating around.

When I read your quote, "I know a 5 lb pack sounds like a huge amount to the UL's . . ." you've got that right as they are quick to jump on pieces of gear that can be replaced with their own ideas of lighter versions. I like it when someone wants a comparison of two tents and the ULers chime in with a very lite third model not in any way related to the first two. Sgt Rock is right, take what you want. And don't let the ULers bog you down with their religion.

[JAK]

Yup. The worst backpack is the one someone tells you to use, when your back tells you otherwise. If a heavier backpack makes the rest feel lighter, use it.

I'm using an Osprey, which just works for me. I know there are lighter packs, but I haven't found one to carry like this on my particular back.

JonathanYeah. If your having back trouble what's another 7 pounds eh. :rolleyes:

[JAK]

I'm not a ULer. I'm just an aging overweight guy that likes to hike.
A 5-7 pound pack isn't something I could recommend to anyone as a good start.

[garlic08]

...you've got that right as they are quick to jump on pieces of gear that can be replaced with their own ideas of lighter versions. ... And don't let the ULers bog you down with their religion.

Please re-read this thread and let us know who was jumping whose ideas? Whose "religion" is being pushed here?

I thought this was a very reasonable, insightful discussion about a hiker who couldn't make a light pack work. A few mentioned light packs that work well for them.

This forum is based on the Appalachian Trail, and many participants are thru hikers. As stupid as it sounds to many people who love the woods, this means hiking from point A to point B in an efficient manner, taking a level of risk deemed acceptable by the hiker. Like it or not, there is a trend among thru hikers to use lighter gear, because it increases the success of a thru hike. Very few thru hikers intend to stay out in the woods for 10 or 12 days at a time, or to carry more weight because they have a pack that can handle it.

Many older hikers have found an incredibly increased level enthusiasm for hiking by using lighter gear. If that enthusiam sounds "religious" at times, well, just ignore it, smile, and go enjoy a hike.

[JAK]

Well said garlic08

[4eyedbuzzard]

Yeah. If your having back trouble what's another 7 pounds eh. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but a Terraplane is about 6 1/2 lbs empty vs a lightpack pack(not fringe SUL stuff) being around 2 to 3 lbs. That's 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 lbs difference. Is it significant? Yeah. But not to the point of chosing to be miserable. Uncomfortable packs go in the same category as wet sleeping bags, leaky tents, and broken stoves--they aren't of any use. I'd much rather carry a 30 lb load in a pack with good suspension that fitted me well and was comfortable, than a 26 lb load in a pack that didn't fit and was uncomfortable.

I like UL gear, having that bad back you refer to. But even so, carrying comfort takes precedence over absolute weight.

[deadhorsejoe]

I have no problem with getting total pack weight down as low as safely and comfortably possible but I do find it somewhat funny that we (me included) obsess over a pound here and an ounce there and yet most of us (me included) carry around 10 to 25 lbs (or more) of fat in the midsection. Pounds is pounds.

[JAK]

A Golite Jam2 is not fringe.

Bite my ass with the fringe ****.

[JAK]

It's a simple matter of common sense and logical design over marketing BS.

[JAK]

Yeah. This diet is getting a little rough. Sorry.
Please feel free to delete the last couple of posts/

[Tipi Walter]

The GoLite Odyssey is to heavy anyways. Return it and find something lighter.


Please re-read this thread and let us know who was jumping whose ideas? Whose "religion" is being pushed here?

I thought this was a very reasonable, insightful discussion about a hiker who couldn't make a light pack work. A few mentioned light packs that work well for them.

This forum is based on the Appalachian Trail, and many participants are thru hikers. As stupid as it sounds to many people who love the woods, this means hiking from point A to point B in an efficient manner, taking a level of risk deemed acceptable by the hiker. Like it or not, there is a trend among thru hikers to use lighter gear, because it increases the success of a thru hike. Very few thru hikers intend to stay out in the woods for 10 or 12 days at a time, or to carry more weight because they have a pack that can handle it.

Many older hikers have found an incredibly increased level enthusiasm for hiking by using lighter gear. If that enthusiam sounds "religious" at times, well, just ignore it, smile, and go enjoy a hike.

Ok, I believe you. Even though the Gear Review fourms are not specifically about thruhiking the AT, and people can comment on backpacking in general, most posts I grant you are geared towards the AT thruhiker. And when you say thruhikers can carry lighter weight since they go from point A to point B in a more efficient manner, well, I wanted a little bit more imformation, so I checked out your AT trail journal thruhike from 2008. Here's what I found on a couple of months at the beginning: (* means on the trail w/ no resupply, Xs mean food or town trips):

April 4: *(on the trail)
5: X food at Walasi Yi
6: *
7: *
8: *
9: X Franklin NC food
10: X Church breakfast
11: X NOC breakfast
12: X Robbinsville food
13: *
14: *
15: *
16: X Standing Bear Hostel food
17: X Hot Springs food/bed
18: X Hot Springs breakfast
19: *
20: X Erwin, TN Uncle Johnnys
21: X Breakfast in town
22: *
23: *
24: X Laurel Fork Lodge food
25: *
26: X Damascus
27: X Damascu
28: *
29: *
30: *

MAY
1: X Truckstop, VA food
2: *
3: X Small town deli for groceries
4: X Pearisburg
5: X Breakfast Pearisburg
6: *
7: X Catawba Grocery
8: X Daleville Howard Johnsons
9: X Daleville breakfast?
10: *
11: *
12: X Montebello Duch Haus B&B
13: X B&B
14: X Waynesboro food
15: X Breakfast in Waynesboro?
16: X Lewis Mt Camp store
17: X Washington VA
18: X zero day
19: X Elkwallow wayside for food
20: *
21: X Horseshoe Curve restaurant
22: X Harpers Ferry
23: X Free State Hostel groceries
24: X Hwy 30 Toorminas restaurant
25: X Pine Grove Furnace state park ice cream
26: X Carlisle motel
27: X Goodies restaurant in Duncannon
28: X motel Harrisburg/route 325 pickup
29: X Kempton(VA?)
30: X Kempton
31: X Port Clinton amish restaurant.

This is not an attack of any kind, it's just to show how one style of backpacking(thruhiking the AT)can be so different than long wilderness backpacking trips w/o resupply. You did tremendous daily miles, of course, and were able to reach food sources much quicker than, say, someone only walking 7 to 10 miles per day. I would say your example is no different than most AT thruhikers. My point is that this style of backpacking can result in hikers carrying much less weight due to frequent resupply. But not all backpackers want to resupply so often, hence my earlier blurb about staying on the trail for 10-12 days w/o resupply.

[JAK]

I don't think a well designed backpack needs to be more than 5% of the weight it is carrying. 10% isn't bad. More than that is excessive. Most packs weigh as much as they do because they can be sold for more money because they look like they are better. There is more gross profit. That doesn't make them better. I can carry 40 pounds in my Golite Jam2. I don't see how a heavier pack would be better. It isn't as adjustable, so it might not fit everyone, but it fits me. I don't see what it is missing beside extra weight.

Explain why a pack needs to be 5 pounds to carry 50 pounds.
Trappers used to just wrap stuff up in canvas and use rope for straps.

There is nothing 'traditional' about heavy packs. They are 20th century consumerism.
Nothing more.

[JAK]

Another interesting thread might be why military stuff is made the way it is.
Its not all about function and durability. It is also about profit.

Sometimes it turns out good technology. Sometimes it turns out crap. One thing that helps explain some military gear though is it has to be made to fit many different people.
That isn't true of gear for individuals.

Otzi had a better pack than 99% of the crap out there today.

[JAK]

I don't know how any experienced hiker can defend a 7 pound backpack, for common use. I can see Tipi needing something heavier than most of us, but not that heavy. If a person can carry 100 pounds, and some can, then maybe 4 pounds, for durability. It might take some real engineering, and decent materials, but that's what people should be paying for. Instead people settle for overbuilt overpriced junk, because its sexy.

Peacock feathers.

[Tipi Walter]

I don't think a well designed backpack needs to be more than 5% of the weight it is carrying. 10% isn't bad. More than that is excessive. Most packs weigh as much as they do because they can be sold for more money because they look like they are better. There is more gross profit. That doesn't make them better. I can carry 40 pounds in my Golite Jam2. I don't see how a heavier pack would be better. It isn't as adjustable, so it might not fit everyone, but it fits me. I don't see what it is missing beside extra weight.

