View Full Version : Keep on Truckin' North Bounders
johnnybgood
03-14-2009, 14:44
Where is the greastest frequency of NOBOS walking away fom trail occur .
I have read here that the mountains in Georgia tend to take the enthusiasm right out of some before they can get their hiking legs under them.
With all the preparations that take place before hitting the trail , my guess is there tends to be overweighted packs strapped to backs taking off from Springer or the blueblazed approach trail.
Since I can' t really speak from experience , my best advice is find a hiking partner that you can befriend before leaving Springer so that you both can give each other words of encouragment when the human spirit needs that positive external re-enforcement.
With that being said I wish all those currently out there on the trail and those about to embark on their journey, the best of luck .
Keep On Truckin' all the way to Maine !:banana
bigcranky
03-14-2009, 15:24
We just came back from SOBO-ing Georgia. Saw 30 or 40 northbound thru-hikers, in varying states of preparedness. Saw many very -- VERY -- large packs. Saw a few small packs. Saw a lot of happy people, and some not so happy. Had some great conversations along the trail, and at campsites and shelters and at the Hiker Hostel.
Most of the solo hikers had already hooked up with other solos or with small groups. Those who wanted company were able to find it, both on the trail and in camp. Those who wanted a more solitary experience were also able to find it.
Those hikers with very large packs were much more likely to ask questions about lightening their loads *after* they had crossed Sassafras and Justus mountains than before. (Something about having to haul 65+ pounds over those first two big climbs makes one more receptive to that sort of advice.) We never gave unsolicited advice, of course, but we did get asked a lot of questions. The folks at Mountain Crossings were doing a great job going through packs and helping hikers decide what gear they truly wanted to haul all the way to Maine.
Best of luck to all the Northbounders this season. The best advice that I can give is to start slow, and never quit after a bad day on the trail.
Blissful
03-14-2009, 16:44
Yeah I was thinking of them with the rain, a lot of it.
For those leaving now this weekend's crappy weather will definitely test the untested. Tons of rain and lots of cold. It plain sucks out there right now.
4eyedbuzzard
03-14-2009, 17:00
Where is the greastest frequency of NOBOS walking away fom trail occur....
My guess would either be Neel if they're really early quitters or around Damascus. After 30 to 40 days and 450 miles a lot of people a lot of people find out they've had their fill of living in the woods.
Ox97GaMe
03-15-2009, 00:56
I dont know the exact numbers, but here are some things that I have heard about this subject over the years..
- Approx 50 hikers quit on the approach trail. Never see their first white blaze.
- Approx 20% dont make it out of Georgia.
- Less than 40% make it past Damascus
- Approx 25% reach Harpers Ferry
For those leaving now this weekend's crappy weather will definitely test the untested. Tons of rain and lots of cold. It plain sucks out there right now.
Worse than reading about it here, at work, on this terminal?
I'd rather be cold and wet.
I gotta get outta this place, take a hike!
I met a lot of Thru hikers this week also. Many that looked like they had the right stuff. Many that were way over packed. Some told me that this was there first overnight trip and planned on making it all the way. Some that after the trip from Hawk Mtn to Gooch gap shelter had there doubts if they could not lighten there loads. A lot just leave at hwy 60 Others Make it through Ga. and then leave. Ga can be a real bear with all the roller coaster ups and downs and little easy hiking.
wrongway_08
03-15-2009, 10:05
I dont know the exact numbers, but here are some things that I have heard about this subject over the years..
- Approx 50 hikers quit on the approach trail. Never see their first white blaze.
- Approx 20% dont make it out of Georgia.
- Less than 40% make it past Damascus
- Approx 25% reach Harpers Ferry
I think our numbers last year varied by 10% from these in the different catagories, but it will varry each year.
Lots of good stuff to be found in the first 100 miles as hikers drop stuff to ditch weight.
probably depends on weather and when they start if you have a late cold spell or daily rain for 2 weeks it saps the will power/gear
Ox97GaMe
03-15-2009, 11:28
It is funny that every year, the hikers think that their class encounters the most number of rain days in the southern section. Fact is.... March and April ARE the rainy season in GA/NC/TN. Most hikers are lucky to get 2-3 clear days per week average.
The % of hikers finishing each season has been going up gradually each year. This can be attributed to better information, better gear, and better trail services. That is not to say that the 2100 mile hike is any easier. I just think that hikers are getting better prepared before their hikes, or are getting sound advice earlier in their hike.
