View Full Version : What is ultralight?
sleeman13
01-02-2009, 12:42
What defines ultralight? Is it a set weight amount for you pack or big 4? Would my pack be considered UL or just lightweight?
Big 4:
MSR Hubba: 3lbs
GG Vapor Trail: 2lbs
Therm-A-Rest Z Lite: 15ozs
EMS Down 20° Bag: 2lbs 2ozs
Total: 8lbs 1oz
Lone Wolf
01-02-2009, 12:58
ultralight = being unprepared
buckwheat
01-02-2009, 13:00
I dont' think there is an "official definition." Most would say that a sub-10 pound pack would be "ultralight."
Such a pack would include everything you intend to carry, excepting food and water. (And would include any water containers ... minus the water.)
Under that definition, I would doubt that you qualify, given the weight you've already disclosed, but you might be close.
buckwheat
01-02-2009, 13:08
While I think Lone Wolf overstates the case a bit, he's probably overstating it only by a bit.
It's my opinion that many "ultralight" enthusiasts sacrifice everything of comfort. And if anything goes wrong on their hike, they're unlikely to be carrying any equipment that might be of use.
If you plan to hike ultralight, it makes a lot of sense to plan how you will escape the trail when, inevitably, conditions or events do not favor ultralight hiking. Anything you might need is going to be off-trail, so you probably should have a plan for getting to help and be prepared to stop hiking the moment anything goes awry.
Worldwide
01-02-2009, 13:08
I think there is a definition of it on here somewhere it puts you around 15 lbs total base weight your big 4 + stuff sacks, hydration system ( bottles, bladder, not that water itself), stove and fuel / canisters, water filter or chemicals (if any), clothing, ground cloth, tent stakes, pack cover, maps / guide books, electronics ( camera / cell phone). More importantly, who cares about the label of "ultralight" I think gram weenie ( thanks Baltimore Jack ) is more apropriate term.
Unless you need to get business cards made then
"Ultralight Hiking Operations Officer" title has more authority to it
"Chief Executive Gram Weenie" doesn't sound too catchy
"Vice President of Ultralight Affairs" is also awe inspiring
I think its very important to go Light, for health and safety reasons.
Ultralight implies going to an extreme, for more than safety reasons.
Heavy implies another extreme, for more than safety reasons.
Of course you can go Ultralight or Heavy and still be safe, or Light and still be unsafe.
What is a reasonably light skin-out weight depends on the season.
I suggest the following range, skin-out, including food and water,
This is for both adults and children, and depends on your height...
4'0" = 8 to 16 pounds
4'6" = 10 to 20 pounds
5'0" = 12.5 to 25 pounds
5'6" = 15 to 30 pounds
6'0" and taller = 18 to 36 pounds
buckwheat
01-02-2009, 13:12
At any rate, I think the big 4 are:
1) Pack
2) Shelter (tent including pitching gear, or hammock package including all bits)
3) Bed (sleeping bag and pad and accessories like pillows, etc.)
4) Kitchen (stove, fuel and pots/sporks)
If you can get that under 10 pounds, you are definitely ahead of the weight game.
Worldwide
01-02-2009, 13:16
depends on your height...
4'0" = 8 to 16 pounds
4'6" = 10 to 20 pounds
5'0" = 12.5 to 25 pounds
5'6" = 15 to 30 pounds
6'0" and taller = 18 to 36 pounds
Audie Murphy was 5'4" and his weapon and ammo alone was considered too heavy to be UL and he has a monument on the AT!
Haven't seen one for Ray Jardine yet
If you want some arbitrary definitions that are "generally accepted", try this article (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40886).
Rain Man
01-02-2009, 13:24
If you can get that under 10 pounds, you are definitely ahead of the weight game.
But perhaps not necessarily ahead of the safety game?
I tend to agree with Lone Wolf on this issue, or at least be closer to that part of the spectrum.
I suppose I would add that one must take into account the season/weather, the terrain/locale, water sources (or lack thereof), and so forth.
But as always, "hike your own hike" is a good adage.
Rain:sunMan
.
Clothing should be considered part of the big 4, rather than kitchen.
Maybe it should be a big 5 list, or maybe clothing is number 0.
Then their food and water, but those are consumables...
0) Clothing = 2-3 pounds + 1 pound for every 15 deg below 50F.
1) Pack = 1-2 pounds
2) Shelter = 2-3 pounds
3) Bed = 1-2 pounds + 0.5 pound for every 15 deg below 50F.
4) Kitchen = 1-2 pounds
5) Food and Water and Fuel = 1-2 pounds + 1-2 pounds/day
Audie Murphy was 5'4" and his weapon and ammo alone was considered too heavy to be UL and he has a monument on the AT!
Haven't seen one for Ray Jardine yetI'm not looking for a monument.
I'm looking to suggest what is a safe and healthy weight for people to carry.
The big four is:
1) Pack
2) Shelter
3) Sleeping bag/quilt
4) Pad/under-insulation
Kitchen gear, clothes, safety/hygiene gear, camera gear, etc is all extra but still counts in base weight.
Not that many people fall into the UL category. I gave up worrying about it a long time ago.
Lone Wolf
01-02-2009, 13:35
one of the big 4 for me is footwear
People that equate weight with safety tend to be in the business of selling gear.
Orthapedic Surgeons, for one, have a completely different view.
4'0" = 8 to 16 pounds
4'6" = 10 to 20 pounds
5'0" = 12.5 to 25 pounds
5'6" = 15 to 30 pounds
6'0" and taller = 18 to 36 pounds
height in feet, squared = total skin out weight in pounds
If you are overweight, or underaged, or overaged, or really light framed,
or just plain wobbly, you want to try to cut it down to 50% of that number.
For myself at 6', overweight, I manage very well at about 18 pounds in summer and no more than 36 pounds in winter or if I'm taking my daughter with me, and that includes food. I don't think people stress enough that carrying too much weight is as dangerous as carrying too little.
What defines ultralight? Is it a set weight amount for you pack or big 4?
I think of it as a sort of sliding scale, with every individual as a unique point of reference.
Heavy - too much effort to contribute to enjoyment.
Moderate - bringing enough to feel confident about your changes of survival AND enjoyment, and not laboring under the effort to get it there.
Light - Moderate after taking a good critical look at gear needs vs comfort, feels good to have reduced that weight
Ultralight - a lot lighter than you ever thought it possible to leave the house with.
No set weights, some excellent guidelines, and definitely not for everyone.
Just my $.02.
Ranc0r
.
What defines ultralight? Is it a set weight amount for you pack or big 4? Would my pack be considered UL or just lightweight?
Big 4:
MSR Hubba: 3lbs
GG Vapor Trail: 2lbs
Therm-A-Rest Z Lite: 15ozs
EMS Down 20° Bag: 2lbs 2ozs
Total: 8lbs 1ozNot UL, but reasonably light weight, and not the worst of choices either.