Explain why a pack needs to be 5 pounds to carry 50 pounds.
Trappers used to just wrap stuff up in canvas and use rope for straps.

There is nothing 'traditional' about heavy packs. They are 20th century consumerism.
Nothing more.

Uh, legendary backpacker Norman Clyde used a 6 pound Trapper Nelson pack back in the 1930s, wooden frame and canvas, and he routinely carried between 75-90 pounds on his Sierra trips.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-c.-1950's-Trapper-Nelson-Indian-Pack-Board_W0QQitemZ220364639287QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20 090219?IMSfp=TL090219133005r35318

Before this, Am Indians used pack baskets with shoulder straps and I'll try to find more info and weights, etc.

[JAK]

I'll bet the American Indians didn't make them any heavier than needed, given available materials and methods, when they made them for their own use. When they started selling them to us, that would change things. The Trapper Nelson pack is a commerical pack. It was sold for profit. It was not the best technology in its day. It was heavier than neccessary for the job. Better packs existed 10,000 years ago.

The best technology is technology that people develop for their own use.

Tell me that you couldn't design and build a better and lighter pack for yourself.

[Tipi Walter]

This is what people used to use before fabrics, metal and new technology. Heck, it's still being used in places. I hiked with a Cherokee woman back in '93 who used a rectangular pack just like in the first fotog.

[garlic08]

This is not an attack of any kind, it's just to show how one style of backpacking(thruhiking the AT)can be so different than long wilderness backpacking trips w/o resupply.... But not all backpackers want to resupply so often, hence my earlier blurb about staying on the trail for 10-12 days w/o resupply.

That's a neat tabulation of an AT hike, and I mean that. I've heard some Western hikers call the AT a "deli-a-day" hike, and the above daily chart shows that to be very nearly true! It's also the reason I left the AT for the end of my personal Triple Crown quest. It's not a wilderness experience at all, compared to the Western trails, and I wasn't sure I'd enjoy it. Not to cheapen the AT--it's a fine, fun trail and I fell in love with it (and joined the ATC and WB).

That's also a graphic example of how the AT can be hiked with a light load, if the hiker desires to do so.

I definitely agree that long wilderness trips are a tool that needs to be in the experienced hiker's bag. Not all long trails are as civilized as the AT. There are some very challenging 180+ mile roadless and supply-less stretches on other US trails that require up to 10 days of difficult high traverses in snow and ice.

[JAK]

We shouldn't be confusing the issue with discussions about philosophy and style of hiking and such. The point is that a pack doesn't need to be heavy to be comfortable carrying heavy loads. They are only made heavy to appear more appealing and sell for more money. Let's talk about engineering, not marketing.

[JAK]

This is what people used to use before fabrics, metal and new technology. Heck, it's still being used in places. I hiked with a Cherokee woman back in '93 who used a rectangular pack just like in the first fotog.You can still buy stuff like that at LLBean, but they are commercial crap. The ones in the photos are somewhat better. When built by real people for real function, they are lighter, and more comfortable. When they are produced for modern consumers, they get crappy. There are lighter examples of traditional packs, even of that type.

Backpacks are made heavy for marketing reasons, not functional reasons.

[Tipi Walter]

I don't know how any experienced hiker can defend a 7 pound backpack, for common use. I can see Tipi needing something heavier than most of us, but not that heavy. If a person can carry 100 pounds, and some can, then maybe 4 pounds, for durability. It might take some real engineering, and decent materials, but that's what people should be paying for. Instead people settle for overbuilt overpriced junk, because its sexy.

Peacock feathers.

I would love to see a 4 pound pack that can carry 100 pounds. Heck, even 75 pounds, w/o sagging. How much does a frameless ALICE pack weigh? Or one with a frame? I know there are hundreds of people who have humped 60-75 pounds in an ALICE and will tell you about it in colorful terms. The whole point of Dana Gleason developing his G series and big NICE/CBMR packs was to find a pack that could haul heavy loads without sagging and with some comfort. His bigger packs go from the G5000 at 7.7 pounds(along with the G6000/7000), to his Grizzly, CBMR Orion/Behemoth/Scorpius to the Kodiak, etc. All weigh in at around 8.15 pounds to 10.7.

[JAK]

Sagging has to do with the way you pack it, and what you are packing.
If you are carrying a blue foam pad, why not use it?

Lets get real. Are you really saying you couldn't carry 100 pounds with a 4 pound pack?

If you aren't going to start thinking and arguing like an engineer, then you are just going to win this arguement, but you will still be wrong. Marketing always wins, but is not always right.

In a real contest, real engineering wins.

[JAK]

Packs under 4 pounds existed 10,000 years ago to carry 100 pounds, without sagging.
They still exist today.

[4eyedbuzzard]

...Backpacks are made heavy for marketing reasons, not functional reasons.

I disagree. Packs aren't made heavier for marketing reasons. They aren't sold by the pound. Pack designers use many criteria:

Market demand(need) - you don't manufacturer stuff for which there is no demand
Specific anticipated use - lots of different uses from day hiking all the way to expedition length excursions, mountaineering, trekking, etc.
Design load volume and weight
Control and transfer of that load to the human anatomy - designers spend a lot of time and effort on ergonomics
Durability - It must survive its intended use and lifespan
Available materials
Material costs
Fabrication costs
Market price

In the end, the market is the smartest guy in the room. Producers make what people demand-what they want to buy to fulfill their needs. And nobody knows their individual needs better than the individual consumer.

[rickb]

But not all backpackers want to resupply so often, hence my earlier blurb about staying on the trail for 10-12 days w/o resupply.

There was a time when 10 days plus was not such an uncommon approach on the AT.

I would think a smaller/lighter pack would take that option off the table before you start. But in the end it probably doesn't matter. People hike like their peers, and now days, that means frequent resupply and a ton of hitches and town stops.

[JAK]

Well until we start arguing this like engineers, all your marketing arguments win.

Lets talk about how much nylon it takes to support 100 pounds.
Lets talk about how wide and thin a strap needs to be, and how little padding is really needed.
Lets define what we actually mean by suspension systems, and sagging.

The market is not the smartest guy in the room. He just the one that gets layed the most.
He is not the one that wins real competitions of strength and endurance and design and craftmanship.

I've won some real competitions in my day. I didn't get layed. I didn't get rich. I just won.

[JAK]

That's all that matters to me. The rest of you can go **** yourselves.

[TD55]

Thanks so much!!! This was my first post out to the White Blaze community and I am grateful for all the excellent advice. I will return the Golite and take my Dana. I know a 5 lb pack sounds like a huge amount to the UL's, but I know it will get me to Neels Gap where I will try to find something else that fits (I just shipped my first pair of boots from 97 to Neels Gap for their museum!). The problem is we have EMS and REI in CT, but no one carries Granite Gear or Golite. Even Campmor was out of everything to try on last month.

Good choice. Comfort is priority.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Well until we start arguing this like engineers, all your marketing arguments win...


Specific anticipated use - lots of different uses from day hiking all the way to expedition length excursions, mountaineering, trekking, etc.
Design load volume and weight
Control and transfer of that load to the human anatomy - designers spend a lot of time and effort on ergonomics
Durability - It must survive its intended use and lifespan
Available materials
Material costs
Fabrication costs...
I kind of thought these were engineering considerations


Lets talk about how much nylon it takes to support 100 pounds.
Lets talk about how wide and thin a strap needs to be, and how little padding is really needed.
Lets define what we actually mean by suspension systems, and sagging...
I'm not a backpack engineer. But I know that good ergonomic pack design goes way beyond just statics and material strength.

The market is not the smartest guy in the room. He just the one that gets layed the most.
Not a bad prize for 2nd place.

He is not the one that wins real competitions of strength and endurance and design and craftmanship.
I've won some real competitions in my day. I didn't get layed. I didn't get rich. I just won.
Damn, no money or sex? What was 1st place prize?

That's all that matters to me. The rest of you can go **** yourselves.
I can't do that. Design limitations.

[JAK]

Damn, no money or sex? What was 1st place prize?Eternal grace.