I think it's weird that the AT continues to be so generally oblivious to lightweight backpacking. Sure, there are some people out there with light gear, but most of the people I saw in 2007 had 30+ base-weight packs. What gives? The AT is hands down the easiest trail to go ultra-light on - super tame conditions, no wind threat to lightweight tarps, and shelters every ten miles in case something goes wrong. You can also get away with carrying a really light, really low-volume pack, because you can camel up on food every two or three days if you want. Some times I feel like the AT almost prides itself on bucking the UL trend.
Jack Tarlin
03-15-2009, 11:58
1. Conditions on the A.T. are NOT always tame. I've run into 3 hikers this
week that were borderline hypothermic, mainly because of un-tame
conditions combined with improper gear selection.
2. Lots of folks don't want to stay in shelters.
3. And There are plenty of places on the A.T. where there are NOT shelters
every 10 miles even if you did want to stay in them.
4. You can NOT always re-supply every 2-3 days. There are many stretches
that take longer and require more supplies.
In short, going lightweight doesn't work for everyone. It's not that folks are
"oblivious" to lightweight backpacking. On the contrary, everyone who has thru-hiked has seen some poor sniveling kid begging food or a dry shirt at the end of the day because he hadn't packed one of his own; everyone has seen someone begging shelter space from an already packed and over-crowded shelter on a horrible night because they had no shelter of their own.
In short, folks aren't "oblivious" to lightweight or ultra lightweight backpacking.
They simply aren't interested in it, which is fine. To each their own.
Frick Frack
03-15-2009, 12:13
In short, folks aren't "oblivious" to lightweight or ultra lightweight backpacking.
They simply aren't interested in it, which is fine. To each their own.
Ditto for me...I was going to say the same thing.
On our 2008 hike I saw more lightweight/UL'ers than your 30+ lb base-weighters.
1. Conditions on the A.T. are NOT always tame. I've run into 3 hikers this
week that were borderline hypothermic, mainly because of un-tame
conditions combined with improper gear selection.
2. Lots of folks don't want to stay in shelters.
3. And There are plenty of places on the A.T. where there are NOT shelters
every 10 miles even if you did want to stay in them.
4. You can NOT always re-supply every 2-3 days. There are many stretches
that take longer and require more supplies.
In short, going lightweight doesn't work for everyone. It's not that folks are
"oblivious" to lightweight backpacking. On the contrary, everyone who has thru-hiked has seen some poor sniveling kid begging food or a dry shirt at the end of the day because he hadn't packed one of his own; everyone has seen someone begging shelter space from an already packed and over-crowded shelter on a horrible night because they had no shelter of their own.
In short, folks aren't "oblivious" to lightweight or ultra lightweight backpacking.
They simply aren't interested in it, which is fine. To each their own.
UL backpacking has NOTHING to do with not carrying a shelter, carrying insufficient insulation, or being unprepared in any other sense. It has to do with making gear choices that minimize weight within certain parameters of comfort (flexible) and safety (inflexible). My point about the shelters was just that the AT is a great place to try out UL gear kits if you're new to UL (shelters in particular) - if your poorly-pitched tarp gets blown down you will rarely be in serious trouble on the AT.
Sure, the kind of ultra-crazy, sub-5-pound stuff isn't for everyone, but I do think that there is a bit of "heavyweight pride" on the AT, which is just kind of daft. I cannot see any good reason that anyone should ever carry one of those huge Gregory or REI packs, with the massive molded back-pads, beefy hip-belts, and ten trillion pockets - but you see them all the time. Frameless UL packs are (a) cheaper, (b) better, and (c) much, much lighter. For that matter, it seems incoherent to me that anyone would ever opt for a double-walled tent on the AT over a lightweight tarp tent. There is basically 1 weather eventuality that needs to be dealt with on the AT, and that is vertically-inclined rainfall (which is almost always buffered by the treecover), which can be handled perfectly well with a 10-15 ounce shelter.
Of course, to each his own, but UL gear isn't just one option among many alternatives. It's demonstratively better. It would be interesting to see statistics about the completion rates for people with sub-15 packs versus everyone else.
Cheers.
wrongway_08
03-15-2009, 15:57
Depends, some hikers carry extras, like: books - bangos - extra pots and stoves because they like to cook. Really doesnt matter what your pack weight is, as long as you enjoy your hike.