CrumbSnatcher
01-02-2009, 14:42
ultralight has a different meaning to every hiker i think. to me its a close to empty food bag, in the middle of summer with no warm weather gear, having a six pack of beer in my pack instead of a 12pak:D this year it means no dog food and dog gear in my pack(i lost my dog last april)i will be lighter this year by far! moving alot faster. hiking light is great. ultralight usually means unprepaired IMO unless your experienced. i know its first come first served at shelters but i remember a handful of times i packed up my gear and went out to tent because they had no shelter at all! when they arrived. always looking surprised there was no room. surprised even after hundreds of miles. and don't think i was a saint for moving out to make room for them. it was probably too crowded anyway. and if they had a crappy attitude forget about it, move on nothing to see here.
garlic08
01-02-2009, 14:53
What defines ultralight? Is it a set weight amount for you pack or big 4? Would my pack be considered UL or just lightweight?
Big 4:
MSR Hubba: 3lbs
GG Vapor Trail: 2lbs
Therm-A-Rest Z Lite: 15ozs
EMS Down 20° Bag: 2lbs 2ozs
Total: 8lbs 1oz
I think you'd need a single wall tent or tarp (and the experience to use it safely) to get under the UL threshold. You could cut the Z-lite down to as little as 6 sections (shoulder to hip). ULers get these four items down to 5 pounds or less. Whether that's a good idea or not, well, you've already heard some comments about that.
drastic_quench
01-02-2009, 15:07
Audie Murphy was 5'4" and his weapon and ammo alone was considered too heavy to be UL and he has a monument on the AT!
Haven't seen one for Ray Jardine yet
He has a monument on the AT because he died in a frickin plane crash nearby.
... this year it means no dog food and dog gear in my pack(i lost my dog last april)...
Sorry to hear that CrumSnatcher. I know how much a dog can mean.
Panzer
CrumbSnatcher
01-02-2009, 15:17
Panzer,thanks For The Kind Words! I Appreciate Ya.
Going ultralite ain't new.
There is a circa 1930's article I have written by a woman up in Maine. Her outdoor club would try to get the weight as low as possible. Without food and water, it was sub-15lbs.
I also have a gear list for a 1960s thru-hiker (via the Roledale books) whose BPW was also sub-15lbs. With a whitegas stove.
Those who argue going ultralite = unprepared probably don't go ultralite I would think. :) My basepack weight is sub-10lbs for the simple reason I like to walk all day and like to keep things simple. That is comfort for me and my hiking style.
As long as I have a good shelter and my 20F bag, there is not much I have to worry about if Ma Nature throws a tantrum in 3 season hiking.
Call me unprepared if you will. I am not going to argue that because frankly I am not. ;)
I'm looking to suggest what is a safe and healthy weight for people to carry.
The right answer ? IT DEPENDS
It depends up a person's personal safety level, comfort level , overall experience and the conditions.
As with other aspects of gear, any person who says there is an absolute max/min value is full of crap.
On my long hikes, sub-10lbs BPW works just well thank you. On a social hike with more camping than hiking, gotta bring
the wine.
CrumbSnatcher
01-02-2009, 15:25
mags, is it easier and safer for experienced hikers to go ultralight than someone who is planning on putting on a pack for the first time this spring to try a thru? thanks crumb
One reason I would say ultra-lighters are unprepared is in the clothing area. They do not carry enough extra clothing. This could be a problem if rained on and everything your wearing got wet. A "prepared" hiker would have another full set of dry clothing to put on when they get into their tent.
Panzer
I'm trying to cut down on plastic, maybe even eliminate it. Now that ain't easy. Useful stuff plastic. We do use too much of it, but its a bit extreme to eliminate it altogether.
Fun exercise though.
CrumbSnatcher
01-02-2009, 15:37
theres dumdass's in every group listed here. ultralight, light, moderate,heavy packers. no ones perfect. thats why they have search and rescue;)
Tipi Walter
01-02-2009, 15:38
What is ultralight? Ultralight backpacking is a specialized form of hiking with frequent resupply, allowing a hiker to carry minimal food and stove fuel. The UL fanatics protest, but any basic adult can easily carry a 50-65 pound pack w/o complaint, a 65 pound pack will hold everything anyone could need for a 7 to 12 day winter trip and can easily be carried by nearly anyone.
The UL girlie-men:) might disagree but they are a peculiar lot given to trail moodiness, fickle trip commitment and fearful attitudes concerning pack weight and physical discomfort. Except for home-bound couch potatoes and teen-aged girls, I've never seen a group so reluctant to experience physical discomfort as the UL crowd.:)
ULers leave sad stories in their trip reports of near constant mini-epic struggles with changing weather conditions, either it's too cold, too wet, too windy, the shoes aren't warm enough, the tarps blow in rain or snow, the fleece was left at home to save weight--you name it, you'll hear it. On my last backpacking trip to a 5000 foot bald in blizzard conditions I ran into a guy trying to cut weight with a hammock who had to bail into the nearest tent due to extreme conditions. Extreme to him maybe, but typical winter high ground conditions otherwise.
But I believe it is the obsession with miles that feeds the UL fever, a hot glazed over state to use only the lightest possible gear no matter its cost or its short-term longevity, and the inane compulsion to make all others do the same. At the center of this madness is the fixation on daily miles walked, and from this number comes their identity, self-worth and ego validation. A sort of fantasy outdoor marathon in an outdoor arena, to prove their backpacking prowess in the high-speed chase.
I like what WBer Weary had to say once: "Besides, I hike mostly because I like to explore wild places, not to see how easy or fast I can get out of wild places."
The newbs don't seem to stand a chance against the UL onslaught, yet I'm here to warn them, to tell them to carry all the weight they want w/o fear of ridicule, and to run screaming from the basic Flimsy Four so popular nowadays(light daypack, thin quilt bag, tiny foam pad and tiny floorless tarp/tent). Why do I harp on the ULers? Because the UL philosophy is permeating all of backpacking in a negative way, making newbies and experts alike engage in a sort of PC exercise of gram counting and one-upmanship. The poor newb must therefore buy lite, think lite, act lite, hike lite or be judged as an inexperienced greenhorn.
One reason I would say ultra-lighters are unprepared is in the clothing area. They do not carry enough extra clothing. This could be a problem if rained on and everything your wearing got wet. A "prepared" hiker would have another full set of dry clothing to put on when they get into their tent.
PanzerI guess it depends on what you mean by a full set.
You never know what two items need to be worn together, so its best not to carry two of the same item, except socks maybe. I carry enough layers for the extreme, whatever that is, but no extras as such. Extras tend to get wet and stay wet. You have to manage wet clothing as much as you have to avoid wet clothing.
There's alot of room for choice between 10 pounds on one extreme and 65 pounds on the other. I still say 18-36 pounds, skin-out including food, water, and shoes, is a good weight for a 6 footer, whether you are a man, or a girl, or something in between. Going over 36 pounds is just as apt to be dangerous for most people as going under 18 pounds.
How many outfitters are truly concerned about people's health and safety?
Not too many. Not enough to stop them from buying and carrying too much gear.
Slo-go'en
01-02-2009, 15:51
I have my pack base weight down to about 15 pounds and sure would like to get it down to about 10. However, I'm reluctant to spend the money and make the "quality of life" tradeoffs loosing another 5 pounds involves.
I'll likely spend a few more sleepless nights thinking about this, but will no doubt decide to go with what I got and spend the money saved by not buying yet more new gear on the trail!
I think the 18-36 pound range, total skin-out, tends to be the cheapest also.