[garlic08]

Did you hear about the GoLite person (employee?) who started off from Springer last year in an attempt to set the record for un-resupplied travel? He had well over 100 pounds (130?) in a GoLite pack, and made about four days or something like that. (I was out there hiking, so I heard it all through the grapevine.) I didn't hear about the pack failing, which is amazing if that's the case. But what a horrible idea, in my opinion, going unsupplied where there are supplies right in your face every day or three.

[JAK]

Eternal grace.No. Not this kind.
http://www.eternalgracechurch.com/

[JAK]

More like this kind...
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Pergamon/DyingGaul.jpg

[SGT Rock]

Wow. I didn't mean to create a flame war.

I just consider lightweight a tool to make hiking enjoyable. There are some that preach it like a religion. To me it makes sense to go light whenever possible but not do something insane in the name of going lighter. If a heavier pack is comfortable then use it UNTIL you find something lighter that is comfortable - but if anything in my pack weighs more than 2 pounds it would be a candidate for replacement and that includes my pack. That said, nothing in my pack even weighs 2 pounds.

I also think it is an amature thing to do to decide what sort of person a hiker is by what gear they carry.

[TD55]

I did 21 days once without resupply with a big old Kelty. Bad idea. Pack held up well though. Must of been like 60 pounds at the start.

[SGT Rock]

I did a winter hike once for 12 days without re-supply. I started with around 65 pounds. This was before going lighter. Anyhow, I ended up only taking 10 days to do the hike. If I did it today I would probably start with about 28 pounds and have a re-supply day figured in - and still do it in about 7 days. I'd take the other 5 planned days and go somewhere else.

[JAK]

"Woe to him who seeks to please rather than to appal!"
- Herman Melville, Moby Dick

I love coincidences, especially when two are sealed by a third.

I thought of grace, which made me think of The Dying Gaul. As it turns out there is a contemporary film by that name, with the quote by Melville in its title sequence. The passage from Moby Dick was true to the sense of the message I was trying to convey.

Here is the full passage by Herman Melville...

"This, shipmates, this is that other lesson; and woe to that pilot of the living God who slights it. Woe to him whom this world charms from Gospel duty! Woe to him who seeks to pour oil upon the waters when God has brewed them into a gale! Woe to him who seeks to please rather than to appal! Woe to him whose good name is more to him than goodness! Woe to him who, in this world, courts not dishonour! Woe to him who would not be true, even though to be false were salvation! Yea, woe to him who, as the great pilot Paul has it, while preaching to others is himself a castaway?"

He drooped and fell away from himself for a moment...


Also in the title sequence of The Dying Gaul...

TwoPoundBag ;)

[DAJA]

I have been on a hiking hiatus for the past 4yrs, but have recently got the bug again after meeting a wonderful little lady that has inspired me to hit the trails again... She is an avid ULer and was laughing at some of my "heavy and outdated gear". So over the winter i've been replacing my stove, bag, pad and clothes with lighter and newer versions and for the most part am pleased with my overall setup... The one thing remaining is my 8yr old LL Bean pack that weights just under 5lbs.. So, not having a local outfitter near by, I ordered 4 packs from REI and took them each out on 3 day shakedown trips this winter. Here is what I ordered:

Golite Jam2
Granite Gear Vapor Trail
Gregory Z65
Osprey Atmos 65

In the end I sent them all back as none of them carryed as comfortable as my heavy LL Bean pack... The Gregory was the closest to making the cut but still I could never find that sweet spot with it. The missed the lid on the golite and granite gear, plus the golite felt incredibly cheap and I feared its durability. (Before you golite fans attack, i'm extremely tough on gear) The Osprey was nice, but again just could not make it carry right...

Point being, go with what you know and trust, regardless of what the nutty ULers tell you... My UL girlfriend claims she is embarrassed to hike with me and my "old school lead pack".. I think she's joking.?.?

[FamilyGuy]

I just sold two of my framed packs. The Golite Jam2 was so comfortable with 20 odd pounds I could not believe it.

Of course, I am strong. If you are weaker a Dana might be the way to go.

[Tipi Walter]

Sagging has to do with the way you pack it, and what you are packing.
If you are carrying a blue foam pad, why not use it?

Lets get real. Are you really saying you couldn't carry 100 pounds with a 4 pound pack?

If you aren't going to start thinking and arguing like an engineer, then you are just going to win this arguement, but you will still be wrong. Marketing always wins, but is not always right.

In a real contest, real engineering wins.

I just want someone to show me a 4 pound pack carrying 100 pounds. Sounds simple enough. Sagging definitely has to do with what you are packing. Dana Designs Terra/Astral-planes have a reputation for "sagging" with anything over 75 pounds.


Did you hear about the GoLite person (employee?) who started off from Springer last year in an attempt to set the record for un-resupplied travel? He had well over 100 pounds (130?) in a GoLite pack, and made about four days or something like that. (I was out there hiking, so I heard it all through the grapevine.) I didn't hear about the pack failing, which is amazing if that's the case. But what a horrible idea, in my opinion, going unsupplied where there are supplies right in your face every day or three.

So what was the weight of his pack, empty? And why did he only last 4 days? And would he have lasted longer with a beefier, heavier pack? Gettng resupplied "every day or three" turns a backpacking trip, in my fetid opinion, into a dayhike. What's the point of getting out in the woods if I walk with cars and in towns every other day? If all I'm gonna do is hike from one buffet table to the next and anticipate each road crossing and grocery store grabfest, why should I even bother hitting the woods? Does 'hiking your own hike' mean near daily town visits? If so, is it still a backpacking trip? And let me ask you this, Garlic08: If you had caches the whole way from GA to ME(alongside the trail), and you didn't have to spend one day in a town, would you still backpack the AT?


I have been on a hiking hiatus for the past 4yrs, but have recently got the bug again after meeting a wonderful little lady that has inspired me to hit the trails again... She is an avid ULer and was laughing at some of my "heavy and outdated gear". So over the winter i've been replacing my stove, bag, pad and clothes with lighter and newer versions and for the most part am pleased with my overall setup... The one thing remaining is my 8yr old LL Bean pack that weights just under 5lbs.. So, not having a local outfitter near by, I ordered 4 packs from REI and took them each out on 3 day shakedown trips this winter. Here is what I ordered:

Golite Jam2
Granite Gear Vapor Trail
Gregory Z65
Osprey Atmos 65

In the end I sent them all back as none of them carryed as comfortable as my heavy LL Bean pack... The Gregory was the closest to making the cut but still I could never find that sweet spot with it. The missed the lid on the golite and granite gear, plus the golite felt incredibly cheap and I feared its durability. (Before you golite fans attack, i'm extremely tough on gear) The Osprey was nice, but again just could not make it carry right...

Point being, go with what you know and trust, regardless of what the nutty ULers tell you... My UL girlfriend claims she is embarrassed to hike with me and my "old school lead pack".. I think she's joking.?.?

I like the way your brain thinks. "Golite felt incredibly cheap" and "nutty ULers" seems to hit a sympathetic chord in my heart. Having a GF that actually gets out is worth its weight in gold, even an UL girlfriend, so you might want to keep her around. Here's what I'd do on your next summer trip: Pack a few ginger ale's and some fresh grapes and maybe a cantaloupe. On the second or third day out, after a blistering climb up a hot mountain, set up camp and offer her a soda or some melon. If she refuses, she's definitely an UL fanatic. If not, tell her it was well worth the weight(for you to carry)and see what she says.


I just sold two of my framed packs. The Golite Jam2 was so comfortable with 20 odd pounds I could not believe it.

Of course, I am strong. If you are weaker a Dana might be the way to go.

"If you are weaker a Dana might be the way to go." From what I've seen, the most complaining of weight seems to be the ultralight comfort-obsessed. I hardly ever hear long-term big weight backpackers wail and moan about their packs. But along with their near constant resupply and their fascination with daily-miles-walked, ULers never can seem to forget the bad old days of carrying 50 pounds and so they hold up the weight of their lightweight packs while doing 20-30 mile days as both being numbers in the realm of some holy talisman. These big miles must come thru tiny, lightweight packs. And so we have the current UL craze. I'd just like to see someone do 10 mile days and still feel good about themselves. Is self-esteem related to the amount of daily miles walked?