We had a kid who carried 61 pounds, he was happy as could be the whole 2,174 miles because he had what he wanted with him.
There was a few that had 20 pound packs that hated it because they always were cold, didnt have anything to do.... and so on.
To each his own, as long as your happy and having a good time, pack weight doesnt matter.
The whole ultra-light thing is kinda stupid, I think everyone goes through it, I did and ended up about 5 pounds heavier then when I started but had a much better time because of the extra weight.
Jack Tarlin
03-15-2009, 16:05
A frameless UL pack might be "better" for some folks, but certainly not for all. And some folks might find it "incoherent" that other folks actually prefer a tent to a tarp. I guess some folks don't get incoherent so easily.
And as to what is "demonstratively better", well everyone has their own opinion of what is "better" for them.
There are something like 10,000 folks who've successfully hiked the entire Appalachian Trail. I respect anyone's right to carry anything they want, but for anyone to insist that their way is provably "better" or superior in any way......sorry, that's where you lose me. Just cause something works out well for a certain person doesn't mean it works well for everyone, and just cuz something works for one guy doesn't mean he's doing it any "better" than anyone else.
It means he's doing what works for HIM, which is just as it ought to be.
Jack I must say it is a bit tiresome that you can't disagree with someone without personally insulting them. We're talking about gear here. When I say that something is "better," I'm not judging anyone; there's an important difference between judging what kind of stuff someone carries into the woods and judging them personally. Keep it cool.
The fact of the matter is that overall AT hikers are by far and away the least experienced community of long-distance backpackers, and I do suspect that in many cases the heavy packs aren't some principled rejection of lightweight gear, but just the result of lack of exposure to other ideas - I feel like about a third or so of AT thruhikers roll out onto the trail with basically no prior experience and fitted with gear-kits designed by store salespeople, and the presence of that kind of gear on the trail then contributes to the overall trail culture. It's kind of self-reinforcing cycle; people make inexperienced, heavyweight gear choices, and other people follow in suit.
And I don't think it's so ridiculous to say that objective judgments can be made about gear. Gear is gear is gear, and it's reductive to think that you can't make real distinctions of efficacy and efficiency. If you're a leisure hiker, then by all means do your big-pound thing, but I do think that there is something of a culture on the AT that labels LW gear as non-manly or prissy, which is dumb. That, combined with the inexperience of others, does to a degree make the AT oblivious in this regard. How many triple crowners do you see lugging 30+ packs? Is that coincidence?
Ox97GaMe
03-15-2009, 22:34
I would attribute it to the following...
By far, more people become long distance hikers on the AT than on any other long trail. Trails like the PCT, CDT, CT, LT, ADT, MTS, where shelters are non existent, and town supplies are further apart, and there are less folks to talk to, tend to scare newbies. The AT is the training ground for long distance hiking. Hikers learn a lot in that first 100-200 miles, and if they like the journey, start looking at the other trails. There are some that do their first hikes on other trails, but that is a minority.
The other side to UL backpacking is that with every pound removed, there is some level of risk added. Newbies arent willing to take those risks. There is more than enough risk for them just being in the woods. Hikers need to get in shape to be able to hike longer distances, so as to be able to resupply more often. They need to understand the proper clothing to wear in varying weather conditions so as to not freeze. They need to become comfortable with the sounds of nature before they sleep under a tarp.
Just look at the majority of folks that leave from Springer. They are green as the spring grass. UL hiking is usually the least of their worries at that point.
All good points, Ox. I agree with the exception of the sentiment that a pound removed is always some ratcheting-up of the danger coefficient. That's definitely true when you go from 7 to 4 pounds, but not at all when you go from 40 to 15, or even 15 down through about 7, IMHO.
And I stand by the intuition that the AT is a far better place to learn lightweight stuff than other trails. The safety netting out there is enormous.
Darwin again
03-15-2009, 23:40
Seems like you're entirely worthy of Jack's insults (if that's what they were, which they really weren't, or were they?). :rolleyes:
Anyway, what Jack said.
Why beat this poor "UL is better than everything else" horse?
Isn't it dead, dried up and blown away by now?
When you knock heavy packers, you are judging them and that's not so cool. So keep it cool, eh?
I don't think it's too weird that people go out too heavy on the AT, either on purpose or not. Many people learn backpacking in scouts or the military or school outing groups; in other words institutionally. Those learning avenues are absolutely not UL or even light-weight friendly.