Tipi Walter
01-02-2009, 15:58
There's alot of room for choice between 10 pounds on one extreme and 65 pounds on the other. I still say 18-36 pounds, skin-out including food, water, and shoes, is a good weight for a 6 footer, whether you are a man, or a girl, or something in between. Going over 36 pounds is just as apt to be dangerous for most people as going under 18 pounds.
How many outfitters are truly concerned about people's health and safety?
Not too many. Not enough to stop them from buying and carrying too much gear.
When you say 18-36 pounds, am I to assume this is the weight for a one night trip? A two night trip? A 10 day trip? How about a 15 day trip w/o resupply, how much would your pack weigh?
buckwheat
01-02-2009, 16:00
... the UL philosophy is permeating all of backpacking in a negative way, making newbies and experts alike engage in a sort of PC exercise of gram counting and one-upmanship. The poor newb must therefore buy lite, think lite, act lite, hike lite or be judged as an inexperienced greenhorn.
As a noob myself (I quit a 30-year smoking habit 1 year ago this week), I can say that I haven't felt at all compelled or coerced by the ultralight hiker philosophy. And I do feel also that there are some benefits I'm enjoying by those who are pushing the manufacturers to lighten their wares. And I'm thankful that I have a wide array of weights to choose from.
As with much of life, it's all in how you balance the pros and cons.
The first thing I learned about the "hiking community" however is its motto: "Hike Your Own Hike." What a great philosophy. It means that if I don't feel safe hiking without an Ace bandage in the pack, then I can put one in there if I like. I might never use it. On the other hand, tomorrow, I may pass someone on the trail who just broke an ankle and maybe I could help.
I don't feel anyone pushing me to hike ultralight. I'm going to hike my own hike at any rate, and put the things into my pack that make me feel safer, or more responsible, until I can't carry them any longer.
The "ultralight philosophy" resulted in the introduction of fleece, silnylon, polyester, lightweight yet highly efficient stoves, etc., etc. If not for the ultralight philosophers, we'd all still be in canvas tents.
I say to the ultralight mavens, even though I am not one of them ... "Keep The Pressure On." The advancements made are helping hikers of all weight classes.
Worldwide
01-02-2009, 16:12
UL doesn't necessarily mean less prepared. Less preparation is what causes least preparedness. For me my current base weight for winter camping probably around 14 pounds, and I am more prepared than when I carried the 45 lb behemoth to start my thru hike with.
If you are replacing old hiking gear with the current available stuff from the top manufacturers you have almost no choice, but to become "ultralight". If you buy a Coleman 3 man dome tent used for car camping that is a 10 lb tent. On the other hand you could buy a 3lb solo tent easily enough. If you buy the right tool for the right job the manufacturers get you to a lower base weight. Seriously if you walked into an outfitter and asked for a 6lb sleeping bag they hand you a -20 degree bag. Or a 10lb tent they would have to sell you a solo tent and a 2 man tent to make up the weight. Ask for a 6lb pack they would hand you a backpack that is used primarily for mountain climbing.
Get used to the lightweight / smaller items because the future isn't in the heaviest gear that can be produced.
mags, is it easier and safer for experienced hikers to go ultralight than someone who is planning on putting on a pack for the first time this spring to try a thru?
Absolutely. Part of going UL is knowledge and experience.
For the first timer, going 15-20lbs BPW is a nice compromise between comfort, safety and weight. (a "real" tent, a canister stove, good sleeping bag, etc.) I do not suggest new backpackers go sub-10lbs.
When you say 18-36 pounds, am I to assume this is the weight for a one night trip? A two night trip? A 10 day trip? How about a 15 day trip w/o resupply, how much would your pack weigh?
This is just a guess, but for 15 days, in winter...
0) Clothing = 2-3 pounds + 1 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 8 pounds
1) Pack = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
2) Shelter = 2-3 pounds = 3 pounds
3) Bed = 1-2 pounds + 0.5 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 5 pounds
4) Kitchen = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
5) Food and Water and Fuel = 1-2 pounds + 1-2 pounds/day = 32 pounds
6) Hatchet + Toboggan + other stuff ???
60 pounds
This is just a guess, but for 15 days, in Spring/Fall, for down to 5F...
0) Clothing = 2-3 pounds + 1 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 6 pounds
1) Pack = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
2) Shelter = 2-3 pounds = 3 pounds
3) Bed = 1-2 pounds + 0.5 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 3 pounds
4) Kitchen = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
5) Food and Water and Fuel = 1-2 pounds + 1-2 pounds/day = 24 pounds
6) other stuff ???
45 pounds
I would want to lose some weight before carrying 45 pounds, but I would go anyway. Wish I had the 15 days.
15 days in summer? Maybe as little as 25 pounds, skin out, if I wanted to lose 15 pounds of body fat. I would likely bring 30-35 pounds though, with the extra 5-10 pounds being whatever I thought might keep me occupied. Food would be a good choice. :)
Ultralight backpacking is a specialized form of hiking with frequent resupply, a
This is wrong on so many levels.
But, I've been down this road before with you (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43854&highlight=corporate+whores). So, I am not going to repeat myself.
To sum my arguments:
Take the right tool for the right job. One way is not better or worse. Just have fun, be safe, and don't let your fun impose upon others.
I really don't care if you advocate going heavy. But try not to make summary judgments against people you know nothing about.
I'll also say people who focus on gear, be it heavy or light, really just don't get the outdoors.
When you say 18-36 pounds, am I to assume this is the weight for a one night trip? A two night trip? A 10 day trip? How about a 15 day trip w/o resupply, how much would your pack weigh?
The first 10 days of my JMT trip was right at 40 pounds including 2.5 liters of water, 12 days of food plus 4 paperback books. Read my journal - you'll find no whining. I see no reason to carry 65 pounds just because I'm physically capable of it. I carry what I need for each trip - based on terrain, season, etc.
But if you were to do a 15 day trip, you might carry 18 days food, and so that would bring you up to 50 pounds or so. I would like to do a long distance hike some day, more than the 3-5 day trips I've been doing. I think a fortnight seems naturally appealling for a trip with long distance in mind. For that amount of time I would need only 40 pounds at my current state of fitness, but if I was in better shape and able to cover more distance and with less fat to burn I would likely carry 50 pounds. For days rather than distance in mind, which is what Tipi Walter seems to do alot of also, I think 40 days and 40 nights would be an interesting duration. That that amount of time I would cover less distance, and do some hunting and fishing and foraging. Not sure what amount of weight I would start with. Assumine no toboggan or canoe or anything like that, 65 pounds maybe, and I would need to be able to bail out of course if the likely event that the hunting and fishing and foraging didn't go as planned. If I ever do that, I will be older, but hopefully in good enough shape for 65 pounds. I needn't be covering 15-20 miles a day with that weight on such a trip though. 5-10 miles a day would be enough.
Tipi Walter
01-02-2009, 17:10
This is just a guess, but for 15 days, in winter...
0) Clothing = 2-3 pounds + 1 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 8 pounds
1) Pack = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
2) Shelter = 2-3 pounds = 3 pounds
3) Bed = 1-2 pounds + 0.5 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 5 pounds
4) Kitchen = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
5) Food and Water and Fuel = 1-2 pounds + 1-2 pounds/day = 32 pounds
6) Hatchet + Toboggan + other stuff ???