[SGT Rock]

I just want someone to show me a 4 pound pack carrying 100 pounds. Sounds simple enough. Sagging definitely has to do with what you are packing. Dana Designs Terra/Astral-planes have a reputation for "sagging" with anything over 75 pounds.
Army rucksack.


So what was the weight of his pack, empty? And why did he only last 4 days? And would he have lasted longer with a beefier, heavier pack? Gettng resupplied "every day or three" turns a backpacking trip, in my fetid opinion, into a dayhike. What's the point of getting out in the woods if I walk with cars and in towns every other day? If all I'm gonna do is hike from one buffet table to the next and anticipate each road crossing and grocery store grabfest, why should I even bother hitting the woods? Does 'hiking your own hike' mean near daily town visits? If so, is it still a backpacking trip? And let me ask you this, Garlic08: If you had caches the whole way from GA to ME(alongside the trail), and you didn't have to spend one day in a town, would you still backpack the AT?
Tipi - sounds like you are judging his hike by your standards. Chill man.


I like the way your brain thinks. "Golite felt incredibly cheap" and "nutty ULers" seems to hit a sympathetic chord in my heart. Having a GF that actually gets out is worth its weight in gold, even an UL girlfriend, so you might want to keep her around. Here's what I'd do on your next summer trip: Pack a few ginger ale's and some fresh grapes and maybe a cantaloupe. On the second or third day out, after a blistering climb up a hot mountain, set up camp and offer her a soda or some melon. If she refuses, she's definitely an UL fanatic. If not, tell her it was well worth the weight(for you to carry)and see what she says.
You are starting to sound just as bad, or worse than the people you claim to be so bad.


"If you are weaker a Dana might be the way to go." From what I've seen, the most complaining of weight seems to be the ultralight comfort-obsessed. I hardly ever hear long-term big weight backpackers wail and moan about their packs. But along with their near constant resupply and their fascination with daily-miles-walked, ULers never can seem to forget the bad old days of carrying 50 pounds and so they hold up the weight of their lightweight packs while doing 20-30 mile days as both being numbers in the realm of some holy talisman. These big miles must come thru tiny, lightweight packs. And so we have the current UL craze. I'd just like to see someone do 10 mile days and still feel good about themselves. Is self-esteem related to the amount of daily miles walked?
I did 10 miles the other day and still fet good about myself.

You are being just as bad as the UL religion guys.

[SGT Rock]

In fact I did 6 miles the other day and felt good about myself. ATe good too. I was also very comfortable even though the temps were in the single digits.

You are judging people by their gear again. I wonder if you are ever going to give that up?

[Tipi Walter]

I'm just doing my part in trying to counter this mad rush into all things ultralight. In fact, DAJA mentioned the "nutty ULers", not me. I just elaborated on it a bit.

You may have missed the earlier discussion on big weight with an ALICE, I believe it's on this thread somewhere.

Are all my points and questions going to be distilled down into "you are being just as bad as the UL religion guys"? What about the Golite guy's pack weight? And why did he only last 4 days? And the question about food caches on the AT is I believe relevant. As is this question: is self-esteem related to the amount of daily miles walked? Not all of these have much to do with gear(and we are on a Gear Forum). This thread is entitled Old School VERSUS Light, UL Dilemma. I'm just expressing my vote for old school.

[SGT Rock]

I'm just doing my part in trying to counter this mad rush into all things ultralight. In fact, DAJA mentioned the "nutty ULers", not me. I just elaborated on it a bit.

I think the mad rush already happened. Most people now are just tweaking their systems. The guy that started the thread seemed to be in that boat.


You may have missed the earlier discussion on big weight with an ALICE, I believe it's on this thread somewhere.
Don't care. I know what I have done with mine. You asked. I answered. I'm just being straight forward. And straight forward - you are judging all the "UL Nuts" by your standards of hiking. You bring up HYOH but on the other end judge everyone by your standards. I've seen you do it in the past. Saying Ultralight around you is like waving a red flag at a bull and then you start ranting. I've seen you ask in the past how is someone going to hack a blizzard in a hammock. Or how you would like to see an ultralighter eat as well as you do. Or lets see an ultralighter do XXX you do.

Sound familiar?

Does it seem you are judging people by their gear (UL hikers) by your hike? To me, as the observer it does.

And I have hacked a blizzard in the hammock. Have gone days between resupply without hitting a town, had a good time doing short days, and all sorts of other things. But the fact you even assume no one is having fun with lighter gear is sort wacked. I keep saying it Tipi - but you are just as bad as the UL religion guys. But since you are in your religion you do not see it.


Are all my points and questions going to be distilled down into "you are being just as bad as the UL religion guys"? What about the Golite guy's pack weight? Ask him. Think about that for a second. Maybe it will hit you as to why your question didn't need to be answered by anyone here.


And why did he only last 4 days? See above.

And the question about food caches on the AT is I believe relevant. Relevant to you. But not to me. I wouldn't hike that way because it isn't required. You want everyone to meet your standard of how you enjoy the woods. And if they don't, if they decide to do it lighter and with more resupplies they are doing it wrong. See my first paragraph.


As is this question: is self-esteem related to the amount of daily miles walked? Not all of these have much to do with gear(and we are on a Gear Forum). This thread is entitled Old School VERSUS Light, UL Dilemma. I'm just expressing my vote for old school.No, you are preaching against ultralight. There is a difference.

[DAJA]

So now, I'm considering ordering an REI Ridgline, give that a walk, any one with any experience with this pack?

Tipi, you have a great tent, very envious!

[Tipi Walter]

So now, I'm considering ordering an REI Ridgline, give that a walk, any one with any experience with this pack?

Tipi, you have a great tent, very envious!

Phew, thanks for throwing me a bone.

[rickb]

I'm just expressing my vote for old school.

Do long distance hikers still measure the weight of every piece of gear in some unit of food? Be it in Snickers or Fig Newtons or whatever?

Seems that hikers used to start out by deciding how long they wanted to spend in the woods, then figured out a way to make that happen. If a larger pack and 20+ lbs of food were required, then they managed by doing without stuff like camp shoes, filters, self-inflating pads, phones, books and even cameras.

The decision on how long one wants to stay in the woods is tricky, however. Its hard to do anything different than what others around you are up to.

[Tilly]

Don't worry, you will find what works best for you, regardless of numbers. If your old pack WORKS just use it!

I tried a Granite Gear and I LOATHED that thing. I only had 20# in it and it was so freaking uncomfortable it was horrible. I got rid of that stupid pack on Ebay.

Now you will pry my 3# 6oz Osprey from my cold dead hands. Which may be "heavy" but works for me.

My SO has a Granite Gear pack that's less than the prescribed 2#'s and he loves it. It works for him.

I suppose this goes along the lines of water filters, rain pants, and a few other things.

[SGT Rock]

I agree. Talking with Mags - seems like his pack base was less than 10 pounds on the CDT and the PCT - but he went many many days between re-supplies and spent time in the conditions that Tipi assumes you need a 65 pack to hack.

Again - it is my opinion that it is an amateur thing to do to judge a hiker by his gear.

[SGT Rock]

Don't worry, you will find what works best for you, regardless of numbers. If your old pack WORKS just use it!

I tried a Granite Gear and I LOATHED that thing. I only had 20# in it and it was so freaking uncomfortable it was horrible. I got rid of that stupid pack on Ebay.

Now you will pry my 3# 6oz Osprey from my cold dead hands. Which may be "heavy" but works for me.

My SO has a Granite Gear pack that's less than the prescribed 2#'s and he loves it. It works for him.

I suppose this goes along the lines of water filters, rain pants, and a few other things.
Hey, on the othr end of all that, I got out one of my old packs the other day to hike with. Padded, weight in the pounds, very comft. But after packing and re-packing the thing I hate the way it felt, pack, and rode on my back. Years ago I loved it - now I couldn't stand it.

[rickb]

I agree. Talking with Mags - seems like his pack base was less than 10 pounds on the CDT and the PCT - but he went many many days between re-supplies and spent time in the conditions that Tipi assumes you need a 65 pack to hack.

Again - it is my opinion that it is an amateur thing to do to judge a hiker by his gear.


I used to want the best stuff to show off (I dropped $400 on a Terraplane once).

Now I want the crappiest stuff to show off.

I need external validation.