A gaggle of boy scouts sounds like a Civil War infantry platoon, pots and cups dangling and banging. The military legacy is ballistic nylon packs such that when the final, Earth-destroying meteor disintegrates our planet, that 95-pound ALICE will still be intact, floating in space, ready to use; and the military footwear is designed to help support the feet when carrying that mother of a pack. People just buy what they see in stores and take it to the woods based on what they know. It's no mystery.
I think it's just amazing and great that people are able to get out there and try to hike, whether they carry 100 pounds or 15 pounds on their backs. But carrying heavy gear doesn't reinforce a heavy culture on the AT. Most people just don't know any better and the smart ones pick up the knowledge as they gain miles up trail. Most of them lighten up as they learn and become more comfortable with their gear and understand what works and what doesn't work for them. Anyone with some sense gets the "lighter is better" thing after a while. Whether or not they act on it is up to them.
The racheting up or down of the "danger coefficient" (whatever the frack that is) is completely subjective, according to the observer and practitioner's skill and experience level.
I could hike in a loin cloth and sneakers, carrying only a water bottle and a bic lighter. Some would consider that unsafe. I would consider it uncomfortable. There's ultimately a difference between safety and comfort.
Ox97GaMe
03-15-2009, 23:46
Risk is not always measured in terms of safety.
A newbie might start at Springer with gear that was given to them, or that they used on weekend hikes in the past. There is a 'risk' associated with going out and buying $1000 worth of new, lighter gear and not making it very far down the trail. Or maybe they dont have the money to regear and decide to just use what they have and spend the money on the journey instead.
There is a risk of carrying only 2 days of food vs. 3 or 4 days. If the weather turns bad, or you dont hike as far each day as you anticipated, you might be going hungry or having to ask for food from another hiker. Also, carrying less food means going into town more often. The risk here is in spending unbudgeted/unplanned $$ in town (sodas, hotel, hostel, etc)
Choosing to hike in sandals, trail runners, or barefoot reduces weight on the feet, but increases risk of sprained ankles. I have to wear high top boots due to 12 years of playing baskteball. Some folks tell me Im crazy for having heavy boots and not going to runners. I cant afford to twist an ankle and limp my way out of the woods.
Some folks have been known to go overboard with UL. There was a guy in 97 that hiked with a 9 lb pack. It can be done, but not recommended. I have known folks that have gone as far as to count the number of squares of TP that they carry out of town. I guess if you know exactly how many times you will have a BM each day, that could be good. Personally, Im not that regular, especially when out hiking.
As Jack stated, each hiker is different, and each hiker needs to evaluate their own areas of risk and acceptable level of risk. They need to evaluate their level of hiking skills and determine what safeguards they want to have in place just in case they might need them.
I would also venture to say that most of the UL community didnt do their first multi day backpack trip as UL. They started with conventional packs and learned how/where to streamline from there.
Seems like you're entirely worthy of Jack's insults (if that's what they were, which they really weren't, or were they?). :rolleyes:
Anyway, what Jack said.
Why beat this poor "UL is better than everything else" horse?
Isn't it dead, dried up and blown away by now?
When you knock heavy packers, you are judging them and that's not so cool. So keep it cool, eh?
I don't think it's too weird that people go out too heavy on the AT, either on purpose or not. Many people learn backpacking in scouts or the military or school outing groups; in other words institutionally. Those learning avenues are absolutely not UL or even light-weight friendly.
A gaggle of boy scouts sounds like a Civil War infantry platoon, pots and cups dangling and banging. The military legacy is ballistic nylon packs such that when the final, Earth-destroying meteor disintegrates our planet, that 95-pound ALICE will still be intact, floating in space, ready to use; and the military footwear is designed to help support the feet when carrying that mother of a pack. People just buy what they see in stores and take it to the woods based on what they know. It's no mystery.
I think it's just amazing and great that people are able to get out there and try to hike, whether they carry 100 pounds or 15 pounds on their backs. But carrying heavy gear doesn't reinforce a heavy culture on the AT. Most people just don't know any better and the smart ones pick up the knowledge as they gain miles up trail. Most of them lighten up as they learn and become more comfortable with their gear and understand what works and what doesn't work for them. Anyone with some sense gets the "lighter is better" thing after a while. Whether or not they act on it is up to them.
The racheting up or down of the "danger coefficient" (whatever the frack that is) is completely subjective, according to the observer and practitioner's skill and experience level.