60 pounds
This is just a guess, but for 15 days, in Spring/Fall, for down to 5F...
0) Clothing = 2-3 pounds + 1 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 6 pounds
1) Pack = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
2) Shelter = 2-3 pounds = 3 pounds
3) Bed = 1-2 pounds + 0.5 pound for every 15 deg below 50F = 3 pounds
4) Kitchen = 1-2 pounds = 2 pounds
5) Food and Water and Fuel = 1-2 pounds + 1-2 pounds/day = 24 pounds
6) other stuff ???
45 pounds
I would want to lose some weight before carrying 45 pounds, but I would go anyway. Wish I had the 15 days.
15 days in summer? Maybe as little as 25 pounds, skin out, if I wanted to lose 15 pounds of body fat. I would likely bring 30-35 pounds though, with the extra 5-10 pounds being whatever I thought might keep me occupied. Food would be a good choice. :)
The first 10 days of my JMT trip was right at 40 pounds including 2.5 liters of water, 12 days of food plus 4 paperback books. Read my journal - you'll find no whining. I see no reason to carry 65 pounds just because I'm physically capable of it. I carry what I need for each trip - based on terrain, season, etc.
I guess my point is slowly being made with the above figures, 40 pounds at 12 days and around 60 for a 15 day winter trip. Hence, my comment on ultralight backpacking being a specialized form of camping with frequent resupply. If a person does not resupply on a long trip, his food load alone could approach 30 pounds, not to mention water/gear. With a winter base weight of around 15-20 pounds, well, the pack reaches 45-50 pounds. Is this still considered ultralight even though the food load is 30 pounds?
I think technically speaking...
Fastpacking is a specialized form of ultralight hiking with frequent resupply, and high daily mileage, whereas ultralight backpacking itself could be 15 days or longer, over shorter or longer distances, but usually with longer distances in mind.
For the record I consider myself a lightweight hiker, that is currently overweight. :)
I don't think in terms of baseweight or packweight, but keep my total skin-out weight in the 18-36 pound range, all year round, and my trips tend to be limited to 1-2 or 3-5 days. I carry 1 pound of food in Summer to lose weight in reasonable comfort and safety, 1.5 pounds in Spring/Fall, and 2 pounds a day in Winter, with some of that in winter being in case of delays. If I was in better shape I would bring more food. I hike 8-12 hour days, but not all that fast. I can't seem to hike as many hours per day in flat terrain, so the distance ends up being very similar. 10-20 miles.
I guess my point is slowly being made with the above figures, 40 pounds at 12 days and around 60 for a 15 day winter trip. Hence, my comment on ultralight backpacking being a specialized form of camping with frequent resupply. If a person does not resupply on a long trip, his food load alone could approach 30 pounds, not to mention water/gear. With a winter base weight of around 15-20 pounds, well, the pack reaches 45-50 pounds. Is this still considered ultralight even though the food load is 30 pounds?I am not an ultralight guy, but I think ultralight is 10 pounds baseweight, and would still be considered UL with an extra 40 pounds of food. Mid-summer I might fit into the UL category. Not sure. Probably, unless I bring my daughter. I agree however, that it doesn't make much sense to quibble over that last couple of pounds, especially if your in good enough shape to carry it. I am more of a minimalist than a lightweight guy. I am more into carrying fewer simpler items, rather than lighter items.
Tipi Walter
01-02-2009, 17:22
But if you were to do a 15 day trip, you might carry 18 days food, and so that would bring you up to 50 pounds or so. I would like to do a long distance hike some day, more than the 3-5 day trips I've been doing. I think a fortnight seems naturally appealling for a trip with long distance in mind. For that amount of time I would need only 40 pounds at my current state of fitness, but if I was in better shape and able to cover more distance and with less fat to burn I would likely carry 50 pounds. For days rather than distance in mind, which is what Tipi Walter seems to do alot of also, I think 40 days and 40 nights would be an interesting duration. That that amount of time I would cover less distance, and do some hunting and fishing and foraging. Not sure what amount of weight I would start with. Assumine no toboggan or canoe or anything like that, 65 pounds maybe, and I would need to be able to bail out of course if the likely event that the hunting and fishing and foraging didn't go as planned. If I ever do that, I will be older, but hopefully in good enough shape for 65 pounds. I needn't be covering 15-20 miles a day with that weight on such a trip though. 5-10 miles a day would be enough.
I've often contemplated the extended length a person could backpack w/o resupply and I've come up with around 18-21 days(of course with no caches). After that many days the stove fuel starts to run out and the food gets thin. A 40 day trip would be very difficult to pull off w/o a cache unless I used wood cooking and foraged, another topic entirely. But with a couple or three bear canisters full of food roped to a tree somewhere, a person could easily pull 40 days with only one cached resupply. Hmm . . . . . interesting. But for a 15 day winter trip my pack would still be over 50 pounds. Probably around 75.
I guess my point is slowly being made with the above figures, 40 pounds at 12 days and around 60 for a 15 day winter trip. Your point isn't even close to being made. An extra 20 pounds to extend a trip by 3 days? Are you high? My pack weight would be roughly 45-46 pounds for a 15 day trip. I don't normally carry 4 books, so the weight could drop another 2+ pounds.
I respect your decision to schlep around 65+ pounds of gear, but have issue with you thinking it's the only way to backpack.
Tipi Walter
01-02-2009, 17:28
Your point isn't even close to being made. An extra 20 pounds to extend a trip by 3 days? Are you high? My pack weight would be roughly 45-46 pounds for a 15 day trip. I don't normally carry 4 books, so the weight could drop another 2+ pounds.
I respect your decision to schlep around 65+ pounds of gear, but have issue with you thinking it's the only way to backpack.
Was your JMT trip in the winter? If not, that may explain your lighter 40 pound load than a 60 pound 15 day winter trip.
In winter I do 1-2 days on skis without a toboggan, and keep it light. but for 3-5 day trips I prefer to trudge on foot, with or without a toboggan. If I was lighter I might be able to do longer ski trips. Cross country ski trips are sort of the winter equivalent of fastpacking, light and fast, but not so many days. You have to pick and chose your days different also. Full moons and good weather for ski trips up the river. For 3-5 day trips it nice to get the really nasty weather, so you don't have to go as far to have fun, and you don't bring all that stuff without getting to use it. It would be nice to do 15 day trips as you do because you would be pretty much guaranteed to get all weather conditions, and really test it.
Was your JMT trip in the winter? If not, that may explain your lighter 40 pound load than a 60 pound 15 day winter trip.
Hmm..I suspect winter backpacking in the 5000' southern appalachians with the extensive woods is a bit different than winter backpacking above treeline. No?
I wish I had the book in front of me, but one of the founding members of the 10th mtn division ski toured the Sierra back in the 1930s with equipment much lighter than what you advocated.
Is it the best way? The only way?
Neither. But it can be done...
AS I said before, and I'll say it again, those who discuss gear ad infinitum really should take up a different hobby.
Your point isn't even close to being made. An extra 20 pounds to extend a trip by 3 days? Are you high? My pack weight would be roughly 45-46 pounds for a 15 day trip. I don't normally carry 4 books, so the weight could drop another 2+ pounds.