[SGT Rock]

My stuff is a mix. Some really great stuff with some really crappy stuff. I've got the 2 man freestanding tent, 5 pound pack that I know will do 65 pounds, gas stoves, mummy bags, inflatable mattress, lots and lots of clothing, Asolo Mountaineering boots, and many many other items that Tipi would probably approve of.

But even when I go out in the single digits and hike 6 miles, then spend hours in camp - I prefer a hammock, tarp, and alcohol stove.

I guess it is being more connected to the surroundings by have less gear, and more surroundings.

I wonder how the Cherokee would feel about your need for all that bombproof stuff Tipi? ;)

[rickb]

I wonder how the Cherokee would feel about your need for all that bombproof stuff Tipi? ;)

Not sure that's the best example.

If I am not mistaken, the Cherokee built solid, well constructed homes. They didn't live in tents.

Until Andrew Jackson had them evicted.

[Tilly]

I just sold two of my framed packs. The Golite Jam2 was so comfortable with 20 odd pounds I could not believe it.

Of course, I am strong. If you are weaker a Dana might be the way to go.

I am an utter weakling. Bad knees, pinched nerves and such. And I can't do a pushup. I can only hike about 4 steps with a pack above 30# without taking a 2 hour break. Whew!

Do people really get so hyped up about everyone else's gear? I am getting freaked out. Last 2 hikes I didn't see a soul so I could carry whatever I wanted and not worry. I just like what works for me.

[DAJA]

ahhh hell, next time out i'm just going naked... I'll survive off edible plants and insects, and weave reed and grass bedding for warmth...

[Tipi Walter]

Do long distance hikers still measure the weight of every piece of gear in some unit of food? Be it in Snickers or Fig Newtons or whatever?

Seems that hikers used to start out by deciding how long they wanted to spend in the woods, then figured out a way to make that happen. If a larger pack and 20+ lbs of food were required, then they managed by doing without stuff like camp shoes, filters, self-inflating pads, phones, books and even cameras.

The decision on how long one wants to stay in the woods is tricky, however. Its hard to do anything different than what others around you are up to.

"Do long distance hikers still measure the weight of every piece of gear in some unit of food"?? Say what? Could you please explain what you mean? "It's hard to do anything different than what others around you are up to": What do you mean? In relation to camping?

[SGT Rock]

Not sure that's the best example.

If I am not mistaken, the Cherokee built solid, well constructed homes. They didn't live in tents.

Until Andrew Jackson had them evicted.
I know. But I've seen Tipi say some odd things about how other people hike and what the Cherokee would think about them. Personally I think it is a straw dog. It was more an attempt at humor with him.

I've been around Tipi on the trail. He is a good guy. I'd camp around him anyday. He is actually one of the few people on here I do listen too when they give advice. Just not when it comes to gear LOL.:D

[SGT Rock]

"Do long distance hikers still measure the weight of every piece of gear in some unit of food"?? Say what? Could you please explain what you mean? "It's hard to do anything different than what others around you are up to": What do you mean? In relation to camping?
I got it instantly.

[rickb]

"Do long distance hikers still measure the weight of every piece of gear in some unit of food"?? Say what?" Could you please explain what you mean? "It's hard to do anything different than what others around you are up to": What do you mean? In relation to camping?

When considering gear, I thought of its weight in terms of Apple (Fig) Newtons. That was my coin of the realm. Why carry a camera when you could carry 10 more Apple Newtons instead?

When I hiked, I pretty much did what others on the Trail were doing. Even though I only met one other hiker going my direction, the collective wisdom of how one "should" hike the AT is a powerful force. Not many people thought of taking so many stops way back when. Not many people think they have the option of spending 10 or 12 days straight in the woods now. Tipi, I think your post is a good reminder of that.

If you are going to regularly spend 10 or 12 days straight in the woods, a glorified day pack isn't going to cut it, I think. Although few will, I agree with you on that.

[DAJA]

Naked, I'm going Naked!:D



Tipi, I think your post is a good reminder of that.

If you are going to regularly spend 10 or 12 days straight in the woods, a glorified day pack isn't going to cut it, I think. Although few will, but I agree with you on that.

Agreed!

[SGT Rock]

For the most part I would agree - but it depends on the hiker and what they hack. For example I have carried up to 50 pounds in my Gearskin. Just for testing - but I did carry it 10 miles like that.

Now lets say I went out for 12 days - for me that is about 30 pounds of food. I'll add in 2 pounds for water while I walk, 16.5 pounds of gear for winter, and 1 pound of fuel, plus throw in another pound for another book to read and some miscelaneous stuff to make the trip fun. That comes up to about 50 pounds. If I hike like Tipi (not a lot of miles, camp in places for days) then I really ain't going to pack that whole weight for 12 days - it gets lower every day. By the end of the 12th day I'm walking out of the woods to my car with 16.5 pounds.

I bet I would even have fun. But then again, if I had 12 days off I also might want to spend that time walking and seeing someting new every day. So start off with low miles and end with higher miles.

Or whatever. Why do something just to prove I can do it. Like I did a sub 5 pound base just to prove I could. I hated it. I also have done 100 pounds just to prove I could. I also hated it.

I hike my way because I like it.

[SGT Rock]

And to finish that thought. Don't judge what you think I can do or what you think I am like, or what you think I will and won't do by my gear. That is an amateur mistake to make.

[Tipi Walter]

Not sure that's the best example.

If I am not mistaken, the Cherokee built solid, well constructed homes. They didn't live in tents.

Until Andrew Jackson had them evicted.

As an aside, the below fotog shows a Cherokee winter home before Columbus, made interweaving river cane in a circular framework and plastered with mud. Heavier by far than my 8 pound Hilleberg.


When considering gear, I thought of its weight in terms of Apple (Fig) Newtons. That was my coin of the realm. Why carry a camera when you could carry 10 more Apple Newtons instead?

When I hiked, I pretty much did what others on the Trail were doing. Even though I only met one other hiker going my direction, the collective wisdom of how one "should" hike the AT is a powerful force. Not many people thought of taking so many stops way back when. Not many people think they have the option of spending 10 or 12 days straight in the woods now. Tipi, I think your post is a good reminder of that.

If you are going to regularly spend 10 or 12 days straight in the woods, a glorified day pack isn't going to cut it, I think. Although few will, but I agree with you on that.

This is really the point I was trying to make, along with the need for a beefier, heavier pack to carry such trip weight. When you say the collective wisdom of how one 'should' hike the AT is a powerful force, does this also include encouraging people to resupply often? Is there also a "should" collective encouragement to do big mile days?

[rickb]

it depends on the hiker and what they hack.


I'll buy that.

One thing about even a bit of extra weight (especially as you get older) is that it might take a long term, cumulative toll on your joints and tendons and stuff.

I think it is possible to have a heavier and more comfortable pack that actually does you a disservice in the long run.

Or to put it another way, what profit a man with a Terraplane if his shoulders are comfy, if the extra weight takes a toll on his knee?

[SGT Rock]

As an aside, the below fotog shows a Cherokee winter home before Columbus, made interweaving river cane in a circular framework and plastered with mud. Heavier by far than my 8 pound Hilleberg.

I bet they didn't carry it either ;) - just left it where they built it.


This is really the point I was trying to make, along with the need for a beefier, heavier pack to carry such trip weight. When you say the collective wisdom of how one 'should' hike the AT is a powerful force, does this also include encouraging people to resupply often? Is there also a "should" collective encouragement to do big mile days?

It gets into what you are doing with your gear. We had this debate a while back when you badmouthed hamocks for not being able to set up in the middle of a field during a blizzard. The tool for the job... Lets see you set your tent up over a creek and have it flow under you. Of course that is silly, but that is the point about you thinking a hammock hiker is using flawed logic. He is happy in the woods hanging up, and you are happy in your tent. You are both right. The light guy isn't worng. And someone wanting to be the light guy isn't wrong either. He isn't breaking faith with the old religion.

See, carry that logic to your argument about the way people hike the AT...

If you are hiking the AT, then there is an assumption that at some point you do have to make miles. If you have to make 2,175 miles you do need to hike a lot of miles. If you are like most people you cannot take forever to walk it if you are trying to do it all at once. When I started section hiking the AT with my CAMPING gear, it became obvious to me, without anyone preaching ultralight, that I was doing it wrong.