I could hike in a loin cloth and sneakers, carrying only a water bottle and a bic lighter. Some would consider that unsafe. I would consider it uncomfortable. There's ultimately a difference between safety and comfort.
Yeah, Darwin, I think we pretty much agree...? I'm not knocking anyone - anyone on the AT is a buddy in my book. And we seem to agree that lighter loads = more fun. My only point is that the AT, for whatever reason, seems underexposed to lightweight stuff.
Ox: See, the thing is, a 9-pound base weight is fairly routine on other trails. It's just the AT where the default expectations of what a pack needs to weigh are inflated, I think.
Ox97GaMe
03-16-2009, 01:07
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. And since you apparently have SOOOO much experience hiking all over the world, you are just the person to push YOUR opinion on all of us. Is that how it goes???
I say.. Good for you for being able to hike with a 5 pound pack. You are a minimalist. Nothing wrong with that. But, some of us have a different idea of what we like to take with us when we are having 'fun' in the woods. And as a person who occassionally is called upon to rescue folks out of the woods, Im glad that most folks have enough good sense to carry more than the bare minimum and get themselves into situations that they are not prepared for.
Just as a newbie mountaineer has no business climbing Mt Whitney or Mt Rainier, a newbie backpacker has no business heading up the AT with a 5 lb pack. And that is what the majority of AT hikers are; newbies.
And if it offends you so much to see hikers with your so called overweight packs on the AT, then dont hike it. Go to the west coast where UL rules.
I would also say that the so called 'overweight' concept isnt limited to just the AT. Most places I have hiked; Yosemite, Yellowstone, Tetons, Glacier, Poconos, Catskills, Adarondacks, Whites, RMNP, SMNP; as well as other trails I have been on; Long, Pinhoti, Florida, Sheltowee, Cumberland, Mountains to Sea, Colorado, Northwest, Pacific Rim, Wonderland; have far more conventional packs than UL packs. I guess the hiking world is full of idiots that just dont get the UL concept.
Don't get irate, Ox. There's nothing wrong with talking about gear. I'm not pushing an opinion on anyone, just stating one. And I do think that a "lightweight" opinion can be healthy now and then on WB. There are more than enough advocates on here for a very middle-weight, leisurely hiking style. Nothing wrong with some diversity of perspective.
Dumb question if you please. What items constitute "base weight". I have hiked several 1 day trips on the AT. Will be doing a 4 day with friends(AFSP to Neels) at the end of April. I am trying to get my total pack weight at about 30 - 35 pounds including 3 liters of water and 8 pounds of food (also includes tent - no tarp for me). Thanks for the info.
double d
03-16-2009, 02:51
I think what is important in terms of pack weight is to ask yourself if an item is a need or a want. So....the AT has all kinds of hikers, but it someone hikes with 60 pounds on their back, well.....its their back and most likely they will cut that weight down as they gain experience and confidence in their hiking skills. Most folks over-pack at first, but I saw a guy in NH buy four rolls of mini-duct tape and I couldnt believe he wanted to hump that much tape, but he said he goes through it fast and he was a thru hiker (didn't get his trail name, wish I had). My feeling is what the heck, its our AT and so it goes, just don't get hurt with a lack the knowledge in using your gear and know how to work with mother nature in terms of thunder storms, etc.
"Be honorable. Decide that you will continue to move north as long as you are biomechanically capable. There will be lots of people out there that will tell you that you are doing the trail "wrong" or "stupidly." But **** them. If you decide to do something, don't let anyone talk you into sloth or cowardice." I believe these are your words!! Practice what you preach!! Hike Your Own Hike!
drastic_quench
03-16-2009, 05:32
Sure, the kind of ultra-crazy, sub-5-pound stuff isn't for everyone, but I do think that there is a bit of "heavyweight pride" on the AT, which is just kind of daft. I cannot see any good reason that anyone should ever carry one of those huge Gregory or REI packs, with the massive molded back-pads, beefy hip-belts, and ten trillion pockets - but you see them all the time. Frameless UL packs are (a) cheaper, (b) better, and (c) much, much lighter. For that matter, it seems incoherent to me that anyone would ever opt for a double-walled tent on the AT over a lightweight tarp tent. There is basically 1 weather eventuality that needs to be dealt with on the AT, and that is vertically-inclined rainfall (which is almost always buffered by the treecover), which can be handled perfectly well with a 10-15 ounce shelter.