I respect your decision to schlep around 65+ pounds of gear, but have issue with you thinking it's the only way to backpack.I think he was calling the UL guys girlie-men mostly in jest. There is nothing wrong with him thinking or even saying they are girlie-men, just as there is nothing wrong with you taking issue with it. Nothing wrong with actually being a girlie-man either, I suppose.
Think Your Own Think ;)
Worldwide
01-02-2009, 17:44
If said theoretical 40 day hike requires a food / supply cache due to it's remote location. Because only a complete wilderness spanning 400 + miles without road crossing would necessitate a resupply without a town. How would you get the cache there to begin with?
Maybe the solution is a bush pilot with a penchant for long distance hikers could be the new form of trail angel. Or is this just another thread where noone intends to actually do what they type and just postulate on every conceivable backcountry offering that would eliminate the possibility of going with less weight than they believe is needed for a trip they will never take in the first place? HYOH this is getting old
Lone Wolf
01-02-2009, 17:48
ultralight = being unprepared
UL for me is under 40 lbs.
Perhaps the only way to hike 40 days and 40 nights properly is during Lent.
TYOT
How 'bout 40 days and 40 nights with only 40 pounds of clothing, gear, and food.
Of course you would be allowed to forage, for scorpions and such.
Worldwide
01-02-2009, 18:01
If I venture out for 40 days and 40 nights. I pack two of every species from the animal and reptile kingdom cache'd in my ark. I read in the Hikers Bible that the world renowned UL Hiker Noah said to bring a spare pair of Frog Toggs too.
Tipi Walter
01-02-2009, 18:03
Hmm..I suspect winter backpacking in the 5000' southern appalachians with the extensive woods is a bit different than winter backpacking above treeline. No?
I wish I had the book in front of me, but one of the founding members of the 10th mtn division ski toured the Sierra back in the 1930s with equipment much lighter than what you advocated.
Is it the best way? The only way?
Neither. But it can be done...
AS I said before, and I'll say it again, those who discuss gear ad infinitum really should take up a different hobby.
It's probably all right to talk about any facet of backpacking when sitting at a computer and when not actually out on a backpacking trip. I guess I could be bathing the dog or washing my tent but this passes the time better before the next trip. I'm not so sure we're actually discussing "gear", like what's the best stove or the best winter bag, but instead it seems to me we're discussing the UL philosophy and thinking in terms what may be the limits to UL backpacking, like long trips w/o resupply or encountering terrible conditions with inadequate gear. Or too little clothing.
If said theoretical 40 day hike requires a food / supply cache due to it's remote location. Because only a complete wilderness spanning 400 + miles without road crossing would necessitate a resupply without a town. How would you get the cache there to begin with?
Maybe the solution is a bush pilot with a penchant for long distance hikers could be the new form of trail angel. Or is this just another thread where noone intends to actually do what they type and just postulate on every conceivable backcountry offering that would eliminate the possibility of going with less weight than they believe is needed for a trip they will never take in the first place? HYOH this is getting old
I pulled a 15 day trip in February of 2006 and most of my recent trips have been in the 10-12 day range. Not just blabbering on and on here. I was thinking more in terms of starting out at a trailhead and leaving a food cache and after 20 days circling back and picking it up for another 20 days. You could still do a lot of miles in those 40 days and see alot of wilderness but not really "go anywhere" in the usual sense.
buckwheat
01-02-2009, 18:07
Is this still considered ultralight even though the food load is 30 pounds?
Ultralight doesn't deal with consumables such as food.
Worldwide
01-02-2009, 18:12
I just had to interject with what I thought might be funny. I don't intend to know anyone and everyone on WB. In fact, I only have met a few of the people in person from the WB community. Out of those people I don't know anything about their previous hikes / styles. So don't take it personally it isn't an attack on your character at all.
I am by no means saying a 40 day expedition wouldn't be fun. Just too logistically challenging for me to even consider. It deserves it's own thread that is for sure. Because I can't think of a wilderness that is big enough in North America anyway where it is possible. Heck I would love to wander around for 40 days without human contact and I am sure others would love to see me not contact the world for 40 days. Please advise
That's sort of what I had in mind for 40 days, would be to be out there, and travel about a bit, but not really "go anywhere" in the usual sense. So any sort of caching or foraging would make sense, not that there are anyt rules as such, other than to be "out there". I would imagine though, in summer, 400 miles in 40 days might be do-able even without caching or foraging.
buckwheat
01-02-2009, 18:18
I can't think of a wilderness that is big enough in North America anyway where it is possible [to hike for 40 days].
I'd suggest the Brooks Range. It's in North America!
http://www.brooksrange.com/services/images/content/map1a.jpg
Heh. Would easily take me 40 days to hike it.
Was your JMT trip in the winter? If not, that may explain your lighter 40 pound load than a 60 pound 15 day winter trip.
I was carrying my winter gear, as I wasn't sure what to expect weather wise. I brought several winter items that ended up not being necessary on my trip, but I would rather be safe and warm than cold and freezing my arse off.
There is certainly plenty of 400 mile stretches of wilderness, but it be mostly off trail, so 10 miles a day wouldn't be very likely. I think some limited human contact would be ok. Trail towns would be out, but sharing a coffee with people like Tipi and his dog, on a mountain, in February, that's gotta be considered out there. lol
Worldwide
01-02-2009, 18:28
I'd suggest the Brooks Range. It's in North America!
Do the hostels have plasma tv's and internet?
There's also the Osborn Range...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborn_Range
Here is a better link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Cordillera
Lone Wolf
01-02-2009, 18:46
AS I said before, and I'll say it again, those who discuss gear ad infinitum really should take up a different hobby.
yeah, no ****. and also those that weigh everything. mostly packsniffers though. they don't hike long distance
I would have to agree that if I got out more I wouldn't think so much about it.
I would just do it.
they don't hike long distance
You don't have to hike long distance to enjoy the outdoors. Or to be obesesed by heavy, light or in between gear. :sun
before the next trip. I'm not so sure we're actually discussing "gear", like what's the best stove
No, you are discussing how people just don't see to hike like you and are therefor ignoramuses. E.g. they don't have the right gear.
For a guy who claims not to be into gear fetish, you sure talk about other people's gear a lot. ;)
Take the right tool for the right job. One way is not better or worse. Just have fun, be safe, and don't let your fun impose upon others.
Mags,
Stop imposing on other's imposing. ;)
lol
Wise Old Owl
01-02-2009, 21:10
:eek:Ok Mag's we agree with you .... Now step back slowly from the keyboard..... Take a deep breath, - go turn on the TV....
Now how about them Lightweight Gear Junkies!:D
Now how about them Lightweight Gear Junkies!
I care about gear the same way I care about what knife I use for cooking:
It is just the means to the end.
I'd rather have people ooh and about the food dish. Not spend many hours discussing the knife used to cut an onion. Nor discuss how a person should use a bigger, heavier knife (or a smaller, delicate one) to cut said onion.
We use gear to get into the outdoors, we don't go into the outdoors to use gear. ;)
Gear is the least important part of the outdoors...
Wise Old Owl
01-02-2009, 21:36
As I said before, you are right.