So anyway - therefore you need to walk. DUH. :rolleyes:

If you are going to walk all day and not spend time in camp all day, then carry what you need for the job. If you are going to walk through or past a town every week, why carry more foood than you need just to prove you can? Even guys that still hike the AT with 50 pounds of gear get the logic in that. Hiking the AT really isn't ducking into the woods for 12 days. If you duck into the woods for 12 days - then the whole process is different. And for the record - I would probably cashe some food so I wouldn't have to go into town. I prefer that for the sort of hike that would be.

But anyway. The guy got his question answered quite a while back. Seems we all told him to go with the heavy pack he liked better. Somehow even telling him to stay heavy you seem to think we are all UL religious nuts.:-? Maybe it is because you have a religion you are preaching :cool:

[garlic08]

Yeah, the idea of walking the AT at a 7 to 10 mpd pace is kind of funny. 300 days?

The OP did ask about a pack for a second AT thru hike, after all, not a 10 or 12 day wilderness trip. With one exception, the responders tried to address this concern.

[SGT Rock]

I'll buy that.

One thing about even a bit of extra weight (especially as you get older) is that it might take a long term, cumulative toll on your joints and tendons and stuff.

I think it is possible to have a heavier and more comfortable pack that actually does you a disservice in the long run.

Or to put it another way, what profit a man with a Terraplane if his shoulders are comfy, if the extra weight takes a toll on his knee?
Yep. Ask Jack Tarlin about his knees.

[Tipi Walter]

There was a time when 10 days plus was not such an uncommon approach on the AT.

I would think a smaller/lighter pack would take that option off the table before you start. But in the end it probably doesn't matter. People hike like their peers, and now days, that means frequent resupply and a ton of hitches and town stops.

But it doesn't have to be this way, my point is that people can limit resupplies by carrying more weight(or even having food caches), and pulling less miles per day by stretching an eventual thruhike over a couple or three or four years. Just because it is normally accepted that a thruhike has to be done in 4 to 6 months doesn't make it the only choice. Go slower. Carry more weight. Visit towns less. It's just another way of looking at it. And it's not necessarily my way of looking at it, just another way.



I bet they didn't carry it either ;) - just left it where they built it.


It gets into what you are doing with your gear. We had this debate a while back when you badmouthed hamocks for not being able to set up in the middle of a field during a blizzard.


That incident was about a hammock guy caught in a sleet and windstorm and having to bail into a friend's tent due to weather-related gear failure. Another was a guy in a bivy sack during the same storm having to bail from a saturated sleeping bag and get off the mountain. I have observed similar behaviors with people using "inadequate" gear and since I'm within their range of activity, I take note of it and write it down. There's also the example of an "ultralight" guy I met hiking the BMT who got caught in an unexpected spring snowfall and cold snap and bailed for the rest of the trip. Or a UL guy hiking the BMT in light trail runners and getting caught in a cold freeze and snow with frozen shoes and bailed down to a motel to get his feet back to normal and warm. And of course Just Jeff's hammock experience in California during a terrible Sierra snow and windstorm. I didn't see it but I read about it on his trip report.

I'm just not making this stuff up. And it is about gear. Do I see it all the time? Well, no, but I see it enough to think about why it happens. And I've studied January/February 2009 AT Trail Journals and found several I could name who "bugged out" due to terrible weather, zero temps, and not having the gear for such conditions. There is a tendency for winter backpackers to take too little for too much of what hits them--especially in the bag department. So, I say, why not take that heavier pack and a heavier sleeping bag? Just some thoughts.

[SGT Rock]

That incident was about a hammock guy caught in a sleet and windstorm and having to bail into a friend's tent due to weather-related gear failure. Another was a guy in a bivy sack during the same storm having to bail from a saturated sleeping bag and get off the mountain. I have observed similar behaviors with people using "inadequate" gear and since I'm within their range of activity, I take note of it and write it down. There's also the example of an "ultralight" guy I met hiking the BMT who got caught in an unexpected spring snowfall and cold snap and bailed for the rest of the trip. Or a UL guy hiking the BMT in light trail runners and getting caught in a cold freeze and snow with frozen shoes and bailed down to a motel to get his feet back to normal and warm. And of course Just Jeff's hammock experience in California during a terrible Sierra snow and windstorm. I didn't see it but I read about it on his trip report.

What about the guys with heavy gear that have bailed? I guess they don't count. I've found complete tents still standing abandoned. I imagine they didn't abandon the tent because it was working great. I guess in your frame of looking at it, the ultralighters were being dangerous to themselves and needed help, but guys that pack heavy and were ready to do battle with the wilderness but failed at it - they just had bad luck? I saw lots of people bailing off the AT this year because of the weather but they had real tents, real backpacks, real everything. But one guy that I did see stay out there during all that had a hammock. Does that make you go hmmmm? Or are you going to figure out a way to rationalize why the heavy guys got off and the light guy kept going? Maybe their heavy gear wasn't the right heavy gear. Next it will be spend more money on the more heavy gear.

And what those guys you have seen bail did is the SMART thing to do in their situations. The dumb thing would be to stay out there and prove they could do something just to prove they could.

If you gear ain't hacking it because a hurricane was moving in over the mountains and the wind was blowing things off the mountains including trees would you leave? Or would you stay in the center of a bald to prove you could?



I'm just not making this stuff up. And it is about gear.
So you ARE a gear head. I thought so.


Do I see it all the time? Well, no, but I see it enough to think about why it happens. And I've studied January/February 2009 AT Trail Journals and found several I could name who "bugged out" due to terrible weather, zero temps, and not having the gear for such conditions. Yes, I've checked some of those journals out too. See above...

I have also met some of these people this year out on the AT and I was one last year. I never bugged out from the cold, I hiked light, and I went through at least two bad winter storms. I am not talking inferring what a hiker is like by looking at a gear list on line - I'm talking about seeing the hiker and his gear, looking into their eyes, and seeing what that person is about.

Again - I don't judge a hiker by their gear. You do.


There is a tendency for winter backpackers to take too little for too much of what hits them--especially in the bag department. So, I say, why not take that heavier pack and a heavier sleeping bag? Just some thoughts.I say it takes more than just gear. It takes experience and attitude. Even if you have all the great gear in the world you can get frozen off the trail. And some people with some of what you would call dangerous gear hike through the Sierra Mountains through snow packed passes with that stuff. How are they making it if you are right?

[skinewmexico]

Did you hear about the GoLite person (employee?) who started off from Springer last year in an attempt to set the record for un-resupplied travel? He had well over 100 pounds (130?) in a GoLite pack, and made about four days or something like that. (I was out there hiking, so I heard it all through the grapevine.) I didn't hear about the pack failing, which is amazing if that's the case. But what a horrible idea, in my opinion, going unsupplied where there are supplies right in your face every day or three.

Hard to set a record for un-resupplied travel if you resupply every day or three. And the GoLite employee was the founder and owner of GoLite, Demetri Coupounas. We will now return you to the regularly scheduled, ongoing p*ssing contest.

[Wags]

my thoughts on this thread. so i used to just hike with whatever. didn't care a lick about weight or gear this and that. then i joined here and suddenly felt that my gear sucked and was WAY too heavy. i researched a lot of stuff and then bought some stuff. then i used that stuff and found that i didn't like that stuff. then i started taking advise with a grain of salt and made mental notes to myself about my gear while i was out.

then i bought some middle of the road stuff. now my pack weight is about 31 or 32 lbs with 8lbs food and 2 lbs water. some of the loudest people here may scoff at my purchases, but they aren't me. i like my stuff and i like to hike (whether it's for 5 hours or 5 days)

the end

[SGT Rock]

31 or 32 pounds is a good range. Have fun.

[JAK]

Not sure that's the best example.

If I am not mistaken, the Cherokee built solid, well constructed homes. They didn't live in tents.

Until Andrew Jackson had them evicted.Well it is true that they built homes, farms, mills, practiced medicine and law, and all those things before they were evicted, but I doubt they felt the need to carry all those things with them when they went for a hike in the woods. ;)

[JAK]

Of course, like Tipi, they weren't afraid of carrying alot of weight either.