Cheers.
[trimmed entry to what I'm responding to]
Personally, I think you see those big packs on the trail because people went to their outfitter and bought the pack that would carry all the CAMPING (as in car) gear they already owned. For someone who hasn't walked up a mountain yet (not me, just a hypothetical) it's a hard sell to convince them that they should spend a couple hundred on a sleeping bag that's half the size and weight of "ole trusty" - and the same goes for a lot of their other gear - Coleman stoves, lanterns, 6 man tents, etc. Seems like some learn, and others give up while marveling at how everyone else can hack the miles. AND of course, some prevail with packs that many would dub monstrously heavy. It's there hike, good for them.
As for tent vs tarp - for me I like the closed-off-from-the-elements wall and fly tent. Ticks, snakes, skunks, mice, etc. - I don't have to worry about them in my little sanctuary. I do have a ridiculously light tent for what it's worth.
chrishowe11
03-16-2009, 08:20
why must there be so much judement here... people will carry what they "need" and everyone is different everyone "needs" different things. So why can't we just say, hey man hows your hike? and if they respond in a negative way, you can offer what knowledge and help you can, if people are happy just leave them that way :)
good luck to all hikers this year, if its raining, learn to become the rain and just be...
bigcranky
03-16-2009, 09:31
So why can't we just say, hey man hows your hike? and if they respond in a negative way, you can offer what knowledge and help you can, if people are happy just leave them that way :)
Funny you should say that. We asked every nobo we met last week, :"hey, how's the hike?" and about half of them responded "my pack is too heavy" or some variation on that theme.
I've been hiking for the better part of 15yrs, and for me gear and weight come down to one thing...cost/benifit... I only buy gear as things need replacing. I won't go out and buy a new pack because a newer lighter one is available... I'll stick with the pack that i've enjoyed for years until it can no longer do the job, same goes for a stove, sleeping bag, pad, clothe's, etc.. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy lighter, newer, "better" gear, it's that what I have works and so I'm not going to further depleat the planets resources or my wallet, when what I have will do the job. As things wear out or break, I replace them with something newer, lighter, "better". Over the 15yrs i've hiked, i've lowered my base pack weight from 30lbs to roughly 20lbs, and don't find my trips any more enjoyable with a lighter pack... I just find it lighter... Mainly it's out of a complete disquest for our consumer culture that I hike, so spending insane amounts of money to replace gear I already have to shave off a few pounds seems counterproductive...
I'll continue to carry my "heavy" pack and where my "heavy boots" until it's time to replace them.. At that time, if I can find a lighter alternative that works as well for a reasonable price, then I'll make the switch... In the meantime I'm gonna hike my own hike..
Dumb question if you please. What items constitute "base weight". I have hiked several 1 day trips on the AT. Will be doing a 4 day with friends(AFSP to Neels) at the end of April. I am trying to get my total pack weight at about 30 - 35 pounds including 3 liters of water and 8 pounds of food (also includes tent - no tarp for me). Thanks for the info.
Hey Firecap,
"Base weight" usually means the weight of the gear that is "in your pack." As in, everything except for the clothes on your body, your shoes, socks, poles, hat, sunglasses, etc. People also usually include "insulation" clothing in the base weight. So, the weight of your pack when you are hiking on a typical hot Appalachian day, with just shorts and short sleeves on. People sometimes use the phrase "out of skin" weight to refer to the total weight of all your gear - if you got naked, and weighed everything left over.
If your total pack weight with that much food and a full load of water is ~30 pounds, then you've probably got a pretty good load out. Your base weight is probably about 20ish pounds, maybe a little less. You could cut that down to 10-15 if you wanted to, but especially if you're just going out for a section hike you're probably in good shape.
Darwin again
03-16-2009, 14:18
Base weight is the weight of your pack without food, water or cooking fuel.
My winter base is about 26.
Summer base, about 18.
Frick Frack
03-16-2009, 16:56
Of course, to each his own, but UL gear isn't just one option among many alternatives. It's demonstratively better. It would be interesting to see statistics about the completion rates for people with sub-15 packs versus everyone else.
Cheers.
Whooooo cares!?!? "Demonstratively better" for you, not everyone....some of us are more into the experience of hiking and not just the weight of our equipment. I don't have a clue to my pack weight and don't care because it works for me.