On another note, the sellers of gear have one voice (advertising) with 30 different say sleeping pads from different manufacturers. It is important to have a voice for buyers to rate that gear, a second voice here at WB!
If we all used Freeze Dried Mountain House - there would be no point to having a Cooking Forum. etc.
Its good to have a little "stuff" going on, and don't worry Mags, we really are on the same page.
here's a UL trip report of a Denali summit:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/hage_stowe_denali_light_post_expedition.html
those guys made it to the top w/ less gear than Tipi takes out in appalacia. tipi winter trecks w/ heavy gear and does just fine... i think the moral of the story is both these different ends of the spectrum work
i'm in agreeance w/ those who are saying HYOH. but it is good to offer opinions when people ask. the trouble starts when people give opinions w/o being asked
Tipi Walter
01-02-2009, 22:21
here's a UL trip report of a Denali summit:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/hage_stowe_denali_light_post_expedition.html
I'm a relative newb to the term, but after reading your link and figuring they were out for around two weeks, I see their "skin out weight" to be around 80 pounds each. Is this the amount of weight they had to carry/pull for the entire two weeks? I only surmised they were out for two weeks as there didn't seem to be any mention of the time frame. Also, the comment section had a few caveats here and there.
you understand what i meant. i wasn't knocking you or your packing style at all. no need to sass me
Wise Old Owl
01-02-2009, 23:02
I realize everyone has their own definition of UL, but for me it's about getting away what we all did twenty years ago, from low quality cheap goods being acceptable for a backpack trip. Now instead of a heavy outside frame pack, I have a smaller lighter yet acceptable system were some items do double duty. I feel better and I can do more with less weight. I haven't forsaken comfort, only doing better with less. Taking a new ethic of smaller, thinner, lighter, improved modern materials. And a quick look at a digital fish scale before I walk out the door. It won't be 10 lbs, but it won't be backbreaking either.
I agree with Bearpaw's "generally accepted" conventions; insofar as I've read or heard, there does seem to be some consensus that Ultralight means base pack weight of 10 pounds or less. One (other) reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_backpacking
I suggest that each person decide for themselves what's sufficiently safe and/or comfortable. I've ended up in the "light" but not "ultralight" category. In reliably warm weather in certain conditions I might be happy at the upper range of ultralight but where I live and where I backpack, I'm pretty much always "light".
I am nevertheless confident that many people walk the ultralight walk happily and within reasonable safety margins.
Pokey2006
01-03-2009, 04:20
Something that often gets forgotten in this discussion is that UL is NOT about the gear. It's not about whether someone has the lightest possible tent, sleeping bag or pack. It's not about the latest lightweight products -- that expensive gear is usually being used by lightweight backpackers, not true ULers.
It's also not about exactly how many pounds are in your pack.
UL is more about a philosophy. It's a minimalist approach to backpacking. True ULers are usually extremely experienced outdoorsmen (or women) who know exactly what they need for a given outing, and bring no more, no less. It takes many hours in the outdoors to learn what, and how much of it, you need to be comfortable.
UL is not to be confused with people who buy lightweight gear and still pack 20-plus pounds, but who also are not experienced in the outdoors, as it seems Tipi is doing here. The story about the hammocker needing to take cover in the nearest tent? That person was NOT a ULer. First off, a ULer wouldn't be using a hammock...
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 07:21
UL is more about a philosophy. It's a minimalist approach to backpacking. True ULers are usually extremely experienced outdoorsmen (or women) who know exactly what they need for a given outing, and bring no more, no less. It takes many hours in the outdoors to learn what, and how much of it, you need to be comfortable.
well there's very few if any "true" ULers on the AT then. most show up at springer mtn. mid-march with their little day day packs for backpacks and within days are mooching hot water and maps and gloves, etc.
damn fools
buckwheat
01-03-2009, 08:42
here's a UL trip report of a Denali summit:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/hage_stowe_denali_light_post_expedition.html
... those guys made it to the top w/ less gear than Tipi takes out in appalacia.
This sort of reckless expeditioning is out of the reach of 99% of hikers thankfully. I did a quick check of their stated gear list and found the cost to be just over $4,300 per man ... not including consumables such as food, water or stove fuel.
I put this ascent at just over $10,000 not including travel costs to Denali.
It was also done unsafely. Between the two of them, these hikers had a single probe and no avalanche beacon. Stupid. They made it off the mountain alive because God did not inflict upon them any adverse weather. They were fortunate.
I'm also curious why they needed a snow sled? I've never seen an UL hiker pulling a sled full of gear behind him.
My intent here is not to slam ultralight hiking or ultralight hikers. I think there is definitely a place for ultralight hiking. But this article is a good example of what's wrong with the hiking magazines.
SouthMark
01-03-2009, 11:11
I suppose that Grandma Gatewood could have been considered ultralight, sneakers, wool sweater, and shower curtain for ground cloth/shelter.
I believe it is the obsession with miles that feeds the UL fever, a hot glazed over state to use only the lightest possible gear no matter its cost or its short-term longevity, and the inane compulsion to make all others do the same. At the center of this madness is the fixation on daily miles walked, and from this number comes their identity, self-worth and ego validation.
I believe there is more than one arena for boasting. Speed, distance, lowest pack weight, & most weight carried.
I suppose if I was to follow the terms strictly I suppose I would be 'ultralight' in summer when solo, lower end of 'light' in spring/fall, and upper end of light in winter, mostly because of the extra clothing I throw in for extreme cold days. Total cost of clothing and gear is about $500. Its beyond silly to compare the backwoods hiking I do to mountaineering, just because we both might have the same baseweight.
There is inherently nothing wrong with the number 10, or 20.
Wise Old Owl
01-03-2009, 11:39
Wasn't Earl Shaffer the first UL hiker? did you see his gear, common day rucksack!
I doesn't really make sense to compare base pack weight between different climates and endeavours. For a given trip, individuals should be more considered with total skin out weight, and for estimating energy consumption over distance and gain, total weight on feet.
I would argue that more people are caused serious harm, including death, by carrying too much weight, rather than too little.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 12:10
I would argue that more people are caused serious harm, including death, by carrying too much weight, rather than too little.
i would argue that you have no idea what you're talking about since you've never done any long distance backpacking. oh, and post some facts about your BS assumptions
Wise Old Owl
01-03-2009, 12:17
LW that was clearly trolling, rude and uncalled for.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 12:18
LW that was clearly trolling, rude and uncalled for.
uh, wrong. mind your own business. he hasn't done any LD hiking
Slo-go'en
01-03-2009, 12:32
Time of year and where your hiking can make a big impact on the minimum pack weight. Mid summer on the AT and you can get away with very little. Spring and fall you need more stuff and then even more for winter. So, to be fair, climate/time of year does need to be taken into account.
If your in NC in March or April with an U.L. setup more suitable for mid summer, your not going to be a happy camper much of the time. I've meet a few of these guys and was glad I had a bit more gear on my back then they did.
uh, wrong. mind your own business. he hasn't done any LD hiking
since when does going lightweight have anything to do w/ long distance hiking?
a hike for 2 hours is a hike. a hike across the AT is a hike. ok? this thread is about going lightweight, not lightweight AT thru hike or lightweight LD backpacking.
seriously, you don't have to be a dickhead every moment of your life. there are other alternatives
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 12:42
[QUOTE=hikingPA;750045
seriously, you don't have to be a dickhead every moment of your life. there are other alternatives[/QUOTE]
chill out and stop the name calling. i want to know where JAK gets his info about all the deaths and injuries caused by hiking long distances with heavy packs
i would argue that you have no idea what you're talking about since you've never done any long distance backpacking. oh, and post some facts about your BS assumptionsWell think about it.