[JAK]

I don't mind carrying as much as I can sometimes, like when I hike with my daughter. I just don't think the pack really needs to be that heavy to do it. However, if someone has a comfortable 4 or 5 pound pack, they should use it until they find or make something lighter. I just think its wrong to claim that a pack MUST be made that heavy if you want to carry alot of weight comfortably, and that everyone is a UL freak that claims otherwise. If you have a favourite 7 pound pack, that's fine, but it doesn't have to be that heavy to carry what it does comfortably. Most of that weight is aesthetics.

[garlic08]

I just looked at the title of this thread again, and saw the words "old school". In relation to backpacking, what does that mean? For most of us (of a certain age), it seems to mean the way things were in the '70s.

But what about older than that? Was John Muir "old school" on his trips in the Sierra Nevada? I'm not a Muir scholar, but didn't he go out with very little gear? I remember reading an account where he basically had a wool coat and a loaf of bread for at least an overnighter. Maybe he got stuck out unintentionally on that trip, I can't remember, and maybe he didn't elaborate. He certainly didn't seem to dwell on his gear at any rate, rather on how he made a bed near treeline under some fir trees. Anyway, it was a great story. I think of it when I pack all my stuff sometimes.

[mateozzz]

An interesting thread. I weighed my Gregory Baltoro (medium) and it weights 5 1/4 lbs, which appears to be a little heavy based on the comments. I started inspecting it and started taking pieces off to weigh. The lid and water bag bag weighed about 7 oz, a couple of extra straps weighed 1 oz (ice pick anyone?), and the aluminum spine weighed about 4 oz. Then there are some fairly hefty pieces of plastic that make up the back where the straps and belt attach that I couldn't take off to weigh. Plus the hip/shoulder belts are fairly robust, the zippers are heavy duty and are covered for water resistance. Plus I could probably cut off the extra strap material for another couple of ounces and there are a couple of pockets I could live without. So it is pretty easy to see where you could knock off 2 lbs and still have a fairly robust pack.

The problem is, is it a pack you would want to use? I know a lot of people like the ul packs, but the Gregory (or brand x) that is built heavier will be more comfortable and transfer the weight to your hips better so it won't try to dump you on your head if you stumble. I carried 48 lbs on one hike (I weigh 150) and it was amazingly comfortable, with 30 lbs it felt like it was empty. Plus it has lots of pockets which are great for organizing and straps for tightening things down. And it will last longer (say, 20 years or so?)

That said, my preferences might lean to a lighter pack for a thru-hike since dragging 2 extra lbs for 2000 miles for no reason would be a bummer. But since I am just doing section hikes and use this pack for weekend camping when weight isn't such an issue, it works for me. So if you have the money to buy a specialty pack and don't value some of the frills, go ul, just be careful choosing the belts or you will be cursing every step. But as they say, hike your own hike.

[Tipi Walter]

I just looked at the title of this thread again, and saw the words "old school". In relation to backpacking, what does that mean? For most of us (of a certain age), it seems to mean the way things were in the '70s.

But what about older than that? Was John Muir "old school" on his trips in the Sierra Nevada? I'm not a Muir scholar, but didn't he go out with very little gear? I remember reading an account where he basically had a wool coat and a loaf of bread for at least an overnighter. Maybe he got stuck out unintentionally on that trip, I can't remember, and maybe he didn't elaborate. He certainly didn't seem to dwell on his gear at any rate, rather on how he made a bed near treeline under some fir trees. Anyway, it was a great story. I think of it when I pack all my stuff sometimes.

THE STORY OF LEGENDARY BACKPACKER NORMAN CLYDE

**Norman Asa Clyde was born in Philadelphia in 1885.
**1914 Norman climbed in Yosemite with the Sierra Club/50 ascents of Mt Whitney, 12 of Shasta.
**Between 1914 and 1940 he became the first climber to reach the tops of at least 126 peaks.
**In 1920 he went with the Sierra Club from Yosemite thru Evolution Valley and it was on this trip that he carried the first of his famous big packs, from 75-90 pounds, although he only weighed 140.

NORMAN CLYDE'S PACKS AND SMOKE BLANCHARD
Fellow backpacker Smoke Blanchard had this to say: "I can still remember my awe at the collection of gear Norman drew out of his duffel bag. There's part of the weight right there. The bag was lashed to a 6 pound Yukon pack frame which also supported a full length Hudson Bay axe. But the kitchen bag was the most surprising. Norman's 6 large kettles, the cups and spoons, the dishes and bowls, the salt shakers, condiments, servers, and graters. Boots? He carried several: ski boots, tricouni boots, rubber soled boots for the rocks, camp slippers."

"It's not true," Clyde told Blanchard once, "that I carry an anvil in my pack." He did carry five cameras. And the books! I think many people might find his way of travel in the mountains quite strange, especially with today's gear. But you see, Norman was not just visiting the mountains or passing through the peaks. He lived there . . ." SMOKE BLANCHARD

CLYDE'S DEATH
Norman Clyde died December 23, 1972, at the age of 87. Obviously, a lifetime of carrying enormous packs didn't shorten his span. When asked to sum up his life, he said, "I sort of went off on a tangent from civilization and never got back."

[SGT Rock]

Sounds like a cool old guy. Sort of like Tipi ;)

[Tipi Walter]

Oops! I forgot to load in a couple fotogs of the man:

[hpowers]

I just can't resist this. Go to www.mchalepacks.com and read Dan McHale's comments about pack weight.

[FamilyGuy]

I just can't resist this. Go to www.mchalepacks.com and read Dan McHale's comments about pack weight.

...and then price on of his packs out. Have $750+ laying around:D

[rickb]

I just can't resist this. Go to www.mchalepacks.com and read Dan McHale's comments about pack weight.

You mean this part:


Lightweight thru-hiking and backpacking: There are lots of people that have much invested in making people think that the urge to go lighter is something new and that people did not do that in the 'old days'. Read my Muir Trail thru-hike story in the secondary menu at the top of this letter and see what you think. I was 17 or so, and just imagine, without today's UL websites, or gurus that think they are reinventing backpacking, I managed to load up a pack and walk from Yosemite to Mineral King in 11 days starting with a total load of just 40 lbs - yes, we weighed our packs back then too. The best part is that I used a real pack to do it too, a simple external frame, that in principle was far better than the frameless bags many are using today. Even today people would have a hard time doing what I did over 35 years ago. That's proof it's not about minimizing the pack but minimizing the load. If I could go back in time I could use the same Camp Trails external and break any existing Muir Trail record - there is more to doing this stuff than just the gear.

Backpacking is evolving that's all, like so many things do. Some things are better and some aren't. Lighter does not always spell 'Better', especially in the case of packs. Lighter can spell STUPID. With all the talk these days about developing core strength and core energy - most of the packs being promoted for light packing are antithetical. A pack needs to have it's own effecient skeletal structure to preserve both the core of the pack and the carrier. Frameless or 'structureless' packs beat people down much more than is realized.

Mountaineering especially is not the place to skimp on packs - learning the hard way is what's all about though - Ya Sure. Ya Bet Ya! There are many people that need to carry 30 lbs. and more that are fooling themselves and being fooled by what is going on. It all comes down to just how much the load can be 'enjoyed' and whether that is important to you. There are many people out there that can't wait to tell you how 'comfortable' their uncomfortable pack is and how great their gear spreadsheet looks. Truth is, you can tell when somebody is uncomfortable just from watching their body language, they don't have to say a thing! People do not understand the psychological toll uncomfortable nagging packs take either. Just start looking and paying attention. All those packs hanging back from peoples shoulders actually suck their energy far more than a little extra weight.

Let's talk about the .73% difference in weight that is attained if you weigh 175 lbs and carry a 32 lb. load in a 3 lb. pack and go to a possibly very uncomfortable 1.5 lb. pack. That's right - big suffering to save .73% off the total of this mass hitting each ankle with each step. That's the logic many have become involved in. When are people going to start talking about percentage increase in discomfort that comes with sacrificing the pack performance just for the sake of numbers? Getting too caught up in making things lighter does not always lead to positive results. Being miserable every day of a backpacking trip to save .73% is not what it should be all about - especially if you don't need the .73% ! I also talk about why the backpack should not be considered one of the 'big 3'.