I think the one thing that has been overlooked is that a heavy pack does not mean that someone is better prepared. The one thing I respect about hikers with UL packs is that usually have thought about there gear/training and are prepared for there outings. I think that 2 many hikers set out to try a thru hike without enough knowledge about gear and the trail. And I think that most would enjoy their hike more and have a greater chance of succeeding if they had a lighter pack and more knowledge.
What would be the success rate if everyone set out from springer with a 30 pound or less properly outfitted pack and shoes that fit their feet?
some of us are more into the experience of hiking and not just the weight of our equipment.
Obviously. And, as a rule of thumb, the lighter the pack the better the experience. No one cares about weight as an end, only a means to an end.
Whooooo cares!?!? "Demonstratively better" for you, not everyone....some of us are more into the experience of hiking and not just the weight of our equipment. I don't have a clue to my pack weight and don't care because it works for me.
That is the best post in this thread... I have friends that are UL fanatic's who spend the entire time at camp critiquing my gear and telling me how much weight I could shave off if I would get a new stove, or a better bag, and so on... They just can't seem to understand my lack of interest in lbs and oz of everything in my pack... I don't specifically aim to carry heavier gear, but I do use what I have, and stick with what I like...
The item that they love to attack everytime is my jetboil with large pot... It drives them crazy that I carry this stove even when solo... I guess having a stove that has been incredibly reliable, fast, hassle free and meets my needs perfectly is not a good enough reason to carry it.?.?.
Weight is a very subjective thing... Some would carry my pack and complain it is too heavy, while others would find it lite... In the end, it's my pack, I carry it, so why would anyone concern themselves with it's weight or what is in it?
Frick Frack
03-16-2009, 17:39
Obviously. And, as a rule of thumb, the lighter the pack the better the experience. No one cares about weight as an end, only a means to an end.
I really don't think that if I had shaved any weight off my pack my excellent experience going SOBO with my wife would have changed one bit. In fact my carrying 3L's of Merlot or a 12-pack of brews at times was certainly NOT UL but unquestionably "a better experience" :D
I have friends that know down to the last gram what each part on their bicycle weighs and spend hundreds, thousands, of dollars all the way down to the ceramic bearings to make them lighter and I always seem to make life miserable for them with my old school rig of which I have no idea what it weighs. Same rule applies with the hiking boots (yeah...boots).
I appreciate ULers I just do not like to be preached to by them or hear them put down the rest of us by saying their method is "demonstratively better".
johnnybgood
03-16-2009, 19:14
Holy Guacamole ! Been away since posting this thread and figured it might be 3 pages down , excited as a celestial virgin on Viagra to read the heated debate on UL gear vs not being such a gram weenie.
>Great discussion and good points made on both sides >.
For my 2 cents ( is it still just 2 cents) , I think UL is not necessaryly going to work for everyone and especially for those who have never thru-hiked before.
Camping Dave
03-16-2009, 19:28
Frameless UL packs are ... (b) better ...
Not. And that's the voice of experience speaking son.
For that matter, it seems incoherent to me
Ultralight imagination. That's the problem here.
There is basically 1 weather eventuality that needs to be dealt with on the AT, and that is vertically-inclined rainfall
LOL. Well sure, if only hike in the summer.
Of course, to each his own, but UL gear isn't just one option among many alternatives. It's demonstratively better.
Preach on brother!
Well, this has gotten immature, but I think that it is worth nothing that this thread, and the oh-so-cute spin-off threads, prove that there's at least as much "heavyweight hubris" as there is "lightweight hubris" (of which I am no doubt guilty).
Out.
Darwin again
03-17-2009, 09:04
Hubris? Over the contents of a backpack? That's rich. :)
I generally agree with your point, Clured. And if I had to pinpoint one reason AT hikers are generally more heavy than necessary it would be the inexperience and safety factor. Although as you point out, most lightweight gear switchouts do nothing to decrease safety, there is still, I think, a bias that heavier=sturdier=safer. And since most AT hikers are on their first long-distance hike, it's a reasonable assumption that those new to long-distance hiking will err on the side of safety. Even it means to err. There is a real psychological factor at work. If that is what it takes to get them to the trail, switching out at Neels or Damascus is a small price to pay.
But as an experienced hiker, yes, I think it is a bit crazy to carry a heavier load than is necessary when there is so much information available regarding the quality of most UL gear. But, methinks this attitude comes with experience. In fact, I cannot recall one "newbie" hiker who came to the trail equipped UL. I know I didn't.