Besides obvious injuries, which can lead to death by exposure, there are other factors. Inexperienced people that are over encumbered might be more likely to ditch stuff on the trail when they get into trouble, rather than hold onto it, or not be able to get through some snow or off a mountain as easily. My experience on a bad winter hike was that I had enough clothing, but too much other weight that did more harm than good. Then there are the countless people that give up hiking because of the gear weight, and end up staying overweight and out of shape, and all of the health problems that brings.
The undisputable fact is that most outfitters sell most people sell too much gear, and it does way more harm than good. Period.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 12:45
Well think about it.
The undisputable fact is that most outfitters sell most people sell too much gear, and it does way more harm than good. Period.
prove it. give some examples
I don't know what sort of proof your looking for.
Most people on this forum have been to outfitters more than once.
It's enough to throw the concept out there and let people judge for themselves.
It shouldn't be a shock to people that outfitters will sell you too much gear if you let them.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 12:51
I don't know what sort of proof your looking for.
Most people on this forum have been to outfitters more than once.
It's enough to throw the concept out there and let people judge for themselves.
It shouldn't be a shock to people that outfitters will sell you too much gear if you let them.
just what i thought. no facts to back up your assertion that people die from hiking with too much weight in their packs
how much long distance backpacking have you done?
Did you bother to read that last post?
The undisputable fact is that most outfitters sell most people too much gear, and it does way more harm than good. Period.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 12:55
Did you bother to read that last post?
yeah. i quoted it :rolleyes:
Well then, think about it. It's common sense.
Don't be so damned defensive.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 12:59
Well then, think about it. It's common sense.
Don't be so damned defensive.
where is proof people die from carrying too much weight backpacking?
defensive about what?
Perhaps I should have said protective, rather than defensive.
I'm fairly sure most outfitters out there were not offended.
Are people that work at McDonalds offended when we say fast food causes harm, even death?
People sell stuff, but people need to learn to make better choices.
Besides obvious injuries, which can lead to death by exposure, there are other factors. Inexperienced people that are over encumbered might be more likely to ditch stuff on the trail when they get into trouble, rather than hold onto it, or not be able to get through some snow or off a mountain as easily. My experience on a bad winter hike was that I had enough clothing, but too much other weight that did more harm than good. Then there are the countless people that give up hiking because of the gear weight, and end up staying overweight and out of shape, and all of the health problems that brings.
Find your own damn proof. I'm an ideas man, not a facts man.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 13:06
Perhaps I should have said protective, rather than defensive.
I'm fairly sure most outfitters out there were not offended.
Are people that work at McDonalds offended when we say fast food causes harm, even death?
People sell stuff, but people need to learn to make better choices.
you're talking in circles. it's clear you've never done any LD backpacking with light or heavy weight yet you're dispensing all this knowledge like you have.
Its clear that we are both talking in circles.
It shouldn't be a shoch that too much gear causes as much harm as too little.
I simple argued that it causes more harm. I don't have to prove it. I only have to argue it.
Where is your argument?
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 13:12
What defines ultralight? Is it a set weight amount for you pack or big 4? Would my pack be considered UL or just lightweight?
so sleeman13, back to your original question. there is no concrete definition of what ultralight backpacking is. your pack isn't heavy, light or ultralight. it's just your stuff :) have fun, it's just walkin'
If your only argument is my lack of experience, with all your experience, that's pretty lame.
Is there anyone else that might weight in on the subject?
Which causes greater harm, including death, but direct or indirect causes...
Too much gear weight, or too little gear weight?
Perhaps we need a poll.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 13:17
If your only argument is my lack of experience, with all your experience, that's pretty lame.
just answer my question. how much long distance backpacking have you done with a heavy backpack?
just answer my question. how much long distance backpacking have you done with a heavy backpack?1000 miles maybe.
What does that have to do with the truthiness of my argument?
just answer my question. how much long distance backpacking have you done with a heavy backpack?now answer mine...
Which causes greater harm, including death, by direct or indirect causes...
Too much gear weight, or too little gear weight?
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 13:20
1000 miles maybe.
all at once?
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 13:27
you win. it's obvious you're not knowledgeable on LD backpacking wether it's heavy, light or ultralight. you just have "ideas" as you've stated.
Are you going to answer the question yourself, or just beat the messenger.
Which causes greater harm, including death, by direct or indirect causes...
Too much gear weight, or too little gear weight?
Is there anyone else that might weight in on the subject?
Which causes greater harm, including death, but direct or indirect causes...
Too much gear weight, or too little gear weight?
Perhaps we need a poll.
I'd say too little knowledge/experience or too much confidence would lead to more deaths than pack weight.
Slo-go'en
01-03-2009, 13:47
If your only argument is my lack of experience, with all your experience, that's pretty lame.
This argument you two are having in pretty lame. The trick is finding the right balance between having too much gear and too little gear. Knowing where that balance falls does take some experience.
I would agree, and that's a very good answer.
I'd say too little knowledge/experience or too much confidence would lead to more deaths than pack weight.I would agree, and that's a very good answer.
This argument you two are having in pretty lame. The trick is finding the right balance between having too much gear and too little gear. Knowing where that balance falls does take some experience.I would agree with you on that point also.
My point that there is often alot of criticism against lightweight and ultralight backpackers regarding safety, but not so much against those who choose to go heavy. I am not saying that either should go unquestioned, but that there should be more balance. I also implied that one cause for this imbalance could be the pressure to sell, and to purchase, more gear.
While the argument too a bad turn, it is worth noting that too much gear weight does cause harm.
Slo-go'en
01-03-2009, 14:01
I'd say too little knowledge/experience or too much confidence would lead to more deaths than pack weight.
What suprises me is how many "don't have a clue" tender foot hikers don't die.
What doesn't surprise me is how difficult it is to be different.
Slo-go'en
01-03-2009, 14:08
While the argument too a bad turn, it is worth noting that too much gear weight does cause harm.
This is a self correcting problem. People who try to carry too much weight don't make it too far into the woods. Usually its the weekend/overnighters who carry insanely heavy packs on a 5 or 10 mile trip. See pleanty of that here in the Whites. Long Distance hikers have either done thier research before hand, wise up quickly or go home.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 14:11
it is worth noting that too much gear weight does cause harm.
says you
I would agree that it is somewhat self-correcting with experience, but that it takes varying amounts time, and so the harm is still done. Some younger people persist for years, doing themselves more harm than good in the process. Older folks, especially those a bit overweight or out of shape, might simply give up to easily before learning to go lighter, and thus miss out on the benefits. The harm is done. The industry could do better, but that is not their job. Organizations such as scouting could also do much better, and it is their job. We could all do better at encouraging people to carry reasonable gear weight. Even those that promote light weight gear tend to do so to the extreme, perhaps contributing to the real problem, which is to avoid the other extreme, not the moderate middle.
says youIt's not about me. Please focus on the topic, and not me.