Why isn't there a 'big 4'? Hell, boots can weigh a lot, especially if you have big feet. The Peter Boot Principle can have more dire consequences than the Peter Pack Principle. I'm supposed to feel stupid hiking in my 4lb.,7oz/pair size 14 Zamberlans. These can easily weigh more than any of my big 3. To put my boot weight into perspective though, my average running shoes weigh 2.4 lbs/pair. I have spent plenty of time hiking and backpacking in running shoes. If you do a good job of lightening your load you won't need to skimp on the important items......much depends on just how good your feet still are! Personally, I have some old climbing fall, skiing fall, snowboard fall sprains I have to watch out for. The days of backpacking in running shoes for me are no longer!

[Tipi Walter]

I just can't resist this. Go to www.mchalepacks.com (http://www.mchalepacks.com) and read Dan McHale's comments about pack weight.

I managed to wade thru his literature and found these relevant quotes:

DAN MCHALE QUOTES

**"There is even quite a bit about being sensible when it comes to downsizing to UL packs--how even a 25 to 30 lb load can be very uncomfortable in a pack that is too light and does not have enough structure."

**"The empty pack weights and limits of what is acceptable in the UL community are as arbitrary as anything can be. Performance is something much more difficult to put a number on than just dumb weight, and people even fib about that."

**"The myth of the SUL backpack that makes light loads feel lighter and lets you walk further, is alive and well. The hardcore competition to publish lighter base weights on the net does not take into consideration overall well-being."

**"LIGHTWEIGHT THRU-HIKING AND BACKPACKING: There are lots of people that have much invested in making people think that the urge to go lighter is something new and that people did not do that in the 'old days'."

**Lighter does not always spell 'Better', especially in the case of packs. Lighter can spell STUPID. A pack needs to have it's own efficient skeletal structure to preserve both the core of the pack and the carrier. Frameless or 'structureless' packs beat people down much more than is realized."

**"There are always people clamoring(definition: a loud sustained noise)to take things to the limit of what no longer works well."

**"I really get p-- off by these people that preach going so light with packs that you'd swear the 20 lb. on your back is 50. Then when they try to do an unsupported long trip manage to make 50 lbs feel like 100 in some pack that is still not worthy. To be part of the UL club it is important to be uncomfortable at whatever level you participate. The pushers don't mean harm but they do harm. Lot's of these people don't quit or shut up until they've got you into a truly uncomfortable pack--one that you dare not carry anything in."

**"The contemporary version of the Peter 'Pack' Principle states that people will acquire lighter and lighter packs until they reach that point where the packs no longer function well. Some people are smart though, and bounce back over the line and prefer comfort over bragging about their 'base weights'"

**"Beware of putting too much emphasis on empty pack weight--it is not a practical religion--going with a lighter load is."

**"I know it sounds stupid but I like to say you are better off carrying a 30 lb. load in a 10 lb pack that works than in a 1.5 lb. pack that doesn't."

**"There is a lot of cult pressure to use 1.5 pound packs. There is such a thing as cult stupidity."

**"The notion that you can't be uncomfortable with a 1.5 lb. pack is just more cult stupidity." ALL QUOTES FROM DAN MCHALE
http://www.mchalepacks.com/letter/index.htm

[slow]

In fl i go real lite....But i will never sell my dana,wm stuff.Some just dont get it like Tipi does.If i had a 3 day hike or 4 on the AT i like my zip ...hands downs.... i can make it to town.5 day out i will take my dana and can load for 10 day if i want.

I have tons of ul gear but i will not sell my dana stuff.

[FamilyGuy]

Lets be very, very clear here. Dan Mchale sells packs. Expensive packs. His packs. Of course he promotes....his packs.

If you wade through more of the website (it could take hours) you will see that lo and behold, he has produced sub 2 lb packs....yikes, even a frameless one.

The fact is, if you get your base weight down to 10 pounds (as an example - insert # here) then why carry a heavy pack with a heavy frame? You simply don't need it for load bearing or stability and for many, a pack with such components is horribly cumbersome. When you consider that there are people that have climbed Everest with a sub 1.5lb pack with a heavy load and were comfortable, it is even more amazing (please see www.mountainlaureldesigns).

Having said all that, if you enjoy using a heavier pack with a suspension that can carry 50 pounds and you don't carry UL equipment in the pack or heck, maybe you do but just prefer the feel of the heavier pack then good for you! Maybe the design of the pack works for your back shape. Just get outside - this is what it is all about....no?

(yes I do peruse the Mystery Ranch site periodically)

[slow]

I have a MLD Exodus ...you can take to everest.And while your at it take the new HS tent and a second rate MB BAG WITH YOU.?I wont pay for a second rate bag..but will pay MLD for each and ever one you need.

[FamilyGuy]

I have a MLD Exodus ...you can take to everest.And while your at it take the new HS tent and a second rate MB BAG WITH YOU.?I wont pay for a second rate bag..but will pay MLD for each and ever one you need.

I understood none of this, but thanks for the reply.

In any event, what I was trying to say in my last post was to hike your own hike, carry what you want, and enjoy yourself. Just get outside and off these forums.

[SGT Rock]

If you want to look at a good pack for someone with a low base load that isn't 8 pounds but is also not a glorified school bag - look at the ULA line.

[take-a-knee]

If you want to look at a good pack for someone with a low base load that isn't 8 pounds but is also not a glorified school bag - look at the ULA line.

I agree, if you are LW not UL, get a ULA Catalyst. It'll likely be more pack than you need in the summer but if I could only have one pack that would be it.

[JAK]

I like the look and features of that ULA Catalyst and at 3 pounds its reasonably. If and when I get a 4500ci pack I'll have to try it on. I would use it for winter, and for longer summer hikes with my daughter, and I would also like a pack I could load up with a crazy amount of food if I ever get the time for a long wilderness hike. I just wish they had more packs like this in stores. I would seem to me that a pack like this should represent the mainstream, rather than be considered on the light side.

http://www.ula-equipment.com/catalyst.htm

[BlackRock]

I've been lightening up the load a bit more every year. You can argue light vs. heavy but every year heavy goes on a diet :) So the goal always seems to be "Go Light".

I think the real question is where do draw the line between going light and/or fast vs having what you need/want and going slower.

I do alot of 3 day trips in and out going anywhere from 10 to 50 miles in a trip. Most are done in good summer conditions so my pack weight is representative of those conditions. My target weight is usually around 15 pounds and then another 5-7 lbs of gear. So I generally target 22lbs with my pack. I'll go as light as sub 10lbs for 2 day trips and as heavy as maybe 35 pounds for 4 day trips. But to keep up the miles and speed I usually need to keep the weight down as close to 20 pounds as I can get.

I find that my speed just drops with a 30+ pounder and while I can slog on for most of the day, it's just that "a slog". My buddy usually takes more weight though but I weigh about 150 and he weighs around 220.

My pack is pretty heavy though at 4+ pounds and my pad is a 3/4 Therarest-pro 4 which is a pound on it's own. My next step is to get a lighter pack and one of those Mt. Washington pads and drop another 2-3 pounds off my base weight.

[Franco]

To me it's just so funny that it wasn't long ago when I questioned the validity of doing a certain 10 day hike with a 1lbs skin out base weight . ( a point I raised there was : how do you carry food for ten days when your pack is a fraction of 1 lbs...) In that very long thread so many had a go at me (and a few others) for not going along with that idea, and now folk are arguing the necessity of having a pack that is 4 to 6 times that weigh alone.

Franco

[Mags]

I have a novel idea!

Some people to go light..and enjoy themselves!
Some people like to take lots of luxuries and are primarily campers..and they enjoy themselves!

The connection? People take gear that works for them and their chosen situation.

When I go to Utah in 1.5 wks, it is a chill backpacking trip. I am taking some medicinal liquid, my morning coffee and maybe a canister stove. Wow! On the BMT, I packed ~20 lbs with 5 days of food, water and fuel.

So my novel idea?

Just take what gear works for your personal comfort, safety and enjoyment of a trip. And don't lecture other people on what is the one, correct, true way of enjoying the outdoors. Give options, say what works for you and why, but don't ever make the mistake that what works for you is in fact Gospel and other people are wrong.



It's only frickin' gear...


I'm off to drink beer with friends. Maybe some of you should, too. :)

[Franco]

Thanks Mags, that and never add soft drinks to good whisky...
Franco