Why do I get the impression that I suffer personal attacks whenever I raise an issue that is against the commercial interests of outfitters and service providers. Radicalism and paranoia most likely, but it's not that radical a concept really. We need outfitters, but there is such a thing as too much gear weight, and, it does cause serious harm. We need service providers, but there is nothing wrong with being frugal either, if it helps get you down the trail without being a burden on society. Moderation and frugality are virtues. Let's be reasonable. Both frugality and minimalism are great facilitators. They allow people to hike that might otherwise be unable to, but they are also something we can all benefit from. Moderation in all things, including moderation of course. ;)
You were attacked by LW for making a ridiculous claim that heavy packs can cause death w/o any basis of fact.
I am pretty sure that LW will agree outfitters will be happy so sell you as much gear as you are willing to pay for.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 14:42
You were attacked by LW for making a ridiculous claim that heavy packs can cause death w/o any basis of fact.
attacked? nah. just ASKED him to provide proof
My original statement was a little over the top, but it was worth making. I don't blame LW for blasting me for it, the way it was presented, and particularly by whom, but I still think it is something worth considering. I don't think such a statement needs to be proven. It's value is that it is worth considering. It wasn't that ridiculous, if you think about it, and perhaps word it differently.
If you were to go about it the other way,
how would you prove that excessively light gear weight causes more death than excessively heavy gear weight? I don't know how you would prove either claim, but both do harm, and both can cause death, and have, and so both are worth considering.
Perhaps I'm just the wrong messenger.
jonathanb23
01-03-2009, 14:55
I propose a race...I think everyone should pack up, head out and get on trail. Whoever finishes whatever distance they want over whatever time period they want with whatever gear they want with a smile on their face wins...no need to report back here. I'll be gone hiking :) Oh yeah and you can label yourself self however you want. Bushwhacker...Gram Weinie...Gear Junkie...Weekend Warrior...just keep walking :)
I had a friend who was a really good sailor. When asked a question like, where do you set your outhaul, or something like that, he would always say, "In the middle." What he meant was half way between too much and too little. The ideal or optimal is not that easy to find, but it is fairly easy to approximate as half way between too extremes.
Perhaps the same could be said of pack weight, and things like food weight, clothing weight, sleeping bag loft. You wan't to have enough, and some of us want to push the limit of how much is just enough. Perhaps it is simply easier to chose that amount half way in between how much we know is too much, at least for us on that particular trip, and how much we know is too little.
My friend's name was Terry Neilson, but he might have gotten the original idea from Aristotle.
http://www.constitution.org/ari/ethic_02.htm#2.2
Book 2, Chapter 9
That moral virtue is a mean, then, and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency, and that it is such because its character is to aim at what is intermediate in passions and in actions, has been sufficiently stated. Hence also it is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the middle of a circle is not for every one but for him who knows; so, too, any one can get angry -- that is easy -- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.
Hence he who aims at the intermediate must first depart from what is the more contrary to it, as Calypso advises --
Hold the ship out beyond that surf and spray.
For of the extremes one is more erroneous, one less so; therefore, since to hit the mean is hard in the extreme, we must as a second best, as people say, take the least of the evils; and this will be done best in the way we describe. But we must consider the things towards which we ourselves also are easily carried away; for some of us tend to one thing, some to another; and this will be recognizable from the pleasure and the pain we feel. We must drag ourselves away to the contrary extreme; for we shall get into the intermediate state by drawing well away from error, as people do in straightening sticks that are bent.
Now in everything the pleasant or pleasure is most to be guarded against; for we do not judge it impartially. We ought, then, to feel towards pleasure as the elders of the people felt towards Helen, and in all circumstances repeat their saying; for if we dismiss pleasure thus we are less likely to go astray. It is by doing this, then, (to sum the matter up) that we shall best be able to hit the mean.
But this is no doubt difficult, and especially in individual cases; for or is not easy to determine both how and with whom and on what provocation and how long one should be angry; for we too sometimes praise those who fall short and call them good-tempered, but sometimes we praise those who get angry and call them manly. The man, however, who deviates little from goodness is not blamed, whether he do so in the direction of the more or of the less, but only the man who deviates more widely; for he does not fail to be noticed. But up to what point and to what extent a man must deviate before he becomes blameworthy it is not easy to determine by reasoning, any more than anything else that is perceived by the senses; such things depend on particular facts, and the decision rests with perception. So much, then, is plain, that the intermediate state is in all things to be praised, but that we must incline sometimes towards the excess, sometimes towards the deficiency; for so shall we most easily hit the mean and what is right.
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 15:05
dude, quit rambling. take the wife an kid for a walk
Yeah yer right. Pretty good reference to Aristotle though eh.
Worldwide
01-03-2009, 15:15
I just tried to carry a heavy pack and I died because of it. Thanks for not warning me! I have risen from the ashes to haunt you all forever an ever. Can my new trail name be Phoenix?
UL is more about a philosophy. It's a minimalist approach to backpacking. True ULers are usually extremely experienced outdoorsmen (or women) who know exactly what they need for a given outing, and bring no more, no less. It takes many hours in the outdoors to learn what, and how much of it, you need to be comfortable.
That's about as a good a summary I've ever seen. As I said in the thread I linked earlier, I tend to prefer my style of hiking "minimalist" when feeling polite, dirtbagging when a bit more crude. ;)
I prefer the term minimalist hiker also, versus lightweight backpacker.
It's not so much about weight, nor is it about the pack.
Simplist, might be another term, but I see that refers to one that deals in medicinal plants.
Simpleton maybe. Hmmm.
Jim Adams
01-03-2009, 17:27
ultralight = being unprepared
says it all!!!!!:cool:
geek
since when does going lightweight have anything to do w/ long distance hiking?
a hike for 2 hours is a hike. a hike across the AT is a hike. ok? this thread is about going lightweight, not lightweight AT thru hike or lightweight LD backpacking.
seriously, you don't have to be a dickhead every moment of your life. there are other alternatives
Dont worry,this kid will have to leave his 50# pack to really help some in need.:eek:
ultralight = being unprepared
says it all!!!!!:cool:
geek
Let me see, if I show up for a 40 mile GA / NC / TN AT weekend hike in June - Sept with 10.5 - 12.5 lbs skin out, you consider me unprepared? To each his own, I consider this ready to go
Lone Wolf
01-03-2009, 23:05
w t f is skin out? your uncircumcised thingy?
w t f is skin out? your uncircumcised thingy?
Stop playing ignorant. You already know it is weight of pack, food, drink, gear, & clothes.
Jim Adams
01-04-2009, 00:32
Let me see, if I show up for a 40 mile GA / NC / TN AT weekend hike in June - Sept with 10.5 - 12.5 lbs skin out, you consider me unprepared? To each his own, I consider this ready to go
June to September in Ga./NC/Tn...uh...don't need spare clothes, don't need a tent (tarp is 10oz.), take a 3' x 6' tyvek to lay on, stick 6 ramens and 6 snickers in your pockets and a liter gatoraide bottle of water. Do 2 20 mile days. That is more light weight and still relatively comfortable but I wouldn't want to do it.:rolleyes:
geek